Permafrost thawing in Siberia.

[Isaac Clarke]

During the past 40 years, the coastal areas surveyed retreated on average 2.2 meters per year. “During the past four years, this value has increased at least 1.6 times, in certain instances up to 2.4 times to reach 5.3 meters per year,“ says Paul Overduin.

Source

 

The rate of retreat has doubled! And yet people still think we shouldn't spend more on alternative energy. Selfish.

 

And why hasn't Obama followed up on his promises of saving the environment? It's as if the first thing he did when he was elected was say, "Oh yeah, you know that 'alternative energy' stuff? Yeah, I sort of lied a little bit about that." The total outlay on Natural Resources & Environment was US $7.5 billion in the fiscal year 2012, 0.2% of the federal budget. For someone so hell-bent on proving he really wanted to help the environment, guys, he seems pretty stingy with his money.

[DuckfromPortal]

Well, think about this: Obama isn't completely in charge, he has to go through CONgress and get things approved which takes time, he also is forced to compromise and sometimes even change his goals to be able to do anything, its one of the most stressful positions in america, i think he's doing good considering.

[HED]

I think it is rather doubtful that Obama could get any major legislation through on the subject, between the parts of Congress that don't believe in man-made climate change and the heavy influence of certain lobbies.

[Isaac Clarke]

You'd think that he and his allies in the Senate would be able to pass a budget better than that, though. Surely the Republicans aren't too invested in denying climate change? I thought all their attention was drawn toward attacking the ACA.

[Totenkopf]

The artic shrinks, Anartica expands and life goes on.......

[Isaac Clarke]

Antarctica is an anomaly. The sea ice expands. The land ice actually shrinks. I don't know what you are trying to prove.

[Totenkopf]

Don't know what you're trying to prove by saying since something doesn't fit into the chicken little the sky is falling category that it only qualifies as an anomaly.

[mimartin]

I really don’t understand the mentality of some in congress and the American people. Who cares if you believe in science or not, pumping poisons in the air does not sound like sound progress to me unless you are striving for extinction.

[Isaac Clarke]

Don't know what you're trying to prove by saying since something doesn't fit into the chicken little the sky is falling category that it only qualifies as an anomaly.

 

I'm trying to prove that it is an expected anomaly. In fact, it gives even more evidence for global warming. Sea ice is melted by warmer water from the depths of the Southern Ocean rising to the surface, replacing the cooler water. However, as the Earth warms, the amount of precipitation does, too. This freshens the water on the surface, making it less dense than the saltier water below. This means that they mix less, leading to less sea ice melting. This effect could also be caused by the melting of the land ice (yes, it is melting!)

 

The other major factor is decreased ozone levels above Antarctica. This cools the stratosphere, strengthening the cyclonic winds around the continent. Pushing existing sea ice outward, it also creates pools of water called polynyas. These freeze over, and create even more sea ice.

 

I'm not just guessing here. It is actually an anomaly.

[Totenkopf]

I really don’t understand the mentality of some in congress and the American people. Who cares if you believe in science or not, pumping poisons in the air does not sound like sound progress to me unless you are striving for extinction.

 

In cases where we're talking about pumping actual poisons into the air or water (radioactive runnoff, toxic chems, etc....), I'd tend to agree that one should try to clean up as much as possible for the good of all. However, science isn't unanimous on the effects and agents of AGM and therefore I and many others refuse to get worked up over this polemic about earth and the environment. Too much conjecture atm. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

[Isaac Clarke]

In cases where we're talking about pumping actual poisons into the air or water (radioactive runnoff, toxic chems, etc....), I'd tend to agree that one should try to clean up as much as possible for the good of all. However, science isn't unanimous on the effects and agents of AGM and therefore I and many others refuse to get worked up over this polemic about earth and the environment. Too much conjecture atm. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

 

I suggest you don't get your news from the Daily Fail. Science is mostly unanimous; in fact, 97% of scientists agree.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

http://med.ucsd.edu/documents/Oreskes_2007_MIT_Press.pdf

 

Climate's not measured in 17-year intervals, nor has the temperature "paused" by any means. It's in the oceans.

