Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Toddsterpatriot]

We kept pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 15 years and the warming ceased? Impossible! I've got some tree rings that will prove it's warming more and more every year. Why do you hate science?

What happened here between 1941 and 1979?

http//i50.tinypic.com/7130ua.jpg

Being a newbie, I probably can't post an image. The above is an image of global temperatures from 1880 to the present. I trust you've seen it before.

Temperatures dropped - they didn't cease warming, they got colder. And this lasted for over 35 years. Did it spell the end of global warming? Sorry, no.

The current hiatus is well within the already demonstrated normal variation. And to a greater degree than 41-79, the hiatus is explained. See Foster and Rahmstorf 2012.

The climate fluctuates? You're shitting me!

My house in Chicago used to be under a mile of ice. How did that ice melt?
Was it my fault?
Is the current climate of Earth ideal? Why?
What does the term Climactic Optimum mean?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC Policy on "Climate Change"

 

[Abraham3]

The climate fluctuates? You're shitting me!

Yes it does. Perhaps you should have thought about that before claiming that the past 15 year's hiatus was proof that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real.

My house in Chicago used to be under a mile of ice. How did that ice melt?

No, your house was never under a mile of ice. That the Earth's climate has varied over the Earth's history is actually irrelevant. What you need to be concerned about is what the Earth's climate has done during the period since the beginning of human civilization. And you need to consider what those changes will do to a world with 10 billion humans living in it, not one with some algae and a few mollusks.

Was it my fault?

The warming trend of the last 150 years IS our fault.

Is the current climate of Earth ideal? Why?

The climate in which we built the human species' infrastructure is ideal for the continued function and existence of that infrastructure. If you change the environment in which we feed and shelter ourselves, we will be less able to feed and shelter ourselves.

What does the term Climactic Optimum mean?

What do you care? Do you think increasing the global temp by 2C will achieve it? Is that really your argument?

 

[Abraham3]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC Policy on "Climate Change"

How about providing a link to that quote Frank?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The climate fluctuates? You're shitting me!

Yes it does. Perhaps you should have thought about that before claiming that the past 15 year's hiatus was proof that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real.

No, your house was never under a mile of ice. That the Earth's climate has varied over the Earth's history is actually irrelevant. What you need to be concerned about is what the Earth's climate has done during the period since the beginning of human civilization. And you need to consider what those changes will do to a world with 10 billion humans living in it, not one with some algae and a few mollusks.

The warming trend of the last 150 years IS our fault.

The climate in which we built the human species' infrastructure is ideal for the continued function and existence of that infrastructure. If you change the environment in which we feed and shelter ourselves, we will be less able to feed and shelter ourselves.

What do you care? Do you think increasing the global temp by 2C will achieve it? Is that really your argument?

Yes it does. Perhaps you should have thought about that before claiming that the past 15 year's hiatus was proof that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real.

You'll have to show me where I said that.

No, your house was never under a mile of ice.

Sure it was. I'm looking into my back yard where 11,000 years ago a mile thick sheet of ice once sat.

That the Earth's climate has varied over the Earth's history is actually irrelevant.

How can natural changes be irrelevant?

What you need to be concerned about is what the Earth's climate has done during the period since the beginning of human civilization.

Like the Little Ice Age and the MWP.

You really haven't got the quote function figured out, best just copy sections to respond to, your posts are too confusing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The warming trend of the last 150 years IS our fault.

If only you had proof.

The climate in which we built the human species' infrastructure is ideal for the continued function and existence of that infrastructure. If you change the environment in which we feed and shelter ourselves, we will be less able to feed and shelter ourselves.

Or we'll be better able to feed ourselves.

What does the term Climactic Optimum mean?

What do you care?

It's just more proof of the silliness of your claims.

Do you think increasing the global temp by 2C will achieve it? Is that really your argument?

How much do you feel we should spend to stop AGW? If you get your wish, what will be the result in 2080?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC Policy on "Climate Change"

How about providing a link to that quote Frank?

