New study published today - global warming has not slowed at all

[WeatherRusty]

Agreed. This planet has a history of showing it has limits and self-regulates enough that the catastrophic junk is pretty easy to ridicule. But OTOH people will point out that we have not seen this type of influence before....but my money is on the lower side of climate sensitivity...if we were on the high sensitivity then these silly things like "ocean cycles" and such wouldn't have to be brought up....they clearly are showing us that this planet has lower sensitivity than the IPCC...I think they are about 1C too high on their average. Their 4C upper bound is ludicrous to me and it was shown in a recent peer reviewed paper this year.

Yet just over 10,000 years ago the temperature rebounded in a very chaotic fashion 6C to what it is near today. Trust me, that was essentially all a feedback process to a very weak forcing.

The recent study you refer to placed climate sensitivity at about 2.3C or only 0.4C lower than the IPCC median value of 2.7C. Also a finding of the study, which you fail to mention, says that since climate temperature sensitive may be a bit on the lower side the remainder of climate impacts are proportionally more sensitive as temp changes. In other words less of a temperature change is required to enter or exit a full glaciation, or bring about serious impacts from a lesser warming.

Read about the study: Here

[WeatherRusty]

I'm guessing that the real issue here is that folks such as you, LEK and ORHWx aren't looking at this from an "insurance" POV, whereas I and my fellow "warmists" are.

There is now a significant probability that at least some of these "catastrophes" are going to come about, and that they can still be palliated if we take some action to prevent them. For me and mine - that is enough to prompt a desire for action. For you, it is not.

It's a bit like cutting the corner and crossing the center line going around a blind mountainside hairpin turn: there probably is nobody coming, but reasonable people don't do it on the grounds that a catastrophe MAY happen.

Damn warmists........

I agree with this post, with the exception of the bold text. The science is telling us that there probably is someone coming. The skeptics are still willing to take that chance.

[WeatherRusty]

Meh, characterize me as you see fit. It means nothing. And you certainly aren't going to change my view that AGW is a plausible hypothesis, yet untested and based on overly valued feedback certainty. Skip the sipping of the Kool Aid....pop in the IV.

You call a range of 2C to 4.5C overly valued feedback certainty? The difference in climate impact between those extremes would be enormous with regard to the impact on the biosphere. Yet we don't know where in this case the sensitivity will end up being. Some certainty there.

[WeatherRusty]

There is a ton of uncertainty about how much permafrost could melt and how much methane would be released. And if it is happening, where is the evidence? Skyrocketing methane levels in the atmosphere? Temperature sharply responding? Sea level rise accelerating? And you still can't address the complete lack of accelerated warming, while at the same time CO2 has been going up faster and faster.

But all that the alarmists see are snowball effects. It's so predictable.

You are so tied to the IPCC scenarios that you lose sight of the essence to this issue. What if it takes 200 years to raise temps 3+ degrees, does that make the problem any less acute or the science less compelling?

[LakeEffectKing]

You are so tied to the IPCC scenarios that you lose sight of the essence to this issue. What if it takes 200 years to raise temps 3+ degrees, does that make the problem any less acute or the science less compelling?

Well, it does change the entire vision. You do recogonize how far we've come technologically in 200 years right? Now fast-foward another 150-200 years (and with an increased acceleration of tech. advances) and we most likely will think of THIS (hypothesized 'problem') as an easily manageable part of life.

Humans will overcome problems, when and if they become problems...especially when (the hypothesized problem) would be an even SLOWER evolving one.

[LakeEffectKing]

You call a range of 2C to 4.5C overly valued feedback certainty? The difference in climate impact between those extremes would be enormous with regard to the impact on the biosphere. Yet we don't know where in this case the sensitivity will end up being. Some certainty there.

Yes! Not because of the range...but the placement of the endpoints....with the range ALL carrying a "+" sign wrt the accumulation of feedbacks.