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389

 

I dunno, you tell me where this "pause" is.

[Totenkopf]

Ah, yes, the ole sources game. One doesn't like the message.....so stone the messenger. nice. Since the "Daily Fail" didn't do the study.........it's irrelevant.

[Isaac Clarke]

No, they don't understand climate science. They're referring to the land and atmosphere temperature pause, when in fact only around 7.6% of the heat goes into both combined. The most heat (90%) is stored in the oceans.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html

 

Like I said, it's not an ad hominem attack, I called it the "Daily Fail" because they don't understand climate science.

[Totenkopf]

No offense, but it is an ad hominem attack, though not on me, but rather the paper itself. Problem w/threads like these are they end up being pissing contests rooted in belief systems. You choose to believe unequivocally, it would appear, in the IPCC and I'm highly skeptical of both it's own validity, aims and claims of near 100% concensus on the matter. On that note, I'll bid this thread adieu.

[Isaac Clarke]

Not an ad-hom because it was a corollary to the fact that they didn't understand the science, which I explained above. And, there is no reason to be skeptical of the IPCC, other than "hunches" and "conspiracies". Or, you could try the long-debunked "Climategate" nonsense, but that won't get you far. Nope, there really isn't a reason to distrust the IPCC, whose staff are not even paid (well, the vast majority).

 

They don't claim 100% consensus, either.

 

The real reason I started this thread was not to proclaim my "unequivocal belief" in the IPCC, I started it to state my anger that the USA and other major powers aren't doing much to cap carbon emissions.

[Alexrd]

The artic shrinks, Anartica expands and life goes on.......

 

Well, not for polar bears...

[Tommycat]

Not an ad-hom because it was a corollary to the fact that they didn't understand the science, which I explained above. And, there is no reason to be skeptical of the IPCC, other than "hunches" and "conspiracies". Or, you could try the long-debunked "Climategate" nonsense, but that won't get you far. Nope, there really isn't a reason to distrust the IPCC, whose staff are not even paid (well, the vast majority).

 

They don't claim 100% consensus, either.

 

The real reason I started this thread was not to proclaim my "unequivocal belief" in the IPCC, I started it to state my anger that the USA and other major powers aren't doing much to cap carbon emissions.

Actually it IS an ad-hom to call the paper names. If you claim the paper does not have the science right, that's fine. But calling them the Daily Fail is an ad hom.

 

I don't agree that much needs to be done. Global climate change occurred before man, and in much greater frequency than current trends. We've been blessed with a rather long period of stability. And with Mars temps rising at similar rates as Earth, it seems a bit early to say it's settled. I'm not claiming that man doesn't contribute to warming. Just that it's too early to claim anything is settled, and quite a few seem to be doing exactly that. Do keep in mind that we are still emerging from the "Little Ice Age" and have not returned to the temperatures from before that.

[Isaac Clarke]

Actually it IS an ad-hom to call the paper names. If you claim the paper does not have the science right, that's fine. But calling them the Daily Fail is an ad hom.

 

Ad hominems only apply when the only argument presented is an attack. Calling the paper a name because they didn't understand the science behind climate change is not an ad hominem, because I presented the argument that they did not understand it, and backed it up with valid reasoning.

 

I don't agree that much needs to be done. Global climate change occurred before man, and in much greater frequency than current trends.

 

Irrelevant. The global climate changes according to whichever force is dominant; and right now, that force is anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

 

We've been blessed with a rather long period of stability.

 

No, we have not been "blessed".

 

And with Mars temps rising at similar rates as Earth, it seems a bit early to say it's settled.

 

I presume you are referring to the study Fenton 2007, which compared the 1977 Viking composite to the 1999 MGS composite, and found a 22 year warming trend of 0.65C?

 

Now, there are many things wrong with that study; not the least of which is a centuries-old statistics mistake of connecting just two data points, and trying to draw a conclusion. Now, you and I both know, I'm sure, that this is folly; you can derive inaccurate solutions (no warming since 1998?) So, why did he notice a warming trend between these two years? I can tell you this: it's not global warming.

