There's Only 5 Percent Chance Earth Can Stay Below 'Tipping Point' by 2100, Researchers Say

[Z-Cast]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3352.html?foxtrotcallback=true

 

 

[lookingnorth]

You seem to be making the assumption that 2C of warming is necessarily a tipping point.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

It's silly how most only concentrate on the actual temperature as the so called 'tipping point'.

we're already past the tipping point in terms of weather / water vapor / rain rates.  

[BillT]

tipping point?   we have seen nothing in the weather recently that hasnt happened countless times before......why wasnt a tipping point reached then please?

[skierinvermont]

You chose the wrong word to describe the article. 2C is not a 'tipping point.' It's the temperature that has kind of been established for where the effects get really bad above that temperature. It's kind of an arbitrary number. The effects would still be really bad at 1.5C and they'd be a lot worse at 3C than 2C.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

4 hours ago, BillT said:

tipping point?   we have seen nothing in the weather recently that hasnt happened countless times before......

 

loll

[WidreMann]

5 hours ago, BillT said:

tipping point?   we have seen nothing in the weather recently that hasnt happened countless times before......why wasnt a tipping point reached then please?

Are you expecting to see new kinds of precipitation?

Sure, heat waves and droughts and record high temperatures, among other things, have happened before. But they are happening a lot more now, and the other extremes, or the normals, are happening less. We've been way above average now for years on end. So many of our warmest years have been since 2000.

I agree with the other posters, though. Human activity isn't going to get us to some spiralling-out-of-control tipping point. There are many things about the planet that aren't going to change that put bounds on where the climate will go. However, the damage done by the warming that's going to happen is pretty significant.

[BillT]

NOTHING like that is happening more now, what IS happening is cell phones satellites and people, our ability to observe weather is greatly improved so we now see things that were going Unobserved in the past.......example a 40mph tropical storm that forms for an hour, today we see it before we wold NOT.

[WidreMann]

8 hours ago, BillT said:

NOTHING like that is happening more now, what IS happening is cell phones satellites and people, our ability to observe weather is greatly improved so we now see things that were going Unobserved in the past.......example a 40mph tropical storm that forms for an hour, today we see it before we wold NOT.

Those are details. The temperature trends and melting glaciers are big enough scale that we can definitely tell something is up. They've also done a lot of reconstruction of historical climate, to varying degrees of precision and accuracy. Enough research has been done that it can't just be blamed on cell phones. Heck, the idea of global warming was developed in the 1800s based on principles of chemistry. No cell phones and satellites back then.

[BillT]

i didnt blame cell phones i only pointed out we get pictures of events from them that we never got before them.......do you desire serious discussion? 

[WidreMann]

3 hours ago, BillT said:

i didnt blame cell phones i only pointed out we get pictures of events from them that we never got before them.......do you desire serious discussion? 

I do, but you are not proposing serious discussion. Are you here to learn about and follow the details and models of climate change, or are you a denier or "skeptic" coming in to troll?

[skierinvermont]

Nobody has ever used tropical cyclones # increases as evidence of climate change. Do you really think people in this forum, never mind actual climate scientists, are unaware of better detection due to satellites? Do you really think you just came in here and disproved climate change with that knowledge bomb? You're just posting dumb troll stuff everybody already knows about. There are detailed studies about tropical cyclone detection some of which people in this forum have read and discussed over the years and which climate scientists are certainly aware.

Climate science doesn't predict an increase in tropical cyclone number anyways. So you're just using a strawman to troll.

Rising average temperatures, increasing record temperatures, heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation, a dramatic reduction in global glaciers, a dramatic reduction in arctic sea ice, and the melting of many ice sheets that were older than 3,000 years are all consequences of and evidence of our warming planet. Also the oceans have expanded and risen mostly due to the heat they have absorbed (water expands as it warms). Sea levels are likely the highest in several thousands of years and rising rapidly relative to historical fluctuations. Mostly due to the massive amount of heat they are absorbing and expanding.

 

I would suggest you come here to learn and not to express your pre-conceived ill-informed notions of climate change. As I hope you can, see those notions have already led you astray and in need of correction. I would be happy to provide more information about any of those phenomenon I have described above.