[dabize]

I agree with this post, with the exception of the bold text. The science is telling us that there probably is someone coming. The skeptics are still willing to take that chance.

You're right Rusty.........I was bending to the prevailing gale on this board coming from exponents of the status quo, and I shouldn't have.

It only sharpens my point....

[LocoAko]

Well, it does change the entire vision. You do recogonize how far we've come technologically in 200 years right? Now fast-foward another 150-200 years (and with an increased acceleration of tech. advances) and we most likely will think of THIS (hypothesized 'problem') as an easily manageable part of life.

Humans will overcome problems, when and if they become problems...especially when (the hypothesized problem) would be an even SLOWER evolving one.

I find it sad that people (this isn't just directed at you) just think of this as some human problem, throwing their hands up with a blase "who cares" attitude but they assume we will find technology to make the change acceptable for us. How anthropocentric.

But in an effort to not completely derail the thread, I'll /rant.

As an aside, I do have faith that in 200 years humans will be able to do some incredible things, but technology is only developed if it is prioritized, and if there is a prevalent "oh we still have ____ years to solve this, we'll get to it"... may not be the best strategy..

[LocoAko]

Yes! Not because of the range...but the placement of the endpoints....with the range ALL carrying a "+" sign wrt the accumulation of feedbacks.

Well yeah, but individual feedbacks are known to have - and + signs.. that is just the sum, even with the uncertainty of every factor (some much larger than others). So what is your point?

[tacoman25]

I'm guessing that the real issue here is that folks such as you, LEK and ORHWx aren't looking at this from an "insurance" POV, whereas I and my fellow "warmists" are.

There is now a significant probability that at least some of these "catastrophes" are going to come about, and that they can still be palliated if we take some action to prevent them. For me and mine - that is enough to prompt a desire for action. For you, it is not.

It's a bit like cutting the corner and crossing the center line going around a blind mountainside hairpin turn: there probably is nobody coming, but reasonable people don't do it on the grounds that a catastrophe MAY happen.

Damn warmists........

I disagree. I don't see any more compelling evidence for catastrophic AGW than 10 or 20 years ago.

[tacoman25]

Yet just over 10,000 years ago the temperature rebounded in a very chaotic fashion 6C to what it is near today. Trust me, that was essentially all a feedback process to a very weak forcing.

The recent study you refer to placed climate sensitivity at about 2.3C or only 0.4C lower than the IPCC median value of 2.7C. Also a finding of the study, which you fail to mention, says that since climate temperature sensitive may be a bit on the lower side the remainder of climate impacts are proportionally more sensitive as temp changes. In other words less of a temperature change is required to enter or exit a full glaciation, or bring about serious impacts from a lesser warming.

Read about the study: Here

That's just it...the climate can be very sensitive to changes within a certain range. But there is little evidence of it being this sensitive to warming when the climate is already as warm as it is now. Not historically, at least. Coming out of, or going into ice ages, yes the climate has demonstrated a tendency to change very rapidly based on somewhat small forcings. But we are already in a warm interglacial period, and historically, forcings have not led to rapid warming from this climate phase.

[tacoman25]

You are so tied to the IPCC scenarios that you lose sight of the essence to this issue. What if it takes 200 years to raise temps 3+ degrees, does that make the problem any less acute or the science less compelling?

Yes, actually. The slower the warming, the more time humans will have to adjust to it, if that much indeed occurs. Many of the potential catastrophes trumpeted by alarmists are reliant on accelerated warming from what we are seeing now. And most require a lot of acceleration.

A lot of the rest is just speculation. No one really knows how additional warming will affect droughts/flooding, etc. The most solid bet is that if we continue to warm serious heatwaves will become more common. But in reality, that is something that humans can adjust to relatively easily. Think about it: billions of people already live in areas that regularly experience extreme heat (the Middle East, India, Africa, etc). Those areas will see relatively little warming per AGW theory, while northern latitudes that rarely see extreme heat now will see it more often...but still not nearly as often as places further south. More uncomfortable summers for many? Sure. But humans can easily live in warmer conditions than currently exist for much of the higher latititudes. And winters would be more livable.