 

No, rather it is global dust storms, that shift the sands of Mars, covering the range in brighter dust. This increases Mars' albedo. Eventually, as the dust settles once again, the dust goes back to its original, dark state.

 

The Viking composite, as it turns out, was taken right after one of those dust storms in southern latitudes, increasing the planet's albedo. The 1999 MGS composite, however, was taken when the dust on Mars had returned to its usual, dark state. This accounts for the "global warming" reported by Fenton.

 

(One thing to note: the source also shows that the dust was brighter in the southern hemisphere after a global dust storm in 2001 than it was in 1977.)

 

I'm not claiming that man doesn't contribute to warming. Just that it's too early to claim anything is settled, and quite a few seem to be doing exactly that.

 

And for a good reason, too. Let me give you a breakdown of science.

 

Science doesn't work with absolute certainties. Those are reserved for mathematics. Science, rather, works with uncertainties. When dealing with the physical world, we can't know anything with 100% certainty. The best we can get is a very high certainty. Which, by the way, is the state of anthropogenic global warming, with a confidence of 95%, according to the IPCC AR5 report.

 

However, we do know with a high certainty that humans are contributing enormously to the CO2 content in the atmosphere. First, we look at international energy statistics, from places like the CDIAC (which has some very good data, by the way.) This is all well and good, but we only have one data set to work with! So instead of living with that huge uncertainty, climate scientists double-check their data with measurements of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. Now we have a lesser uncertainty, but it is still there, and it is still rather substantial -- so they check it again, this time with data of falling oxygen levels, likely due to burning of fossil fuels. If this isn't enough, there are many other lines of empirical evidence used to confirm with a high certainty that yes, humans are contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, and yes, it is substantial.

 

Do keep in mind that we are still emerging from the "Little Ice Age" and have not returned to the temperatures from before that.

 

You're making some assumptions here. These are:

 

1) The climate oscillates around a certain condition which it must return to after a period of warming or cooling.

2) The forcing responsible for the "Little Ice Age" is reversing and causing warming, back to or even above the equilibrium described in the previous assumption.

 

But this is just plain folly.

 

Climate change is caused by a response to a change in Earth's energy balance, called 'radiative forcing'. If the incoming solar thermal radiation is equal to the outgoing long-wave infrared radiation, then the planet is in equilibrium and its temperature will not increase significantly.

 

The temperature can still be affected slightly in this equilibrium by natural processes such as the Pacific decadal oscillation. However, as implied by the name, this process is an oscillation, which means it shifts between a "positive" and "negative" state, and so does not affect the temperature on average. These oscillations also do not create or remove heat; rather, they move it around. This means that if the surface were to warm, then the ocean would have to cool, which is not what we observe. No, both the surface and the ocean are warming.

 

Many things could explain this phenomenon, such as solar activity, concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, volcanic activity, albedo, and Milankovitch cycles. These are all forcings that change Earth's energy balance. The Earth will not just "reverse phase" from a previous trend. It needs an unbalancing force.

 

What caused the Little Ice Age, though? Climate scientists think they have it down to three major factors. These are:

 

1) Decreased solar activity. The Little Ice Age was a period of cool climate from around the 16th to 19th century. However, during this period, there were three different periods of decreased solar activity, the Spörer Minimum (1460-1550), the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), and the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830). Solar activity has increased since then (but is not the cause of current global warming, as solar activity has not increased on average since the mid-20th century.)

 

2) Increased volcanic activity. Throughout the Little Ice Age, there was a period of heightened volcanic activity. Volcanic eruptions release aerosols into the atmosphere (airborne solid or liquid particles), that block sunlight. From 1400-1850, the volcanic contribution to the climate is around 50%. However, volcanic activity still does not account for current global warming, since volcanic activity has had a net cooling effect on the climate since 1950.