[BillT]

i never tried to disprove "climate change" that would be moronic the climate does change always has......any set of statistics with constantly changing numbers will always yield a constantly changing average of them....i made no mention of rate of hurricanes and am not trolling in any way.....

the arrogance of the responses here is astonishing......have your little party it has no meaning to me.....

what "power" does the climate exert over weather please?   what individual weather event has the "climate" ever caused?

[WidreMann]

On 8/23/2017 at 11:47 AM, BillT said:

i never tried to disprove "climate change" that would be moronic the climate does change always has......any set of statistics with constantly changing numbers will always yield a constantly changing average of them....i made no mention of rate of hurricanes and am not trolling in any way.....

the arrogance of the responses here is astonishing......have your little party it has no meaning to me.....

what "power" does the climate exert over weather please?   what individual weather event has the "climate" ever caused?

Climate and weather are the same thing, but looked at over different temporal and spatial scales. There are obviously aren't two atmospheres, one climate and one weather, for example. And neither are things in themselves, but rather the result of hundreds and thousands of smaller and larger processes interacting to generate what we deal with every day as the weather and what we measure over time as the climate.

In any case, the reason we are displaying "arrogance" is that we do not really want to spend time debating with deniers, again, about the same half-baked "proofs" against climate change. If you want to show some actual data or models (both computer and otherwise) that disagree with the consensus or show something that really hasn't been thought about and might have some effect, then that's fine. If you come in here proposing that maybe there isn't really climate change because more people are recording tornados with iPhones, then it's clear we aren't having a serious, scientific discussion. Consider if someone came into the regular weather side of the forum and started asking about why weathermen on TV get paid to be wrong 100% of the time. Do you think that would merit a balanced discussion?

[BillT]

what is your problem?    i NEVER argued against climate change in any way.......the weather is what happened in the past and present, the climate is a set of stats derived from the past weather.....my point is simple and factual to assign any weather event which your "side" does, to climate change is NONSENSE, the climate does NOT cause weather.....and i used "side" because clearly you are fighting against some "deniers" and i am not a denier on any level.....

[WidreMann]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

what is your problem?    i NEVER argued against climate change in any way.......the weather is what happened in the past and present, the climate is a set of stats derived from the past weather.....my point is simple and factual to assign any weather event which your "side" does, to climate change is NONSENSE, the climate does NOT cause weather.....and i used "side" because clearly you are fighting against some "deniers" and i am not a denier on any level.....

 

Well, it's hard to tell sometimes, because people do come in and try to make an argument along the lines of "I'm just raising questions", but they really pedalling denialism.

Now, climate change most certainly CAN influence or cause weather events. Changes in the general circulation pattern due to climate change can lead to drier or wetter, warmer or colder weather in particular places, sometimes for more extended periods of time than it used to be. These would be more frequently extremes. Not every tornado or hurricane is related to climate change. Indeed, singular events usually aren't. But a season of very high tornadic activity, or season after season of above normal hurricane activity, paints a different picture.

 

2 hours ago, BillT said:

 

[Hambone]

[PhillipS]

Seriously?  Do you think you're persuading anyone with that nonsense?  Compare your paleoclimate reconstruction with that of any of the recent research.  Marcott et al 2013, for example.  https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott et al., 2013, Science.pdf

 

[thess]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experimentations/201704/why-do-people-refute-climate-change

[BillT]

the article linked to above is utter LUNACY......it claims "climate change" which is the 100% natural state of the climate is a huge "threat" to humans that is simply IDIOCY.......

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

We've spent billions to reduce CO2 , when we should of used that money to reduce H20.

All these plants (not the flowery type) across the globe, supplying an endless amount of H20 / increased water vapor in the atmosphere.    Which is slowing down / changing weather patterns across the globe to become more stagnant. 

[WidreMann]

2 hours ago, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

We've spent billions to reduce CO2 , when we should of used that money to reduce H20.

All these plants (not the flowery type) across the globe, supplying an endless amount of H20 / increased water vapor in the atmosphere.    Which is slowing down / changing weather patterns across the globe to become more stagnant. 

H2O isn't a driver like CO2, because it cycles much more quickly.