[tacoman25]

I find it sad that people (this isn't just directed at you) just think of this as some human problem, throwing their hands up with a blase "who cares" attitude but they assume we will find technology to make the change acceptable for us. How anthropocentric.

But in an effort to not completely derail the thread, I'll /rant.

As an aside, I do have faith that in 200 years humans will be able to do some incredible things, but technology is only developed if it is prioritized, and if there is a prevalent "oh we still have ____ years to solve this, we'll get to it"... may not be the best strategy..

I think the viewpoint of many AGW alarmists is exactly this. The idea that Mother Nature is in this delicate balance that humans have irreversibly upset, and we are responsible for unprecedented climate change: that's totally anthropocentric. It's all centered around human action.

[LocoAko]

I think the viewpoint of many AGW alarmists is exactly this. The idea that Mother Nature is in this delicate balance that humans have irreversibly upset, and we are responsible for unprecedented climate change: that's totally anthropocentric. It's all centered around human action.

I don't see how the two are equatable at all. Yes, a tenet of AGW is that humans have caused this due to our carbon dioxide emissions, etc. What I'm talking about is people deciding not to care because it only affects them. At the risk of using polar bears as an example (*exasperated eye roll*), they may be suffering due to our actions but a lot of people seem to not care just because humans haven't been affected yet. You seem to imply that we can't influence it, but if you believe mainstream AGW, we have. And clearly there is a delicate balance if warming just a fraction of a degree has already caused the results it has...

[ORH_wxman]

I think the viewpoint of many AGW alarmists is exactly this. The idea that Mother Nature is in this delicate balance that humans have irreversibly upset, and we are responsible for unprecedented climate change: that's totally anthropocentric. It's all centered around human action.

Agreed.

[WeatherRusty]

I think the viewpoint of many AGW alarmists is exactly this. The idea that Mother Nature is in this delicate balance that humans have irreversibly upset, and we are responsible for unprecedented climate change: that's totally anthropocentric. It's all centered around human action.

If you don't understand the truth to that statement then we have a long way to go. Every single facet of nature, every state of being is the result of a balance between competing forces. This is one of the basic tenets of physics. We live in a Universe driven by thermodynamics, or the exchange of energy from place to place and time to time, constantly driven toward maximum entropy..complete balance.

At a more fundamental level, everything we see around us from subatomic particles to the pattern of supper clusters of galaxies, can be explained by four fundamental forces and the precisely balanced equilibrium between them. All matter is acted on at some level by these forces. Nature is all about balance. The world as we know it could not exist otherwise.

Without a more complete knowledge of modern science you are viewing a debate on AGW devoid of the larger framework it takes place in. No wonder you can't get it.

[dabize]

I think the viewpoint of many AGW alarmists is exactly this. The idea that Mother Nature is in this delicate balance that humans have irreversibly upset, and we are responsible for unprecedented climate change: that's totally anthropocentric. It's all centered around human action.

Actually no.

This "alarmist" sees a high probability of it affecting US HUMANS in our own lifetimes. I'm 50, FTR.

There is no "holier than thou" element to my position - I think that it is highly advisable to start doing something about a major risk to my future.

This is also a major risk to YOUR future too, but that's not my direct concern (GOPer enough for you?).

As a biologist, I think that extinctions suck, but offing the polar bears will very soon be the least of it.

The most of it involves applying severe economic, demographic, epidemiological and POLITICAL pressures to what is already a politically highly unstable planet in which (for example) Mohammed Pissed off Bangladeshi can buy a nuke in the open air market at Tashkent every other Tuesday (my apologies to all the rational Bangladeshis out there, but you get the idea).

Got it?