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters

It's like asking for a link to "Four score and seven years ago" but whatever

 

[Abraham3]

Yes it does. Perhaps you should have thought about that before claiming that the past 15 year's hiatus was proof that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real.

You'll have to show me where I said that.

When you brought up the last 15 years hiatus as a criticism of CO2-caused global warming

No, your house was never under a mile of ice.

Sure it was. I'm looking into my back yard where 11,000 years ago a mile thick sheet of ice once sat.

But the house wasn't there. It is extremely likely that, at the time, no humans were anywhere near the place. The point is, there is very little relevance to global climate conditions at times when no human civilization existed. Noting that it has gotten very cold and very warm for periods in the distant past doesn't help us TODAY with crop failures, loss of drinking water, rising sea levels, extinction of species, etc.

That the Earth's climate has varied over the Earth's history is actually irrelevant.

How can natural changes be irrelevant?

Natural changes are always of interest, but the current conversation concerns synthetic (man-made) changes. Natural history (See Shakun and Marcott's work) show us that there has been no "natural" temperature change like the present in the prior 22,000 years. Do you have some evidence otherwise?

What you need to be concerned about is what the Earth's climate has done during the period since the beginning of human civilization.

Like the Little Ice Age and the MWP.

Neither of which exhibited a decent fraction of the rate of temperature increase we have experienced in the last century and a half. If you want to argue that the current temperature rise has the same cause as the MWP, you will need both the show us what that cause was and to explain why the Greenhouse Effect would NOT increase temperatures here when CO[sub]2[/sub] is raised from 280 to 400+ ppm at a geologically ferocious rate.

You really haven't got the quote function figured out, best just copy sections to respond to, your posts are too confusing.

I'll see if I can figure it out. I've just started posting here today and this is only my second day on a new, smaller (11.6" Lenovo Yoga) PC.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

USA Before "Global Warming"

 

[Katzndogz]

If there has been warming for 150 years why was there such a panic over global cooling in the 70s?

The 1970s Ice Age Scare | Real Science

In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century. ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.

Chicago Tribune Mar 2, 1975

 

[Abraham3]

The warming trend of the last 150 years IS our fault.

If only you had proof.

There is no proof anywhere in natural sciences. One uses evidence to support theories. Welcome to Science 101. You should have gotten this in the 7th grade.

Over the last 150 years the world has gotten warmer at a rate unprecedented in the last 22,000 years. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen at a rate and to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. The source of the increased CO2, by isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping, is human combustion of fossil fuels. NO climate model that does not assume anthropogenic global warming has ever been able to reproduce the warming of the last 150 years.

So, tell us, what part of that do you think is inadequately evidenced?

The climate in which we built the human species' infrastructure is ideal for the continued function and existence of that infrastructure. If you change the environment in which we feed and shelter ourselves, we will be less able to feed and shelter ourselves.

Or we'll be better able to feed ourselves.

That is wishful thinking but it is refuted by a number of studies on the likely impact of rapidly increasing global temperatures. Are you going to suggest that warming weather will bring more land to the till? I'm afraid that will not be the case. The losses will outnumber the gains by orders of magnitude.

What does the term Climactic Optimum mean?

It refers to "a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P."
--Wikipedia

It's just more proof of the silliness of your claims.

And which of my claims do you believe to be "silly"?

How much do you feel we should spend to stop AGW?

I would suggest spending some significant portion of what we believe AGW will cost us. Current estimates are that with no remediation, costs over the next century will be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. So... if we could save that money (and pain and death and extinction) by spending a few tens of trillions now, I'd do it. Besides, there are lots of other benefits from moving away from fossil fuels. They're running out. They're polluting (check out the Beijing skyline) and we it'll be easier to build a new infrastructure when we choose to rather than when we have to.

What would you do?

If you get your wish, what will be the result in 2080?