[Jonger]

On 8/22/2017 at 8:08 PM, WidreMann said:

Those are details. The temperature trends and melting glaciers are big enough scale that we can definitely tell something is up. They've also done a lot of reconstruction of historical climate, to varying degrees of precision and accuracy. Enough research has been done that it can't just be blamed on cell phones. Heck, the idea of global warming was developed in the 1800s based on principles of chemistry. No cell phones and satellites back then.

I'm not a big fan of monitoring glaciers as a way of measuring climate change. Glaciers have been melting since the LIA. We have no way of knowing for sure, but I'd surmise that a picture of a glacial field in 1850 would look quite reduced if compared to the same picture taken in 1750.

Raw data taken from surface stations tell us we are warming, that's all I need to see. I do think there is a bit of overadjustment made for policy pressure on our governments, but the trend is still the same.

[Jonger]

On 9/3/2017 at 6:08 PM, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

We've spent billions to reduce CO2 , when we should of used that money to reduce H20.

All these plants (not the flowery type) across the globe, supplying an endless amount of H20 / increased water vapor in the atmosphere.    Which is slowing down / changing weather patterns across the globe to become more stagnant. 

I'd be interested in seeing a study on how much additional water vapor is pumped into the atmosphere for agriculture. There has to be some additional surface heating from all of this irrigation.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

2 hours ago, Jonger said:

I'd be interested in seeing a study on how much additional water vapor is pumped into the atmosphere for agriculture. There has to be some additional surface heating from all of this irrigation.

there is.   But they don't want to be held responsible when bad things happen, so they probably won't give us these numbers.     There are water vapor charts out there though, (which have been increasing every year ) if that's what ur looking for?  But i'm guessing you wanna know 'just' from the man-made additional water vapor generation. 

no wonder locations are breaking Dew Point records all across the globe.   I been seeing readings of 79 and 80 more frequently.   tortuously humid.

It's one of the reasons why our patterns are 'dangerously' stagnant these days.   Just look at Jose for instance, he's going to end up creeping out there in the Atlantic for weeks.   It's already been doing loop-de-loops for over a week.  

Officials won't talk about this 'stagnant' aspect , since they need years of evidence...years of testing and all that crap.   So until then, we'll just continue getting "Roswell" talk from the officials.... (everything's fine, nothing to see here , it's all in ur head)   Plus, there's no financial $$ in it to research the water vapor aspect...even though it's the MOST important variable in climate change to date.   there's more money in it to research silly ole CO2.    many aspects in play here, but they self choose what to research and what not to. 

Most scientists are tunnel-visioned out on just 1 or 2 aspects being the culprit.  They don't know how to multi-task...or look at the whole picture. 

[Vice-Regent]

Such talk is dangerous in the end as CO2 reductions are absolutely necessary to save the ocean from a mass extinction event. Reducing water vapor would be a nice bonus and probably be necessary to avoid hitting tipping point(s), since we have already hit a couple tipping points. The hour is late for significant action on the climate change problem.

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, Jonger said:

I'd be interested in seeing a study on how much additional water vapor is pumped into the atmosphere for agriculture. There has to be some additional surface heating from all of this irrigation.

It's also methane.  Animal farming contributes a significant amount to the problem (and so do methane leaks from fracking.)

[BillT]

where does life thrive on earth? the arid places with very little water vapor in the air?   or the very moist places?   which air warms and cools with the least effort, very dry air or very moist air?    the concept that we need to reduce the water vapor in the air makes no sense to me.....also water vapor into the air and back to earth as rain is a cooling process for the air and surface.

[WidreMann]

3 hours ago, BillT said:

where does life thrive on earth? the arid places with very little water vapor in the air?   or the very moist places?   which air warms and cools with the least effort, very dry air or very moist air?    the concept that we need to reduce the water vapor in the air makes no sense to me.....also water vapor into the air and back to earth as rain is a cooling process for the air and surface.

You are oversimplifying. Yes, life needs water and it also needs reasonable temperatures. That does not mean that simply increasing water and temperatures everywhere will result in improvement for the biosphere. Life has evolved to live where it lives, with the amount of other life around it that has been there for some time. The key thing is that rapid change is disruptive to biospheres, for the most part. Yes, eventually life will recover, but not on the timescales of human civilization, which is our chief concern with climate change.