[ORH_wxman]

I don't see how the two are equatable at all. Yes, a tenet of AGW is that humans have caused this due to our carbon dioxide emissions, etc. What I'm talking about is people deciding not to care because it only affects them. At the risk of using polar bears as an example (*exasperated eye roll*), they may be suffering due to our actions but a lot of people seem to not care just because humans haven't been affected yet. You seem to imply that we can't influence it, but if you believe mainstream AGW, we have. And clearly there is a delicate balance if warming just a fraction of a degree has already caused the results it has...

The problem most skeptic have with this view is that it is exaggerated. Not because it doesn't have any truth to it. But the AGW extreme idea is to put a ton of guilt on us for "ruining" the planet with global warming.

I'll go down that road with pollution any day...but not with global temperature change. The earth has always been pretty resistant to big changes. There is a self regulation in the planet. The magnitude of it? I don't think we have learned it yet....its ok to admit that.

[tacoman25]

I don't see how the two are equatable at all. Yes, a tenet of AGW is that humans have caused this due to our carbon dioxide emissions, etc. What I'm talking about is people deciding not to care because it only affects them. At the risk of using polar bears as an example (*exasperated eye roll*), they may be suffering due to our actions but a lot of people seem to not care just because humans haven't been affected yet. You seem to imply that we can't influence it, but if you believe mainstream AGW, we have. And clearly there is a delicate balance if warming just a fraction of a degree has already caused the results it has...

I do believe that AGW is real...to a certain degree. I do not believe that all of the warming the last 100-150 years is from GHGs. Probably somewhere in the 60-70% range.

What results have "already been caused" by AGW? What delicate balances have been irreversibly and catastrophically upset?

[ORH_wxman]

Yet just over 10,000 years ago the temperature rebounded in a very chaotic fashion 6C to what it is near today. Trust me, that was essentially all a feedback process to a very weak forcing.

The recent study you refer to placed climate sensitivity at about 2.3C or only 0.4C lower than the IPCC median value of 2.7C. Also a finding of the study, which you fail to mention, says that since climate temperature sensitive may be a bit on the lower side the remainder of climate impacts are proportionally more sensitive as temp changes. In other words less of a temperature change is required to enter or exit a full glaciation, or bring about serious impacts from a lesser warming.

Read about the study: Here

You told me just a year or two ago on eastern that you think the multi-decadal oscillations of the oceans had almost nothing to do with the temp flattening in the 1940-1975 time range....that it was all aerosoles.

I think we have different views on climate sensitivity.

[tacoman25]

If you don't understand the truth to that statement then we have a long way to go. Every single facet of nature, every state of being is the result of a balance between competing forces. This is one of the basic tenets of physics. We live in a Universe driven by thermodynamics, or the exchange of energy from place to place and time to time, constantly driven toward maximum entropy..complete balance.

At a more fundamental level, everything we see around us from subatomic particles to the pattern of supper clusters of galaxies, can be explained by four fundamental forces and the precisely balanced equilibrium between them. All matter is acted on at some level by these forces. Nature is all about balance. The world as we know it could not exist otherwise.

Without a more complete knowledge of modern science you are viewing a debate on AGW devoid of the larger framework it takes place in. No wonder you can't get it.

This is a very condescending post that completely misses my point.

Of course there is balance in the universe. Of course, life could not exist - much less thrive - on earth if we weren't located just the right distance from a fairly stable sun. There are a lot of things in nature that require a balance.

However, that does not mean that everything in nature is in hanging in such a delicate balance that anything humans do will irreversibly upset it and cause everything to go to hell. Though many activists would have you believe that...ignoring the fact that there are ALWAYS competing forces in nature changing the balance of things. That has always been a part of the natural world.

[tacoman25]

Actually no.

This "alarmist" sees a high probability of it affecting US HUMANS in our own lifetimes. I'm 50, FTR.

There is no "holier than thou" element to my position - I think that it is highly advisable to start doing something about a major risk to my future.