I will still be alive, in the body of an 18 year old, living in a palace in the clouds experiencing non-stop orgasms. You?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes it does. Perhaps you should have thought about that before claiming that the past 15 year's hiatus was proof that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real.

You'll have to show me where I said that.

When you brought up the last 15 years hiatus as a criticism of CO2-caused global warming





But the house wasn't there. It is extremely likely that, at the time, no humans were anywhere near the place. The point is, there is very little relevance to global climate conditions at times when no human civilization existed. Noting that it has gotten very cold and very warm for periods in the distant past doesn't help us TODAY with crop failures, loss of drinking water, rising sea levels, extinction of species, etc.





Natural changes are always of interest, but the current conversation concerns synthetic (man-made) changes. Natural history (See Shakun and Marcott's work) show us that there has been no "natural" temperature change like the present in the prior 22,000 years. Do you have some evidence otherwise?

Like the Little Ice Age and the MWP.

Neither of which exhibited a decent fraction of the rate of temperature increase we have experienced in the last century and a half. If you want to argue that the current temperature rise has the same cause as the MWP, you will need both the show us what that cause was and to explain why the Greenhouse Effect would NOT increase temperatures here when CO[sub]2[/sub] is raised from 280 to 400+ ppm at a geologically ferocious rate.

You really haven't got the quote function figured out, best just copy sections to respond to, your posts are too confusing.

I'll see if I can figure it out. I've just started posting here today and this is only my second day on a new, smaller (11.6" Lenovo Yoga) PC.

When you brought up the last 15 years hiatus as a criticism of CO2-caused global warming

But the Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. How does that fact equate to your claim that I said the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real?

But the house wasn't there.

But the ice was. And now it's not. Who is to blame for that?

The point is, there is very little relevance to global climate conditions at times when no human civilization existed.

Climate conditions changed at times when no human civilization existed?
You're shitting me.

Neither of which exhibited a decent fraction of the rate of temperature increase we have experienced in the last century and a half.

Were you using alcohol or mercury thermometers when you made those measurements?
I'm pretty sure temperatures were pretty toasty during the MWP.

there has been no "natural" temperature change like the present in the prior 22,000 years

I'm pretty sure the Earth is much older than that. Where is the proof that this change is artificial?

If you want to argue that the current temperature rise has the same cause as the MWP

Why would I argue that SUVs caused the MWP? I'm more interested in the fact that humanity survived the warming of the MWP. Thrived even.

 

[Abraham3]

If there has been warming for 150 years why was there such a panic over global cooling in the 70s?

In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century. ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.

Chicago Tribune Mar 2, 1975

I'm a newbie and still can't post URLs. Go to Wikipedia's article on Global Warming and open the very first image - a global temp graph from 1880 to 2012. Look what happens at about 1941 and last till about 1979.

And if you think the last 15 years warming hiatus means AGW is at an end, look what happened to temps after 1979.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So... if we could save that money (and pain and death and extinction) by spending a few tens of trillions now, I'd do it.

After we spend "a few tens of trillions", what will the temperature and CO2 levels be, as compared to the temperature and CO2 levels if we spend nothing?

Stop the cutting and pasting. It's not working.

 

[Abraham3]

But the Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. How does that fact equate to your claim that I said the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real?

In response to my statement:

and no theory as to why greenhouse warming itself should have ceased for the last 15 years and it becomes quite obvious that the deniers do not have a case.

you responded

We kept pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 15 years and the warming ceased? Impossible!

If I have mischaracterized your views on the matter, I beg your apology. Yet how else was I to understand your comment here; particularly your concluding "Impossible!"?

But the house wasn't there.

But the ice was. And now it's not. Who is to blame for that?

That many different things affect the Earth's temperature does NOT refute - it does not even counter - the theory that human-sourced GHGs are the cause of the current warming.

Climate conditions changed at times when no human civilization existed?
You're shitting me.