 

3) Decline in human population. The Little Ice Age happened around the time of the Black Death in Asia and Europe, which meant a decline in the human population and in agriculture. A similar effect is observed in the conquest of North America by European colonists in the 16th century. Because of the decreased human agricultural activity, reforestation is a likely cause of uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere to the biosphere, having a cooling effect. Ruddiman concludes,

 

If the 10-ppm CO2 decreases are caused by plague-induced reforestation events, they would cool northern hemisphere temperatures by ∼0.17°C, assuming a 2 × CO2 sensitivity of 2.5°C.

 

Unbalancing forces do not reverse because it gets "too cold" or "too hot". They change because of certain causes, like changes in forestation, burning of fossil fuels, uptake of carbon dioxide, change in solar activity, etc.

 

 

 

 

The Earth is warming, and we're the cause. I can't believe there is even any doubt about that.

[Tommycat]

Of course there is doubt. When I talk about the "blessed" period of relative stability, I'm talking about thousands of years, but you presented papers talking about hundreds of years.

 

You are aware that the periods of greatest animal and plant life had higher CO2 levels than present. Granted that was millions of years ago, but the point still stands.

 

How many millions of tonnes of CO2 is expelled by a volcano? There are many natural sources of CO2. Even from the sea bed.

 

As for Mars warming I was speaking to the premise that ice caps melting meant warming. For the past few years, the martian caps have shrank.

 

Little Ice Age: The little ice age was because the preceding conditions altered the planet's normal atmospheric content. After the conditions returned to normal, the temperatures would return.

 

You're going to look real silly in about 20 years when everyone is talking about freezing

[jonathan7]

We are damaging the planet, surely everyone can see that regardless of global warming, pumping bad gasses into the atmosphere is damaging ourselves and nature; and therefore we want to reduce that chemicals we are pumping into the atmosphere to look after the planet. Afterall as far as we know Earth is unique, and we should urge on the side of caution with regards looking after it as if we mess the planet up we as a species are screwed.

[mimartin]

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

[Pho3nix]

[Isaac Clarke]

Of course there is doubt. When I talk about the "blessed" period of relative stability, I'm talking about thousands of years, but you presented papers talking about hundreds of years.

 

Thousands of years is too long. Milankovitch cycles etc affect reconstructions. The best time period to analyze at temperature is only a few hundred to a few thousand years, and even those reconstructions show no such "stability".

 

You are aware that the periods of greatest animal and plant life had higher CO2 levels than present. Granted that was millions of years ago, but the point still stands.

 

Yes, and they also had decreased solar activity. Which changes the CO2 threshold.

 

How many millions of tonnes of CO2 is expelled by a volcano? There are many natural sources of CO2. Even from the sea bed.

 

Subaerial volcanoes emit >300 Mt CO2/year, as opposed to the anthropogenic emissions, 33.6 Bt CO2/year. Human emissions dwarf subaerial volcanic emissions. Also, other natural CO2 emitters on Earth are not important, as they only contribute to the mass balance. It is only when there is an unbalanced force (fossil fuel burning) that it is disrupted.

 

As for Mars warming I was speaking to the premise that ice caps melting meant warming. For the past few years, the martian caps have shrank.

 

Yes, that's because they're just like our ice caps. They melt and freeze in cycles.

 

Little Ice Age: The little ice age was because the preceding conditions altered the planet's normal atmospheric content. After the conditions returned to normal, the temperatures would return.

 

Evidence?

 

You're going to look real silly in about 20 years when everyone is talking about freezing

 

No, everyone will laugh at how silly it was to think that it wasn't warming, because holy s*** we're in trouble.

[Tommycat]

Believe me, I'm opposed to pollution of our environment. But this whole global warming sham reminds me of the hysteria over the "COMING ICE AGE" of the 70's. Though largely media driven back then, the hysteria was the same. There are few areas where the measuring instruments are not near a heat source. In a few cases, the measuring equipment is actually near exhaust vents, in areas surrounded by blacktop, or have been moved a significant distance.

 

I remember how bad the air was before we had significant air quality requirements. The air is much cleaner and easier to breathe now. If you want to focus on that aspect, I'll agree with you. If you want to focus on not pouring chemicals into the water we drink, or the oceans and lakes we get our food from, ABSOLUTELY. Global warming, NOPE. The problem with this global warming scam is it's filled with pseudo science, and faulty data. Why would they do that? Because governments pay for grants for the global warming studies, while only a few companies seem willing to fund the opposite research(which is then discredited because of the source of funding).