This is also a major risk to YOUR future too, but that's not my direct concern (GOPer enough for you?).

As a biologist, I think that extinctions suck, but offing the polar bears will very soon be the least of it.

The most of it involves applying severe economic, demographic, epidemiological and POLITICAL pressures to what is already a politically highly unstable planet in which (for example) Mohammed Pissed off Bangladeshi can buy a nuke in the open air market at Tashkent every other Tuesday (my apologies to all the rational Bangladeshis out there, but you get the idea).

Got it?

I'm not a GOPer.

And where is your evidence that the polar bears are about to be offed?

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not a GOPer.

And where is your evidence that the polar bears are about to be offed?

Hey their population has increased 400% since 1965....that means with the new "tipping point" in the arctic, they might be gone by 2500.

[dabize]

I do believe that AGW is real...to a certain degree. I do not believe that all of the warming the last 100-150 years is from GHGs. Probably somewhere in the 60-70% range.

What results have "already been caused" by AGW? What delicate balances have been irreversibly and catastrophically upset?

Google Tuvalu, Bangladesh, Orissa, Hooghly and maybe even New Orleans, Galveston Island and Chincoteague

Toss in Murray-Darling, Great Artesian Basin, Great Barrier Reef and karri

Try Larsen Ice Shelf and Petermann, and toss in a few Inuit villages on the MacKenzie and in west Alaska

It's not so much that they have already been upset, it is that they are all being upset in a CONSISTENT WAY.

[dabize]

I'm not a GOPer.

And where is your evidence that the polar bears are about to be offed?

7 out of 19 known populations are in severe decline?

[dabize]

Hey their population has increased 400% since 1965....that means with the new "tipping point" in the arctic, they might be gone by 2500.

You're better than that.......or at least I always thought you were.

You ought to be able to see that ridicule is inappropriate here.

[ORH_wxman]

You're better than that.......or at least I always thought you were.

You ought to be able to see that ridicule is inappropriate here.

I would think most are better "than that" to bring up polar bears in this subforum nowadays.

But I guess not everyone has learned. Their population is not endangered and had not declined in any meaningful fashion in the past 10 years after rising for the previous 30 years. They are a poor poster child for AGW alarmism.

[tacoman25]

The problem most skeptic have with this view is that it is exaggerated. Not because it doesn't have any truth to it. But the AGW extreme idea is to put a ton of guilt on us for "ruining" the planet with global warming.

I'll go down that road with pollution any day...but not with global temperature change. The earth has always been pretty resistant to big changes. There is a self regulation in the planet. The magnitude of it? I don't think we have learned it yet....its ok to admit that.

Exactly. This is a result of the environmental activist movement adopting AGW as a cause as soon as they saw the potential for motivating people. That is a big reason it quickly became such a political issue - because it was adopted by political/social movements that were already in place.

[tacoman25]

Hey their population has increased 400% since 1965....that means with the new "tipping point" in the arctic, they might be gone by 2500.

This.

The typical alarmist doesn't want these kind of facts, though.

[tacoman25]

Google Tuvalu, Bangladesh, Orissa, Hooghly and maybe even New Orleans, Galveston Island and Chincoteague

Toss in Murray-Darling, Great Artesian Basin, Great Barrier Reef and karri

Try Larsen Ice Shelf and Petermann, and toss in a few Inuit villages on the MacKenzie and in west Alaska

It's not so much that they have already been upset, it is that they are all being upset in a CONSISTENT WAY.

I've been there twice the past couple years. They have recovered nicely from Katrina and are in no danger of going under water any time soon.

As for these other places: I'm sure some of them will suffer if the climate continues to warm and sea level continues to slowly rise. However, humans have always had to cope with changing climate/conditions. The fact that this is still occurring does not prove anything about catastrophic AGW.

And always left out by the alarmists: places that would benefit from more warming. Did you forget about the other side of the coin? Or is that just another inconvenient truth?