If you'd like to continue this debate, I'd ask that you stop behaving like an ass. Many things affect the Earth's temperature. Do you actually wish to contend that means that anthropogenic GHGs could not be the source of the current warming?

Neither of which exhibited a decent fraction of the rate of temperature increase we have experienced in the last century and a half.

Were you using alcohol or mercury thermometers when you made those measurements?
I'm pretty sure temperatures were pretty toasty during the MWP.

Note my use of the term "rate of temperature increase". The rate of increase since 1880 is over five times as high as the steepest change during either the LIA or the MWP. Can you suggest an explanation?

there has been no "natural" temperature change like the present in the prior 22,000 years

I'm pretty sure the Earth is much older than that.

So what?

Where is the proof that this change is artificial?

Once again: natural science does not use proofs. Proofs are not possible regarding contentions of physical phenomenon that span the entire universe. Save them for your mathematics.

I presume you have actually heard most of the evidence. How about telling us why you reject it? Do you accept that it has gotten warmer over the last 150 years? Do you accept that CO2 levels have gotten higher over the last 150 years? Do you accept the Greenhouse Effect? Do you know of a different, plausible cause for the last 150 years warming?

What is it you actually reject?

If you want to argue that the current temperature rise has the same cause as the MWP

Why would I argue that SUVs caused the MWP? I'm more interested in the fact that humanity survived the warming of the MWP. Thrived even.

There were far, far fewer human beings on the planet at the time and the rate of warming (and cooling) was many times slower. Versteht?

 

[Abraham3]

So... if we could save that money (and pain and death and extinction) by spending a few tens of trillions now, I'd do it.

After we spend "a few tens of trillions", what will the temperature and CO2 levels be, as compared to the temperature and CO2 levels if we spend nothing?

Lower.

Stop

the

cutting

and

pasting.

It's

not

working.

Are you sure?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. How does that fact equate to your claim that I said the Greenhouse Effect wasn't real?

In response to my statement:

and no theory as to why greenhouse warming itself should have ceased for the last 15 years and it becomes quite obvious that the deniers do not have a case.

you responded

We kept pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 15 years and the warming ceased? Impossible!

If I have mischaracterized your views on the matter, I beg your apology. Yet how else was I to understand your comment here; particularly your concluding "Impossible!"?

But the house wasn't there.

That many different things affect the Earth's temperature does NOT refute - it does not even counter - the theory that human-sourced GHGs are the cause of the current warming.



If you'd like to continue this debate, I'd ask that you stop behaving like an ass. Many things affect the Earth's temperature. Do you actually wish to contend that means that anthropogenic GHGs could not be the source of the current warming?





Note my use of the term "rate of temperature increase". The rate of increase since 1880 is over five times as high as the steepest change during either the LIA or the MWP. Can you suggest an explanation?





So what?



Once again: natural science does not use proofs. Proofs are not possible regarding contentions of physical phenomenon that span the entire universe. Save them for your mathematics.

I presume you have actually heard most of the evidence. How about telling us why you reject it? Do you accept that it has gotten warmer over the last 150 years? Do you accept that CO2 levels have gotten higher over the last 150 years? Do you accept the Greenhouse Effect? Do you know of a different, plausible cause for the last 150 years warming?

What is it you actually reject?

If you want to argue that the current temperature rise has the same cause as the MWP

Why would I argue that SUVs caused the MWP? I'm more interested in the fact that humanity survived the warming of the MWP. Thrived even.

There were far, far fewer human beings on the planet at the time and the rate of warming (and cooling) was many times slower. Versteht?

If I have mischaracterized your views on the matter, I beg your apology. Yet how else was I to understand your comment here; particularly your concluding "Impossible!"?

The greenhouse effect is real. So is rising CO2 levels.
So, obviously, the temperature rise cannot have paused.
AGW 101.

Many things affect the Earth's temperature. Do you actually wish to contend that means that anthropogenic GHGs could not be the source of the current warming?

Many things? So it is possible that it's not us?