[Isaac Clarke]

Believe me, I'm opposed to pollution of our environment. But this whole global warming sham reminds me of the hysteria over the "COMING ICE AGE" of the 70's. Though largely media driven back then, the hysteria was the same.

 

 

 

Sure, the media, then, was hysterical about supposed "cooling". But the media does not represent scientific literature. A minority of scientific literature in the 1970's actually predicted cooling, while the vast majority predicted a continued upward trend of warming. Peterson 2008 showed a 6:1 ratio of support of a continued upward trend of warming in scientific literature.

 

Possibly the reason why some scientific papers still backed cooling is because of the rapid acceleration of emissions of anthropogenic aerosols (specifically, sulfur) into the atmosphere until the 1970's. This, along with a study done showing a reduction of 3.5K with a quadrupling of aerosol concentration, would suggest global cooling, but with the enaction of sulfur emission limitations by the Clean Air Acts, cooling became less likely, and a better method of determining a trend was to just look at the temperature data itself.

 

 

 

There are few areas where the measuring instruments are not near a heat source. In a few cases, the measuring equipment is actually near exhaust vents, in areas surrounded by blacktop, or have been moved a significant distance.

 

 

 

You don't think that scientists already know this? They even adjust for this "urban heat island" effect, described in detail by NASA's GISS:

Urban warming at a single

station, if it were not removed, would influence our estimated temperature out to distances of about 1000 km, i.e., 1

million square kilometers, which is clearly undesirable.

If they had not known about the urban heat island effect, they would not have called it "undesirable".

 

But to what extent do urban heat islands affect temperature data? In the same paper, an analysis was done on how much adjustment was needed, and in what direction:

Indeed, in the global analysis we find that the homogeneity adjustment changes the urban record to a

cooler trend in only 58% of the cases, while it yields a warmer trend in the other 42% of the urban stations. This

implies that even though a few stations, such as Tokyo and Phoenix, have large urban warming, in the typical case,

the urban effect is less than the combination of regional variability of temperature trends, measurement errors, and

inhomogeneity of station records.

So this "urban heat island" has very little effect, warming or cooling, on the temperature data.

 

However, you may be asking still what the total adjustments needed for the urban heat island are. This is a little tricky. Urban heat islands do need relatively large homogeneity adjustments at a small scale. But, on a large scale, multi-decadal record, adjustments are few and far between.

 

In 2008, there was a study done comparing the absolute temperature records averaged annually in and around London. Trend-wise, the effect has next to none, as can be seen in this graph:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Clearly, there is a difference between the sets. However, the overall trend of each and every one of the sets is very similar. Almost no adjustments need to be made to the trend in order to get an accurate data set.

 

In the same study, absolute temperature records, average annually once again, in two sites in Vienna (Hohe Warte and Groß-Enzersdorf) were compared. Again, although there is difference in the data, the trend is left almost unchanged:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

 

Even in China, the greatest human contributor to carbon emissions, shows the same result. The following graph compares three data sets, from both rural and urban locations:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

 

So this "urban heat island" effect, while still affecting data points themselves, has little effect on the overall trend, and that is the important part.

 

 

 

I remember how bad the air was before we had significant air quality requirements. The air is much cleaner and easier to breathe now.

 

Anecdotes are not scientific data. Provide evidence of the increase in air quality.

 

If you want to focus on that aspect, I'll agree with you. If you want to focus on not pouring chemicals into the water we drink, or the oceans and lakes we get our food from, ABSOLUTELY.

 

Good.

 

Global warming, NOPE. The problem with this global warming scam is it's filled with pseudo science, and faulty data.

 

In what way is the data faulty?

 

Why would they do that? Because governments pay for grants for the global warming studies,

 

Evidence?

 

while only a few companies seem willing to fund the opposite research(which is then discredited because of the source of funding).

 

And this is supposed to prove what, exactly?