How about telling us why you reject it? Do you accept that it has gotten warmer over the last 150 years? Do you accept that CO2 levels have gotten higher over the last 150 years?

Yes, it has gotten warmer since the end of the LIA. I wonder if that's why it ended?

There were far, far fewer human beings on the planet at the time

And they had less technology to help them adapt. And they survived.

and the rate of warming (and cooling) was many times slower.

So a faster rate means we did it? How do you know?
Does the Earth always warm or cool at the exact same rate?
How fast did it warm when the ice in my backyard melted?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So... if we could save that money (and pain and death and extinction) by spending a few tens of trillions now, I'd do it.

After we spend "a few tens of trillions", what will the temperature and CO2 levels be, as compared to the temperature and CO2 levels if we spend nothing?

Lower.

Stop

not

working.

Are you sure?

Lower.

Tens of trillions worth lower?
Use some solid numbers for your claim.

Are you sure?

How does your cut and paste look in my reply? The same?

No, it's not working.

 

[Abraham3]

The greenhouse effect is real. So is rising CO2 levels.
So, obviously, the temperature rise cannot have paused.
AGW 101.

As we both know (since you've repeatedly argued the point), GHGs are not the ONLY source of increased radiative forcing. So, obviously, the temperature rise CAN pause and has done so on numerous occasions in the past. I once more direct your attention to the world's temerature between 1941 and 1979. Have you looked?

Many things affect the Earth's temperature. Do you actually wish to contend that means that anthropogenic GHGs could not be the source of the current warming?

Many things? So it is possible that it's not us?

It's possible that it's being caused by aliens from another galaxy, but it's not particularly likely, is it. The point - that I really shouldn't have this much difficulty making - is that the Earth's temperature is the end result of a number of factors and processes, many quite complex. Warming from GHGs is slight, but consistent. That warming overlays warming and cooling from a number of other factors. The current hiatus is due to historically high levels of reflective aerosols from high rates of vulcanism and from changes in the pseudo-periodicity of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). And those ENSO changes may well be the result of primary and secondary warming effects: increased fresh meltwater being dumped at the poles for one.

How about telling us why you reject it? Do you accept that it has gotten warmer over the last 150 years? Do you accept that CO2 levels have gotten higher over the last 150 years?

Yes, it has gotten warmer since the end of the LIA. I wonder if that's why it ended?

How about answering my questions? You have yet to tell us what you believe is happening and why.

The terminal warming of the LIA ended in 1850. At that point the rate of warming increased almost six-fold. Can you tell us why?

There were far, far fewer human beings on the planet at the time

And they had less technology to help them adapt. And they survived.

Many of them didn't.

From Wikipedia's article on the LIA

o The population of Iceland fell by half...
o Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.
o The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished, as crops failed and livestock could not be maintained through increasingly harsh winters
o In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages.
o Hubert Lamb said that in many years, "snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it does today."
o Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317
o "Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country.
o In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively."
o Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.

So a faster rate means we did it? How do you know?

Faster means that it is very unlikely to have the same cause as the MWP. Faster matches the rate of GHG radiative forcing CALCULATED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES.

Does the Earth always warm or cool at the exact same rate?

Of course not, but firmly evidenced and peer-reviewed studies show that it has not warmed at the current rate at any point prior in the entire Holocene Epoch. Firm evidence (the Vostok ice cores and others) show that CO2 has not risen at the current rate in the previous 800,000 years. These points are not direct evidence that human GHGs are the cause of the warming, but they do make other causation theories difficult to maintain.

How fast did it warm when the ice in my backyard melted?

About a quarter of a Centigrade degree per century, tops.

 

[Abraham3]

How does your cut and paste look in my reply? The same?

Yes.

No, it's not working.

It is doing what I want it to do. That may not be what you're expecting me to do, but that's a different issue altogether.

Now, how about telling us specifically what about the theory of anthropogenic global warming you reject? What do you think lacks sufficient evidence?