ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

The world’s most famous climate scientist just outlined an alarming scenario for our planet’s future - WaPo

New work by James Hansen et al. is scheduled for release next week in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion. The journal is open-access, and the peer review process happens "in public" as scientists submit peer comments, and the authors reply - it will be interesting to watch. This paper apparently steps out from IPCC estimates in several key areas, and seems to be considered a fairly noteworthy paper in the field, according to the report.

Initial reactions from several fellow scientists are also in the news report - you don't see that regularly. At any rate, this particular paper is going to be a departure from the consensus in the gloomy direction, it would seem.
 
dnmun said:
it is pointless to try to respond to him. he is one of those types of people who think they know it all already so there is not any need for them to learn anything new. so they avoid going to college or engaging in any arena where they have to show performance in learning new things.

from dr jeff at the weatherunderground, june 2015 hottest on record:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3049
Click to expand...


If you are talking to me I just have to say that people like you only weaken the cause you fight for. The comment gives me a bad taste in my mouth and that also weakens your arguments. I am genuinely interested in knowing if global warming is a thing and if so, do what I can to help in the right directions. Again, if the comment was aimed at me, it seems that your reading and comprehension skills need a bit of polishing.
 
Man-made global warming is definitely "a thing" and a bad one, too. The only remaining debate is how far it's going to go and what the ultimate impact on the ecosystem will be. Some people fear tipping points will be reached where irreversible effects will occur (collapse of Antarctic glaciers, methane release from thawing permafrost etc).

The salient points are:

* Current CO2 levels are higher than at any point in mankind's history
* Global temperature has increased by an average of 0.6°C since 1900
* This is against a background of reduced output from the sun - the Earth should actually be cooling right now
* These effects only really started in earnest in the 1970's and are rapidly increasing. Partly because of increased emissions, partly because warming effects suffer from positive feedback (a runaway process).
* The rate the Earth is warming is unprecedented in history. Previous relatively rapid warmings resulted in mass-extinctions
* It takes hundreds of years for nature to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere and ocean system. So even if mankind totally ceased emissions today, the Earth would still suffer increased warming, before starting to return to normal.
* If warming can be limited to 2°C this should be manageable, with only a modest extinction and human deaths due to drought. This is what the politicians are currently making noises about, but it means leaving most of the currently known fossil fuel reserves in the ground.

FWIW, those convincing-looking graphs deniers produce showing no-warming, a pause or reversal in warming, or no correlation between CO2 and warming are often misrepresented (deliberately or through ignorance), taken from long-discredited sources or actually photo-shopped. Just a warning because that one caught me out.
 
The annual State of the Climate publication by the American Meteorological Association, in cooperation with NASA and NOAA, I believe has become one of the definitive scientific periodicals for everyone accessing such. On greenhouse gases, expressed as "radiative forcing"
RadForce2014.png Long-lived Greenhouse Gases in “State of the Climate in 2014”, E. J. Dlugokencky, B. D. Hall, S. A. Montzka, G. Dutton, J. Mühle, and J. W. Elkins , Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96 (7), S34; http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/state-of-climate-in-2014/

Of important note is that at no time during the reported period do we see even a blip of flattening of those trend lines. Despite all the IPCC reports, the UNFCCC meetings, vast public dialogue & discussion, media attention, etc., etc. It gives no cause for hope that humanity will win this battle with our demons. The "afterlife" is what we bequeath to future generations and its looking more and more like hell.
 
Ratking said:
If you are talking to me I just have to say that people like you only weaken the cause you fight for. The comment gives me a bad taste in my mouth and that also weakens your arguments. I am genuinely interested in knowing if global warming is a thing and if so, do what I can to help in the right directions. Again, if the comment was aimed at me, it seems that your reading and comprehension skills need a bit of polishing.
Click to expand...
I asked a civil question. You haven't responded to that yet...
 
Ratking said:
An English scientist proclaimed that we had a small ice age in front of us in the next 15-20 years. How does this fit your picture?
Click to expand...
Global warming is an unfortunate turn of phrase. Catastrophic climate change would be more appropriate. The changes in weather patterns will create hotter spots and colder spots. Drughts in previously wet areas and flooding in others. Patterns are disrupted and to some degree we're still learning HOW will will be affected. We know we will, but having no human record of the effects of climate catastrophes makes it impossible to predict HOW exactly we will be affected, but ice records, geological evidence, and well known data show pretty conclusively WE are the catastrophe. All denials have direct links to conservative politics and corporate oil interests. I hate conspiratorial explanations for actions, but I trust big oil and conservatives about as far as I can throw them. And I'm a gimp, so I can't throw anything.
 
tomjasz said:
Ratking said:
If you are talking to me I just have to say that people like you only weaken the cause you fight for. The comment gives me a bad taste in my mouth and that also weakens your arguments. I am genuinely interested in knowing if global warming is a thing and if so, do what I can to help in the right directions. Again, if the comment was aimed at me, it seems that your reading and comprehension skills need a bit of polishing.
Click to expand...
I asked a civil question. You haven't responded to that yet...
Click to expand...

Good questions needs time to answer. Maybe some reading first also ;)
 
With regards to the soon-to-be-published James Hansen study, article today in Slate: Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning
We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meter sea level rise practically unavoidable and likely to occur this century. Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.
Click to expand...
Ditto that, exclamation point, pointless expletive, more futile fear-mongering in the blame-sphere, rationalizations, muddled morality and the rest. :!:
 
After reading this I was convinced in global warming:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Click to expand...


Then I was surprised to find it's actually from 1922. Makes me go 'hmmm?'- seems the world's been 'on the brink' for quite a while now.
Then also, how does it logically play into all this if there's evidence of major climate change in the distant past? Ice ages, pole shifts and flips. I would say a huge contributor to 'climate change' may have to do with the earth's axis, and magnetic fields.
I don't mean to disagree that things aren't on the brink.
I believe much of the evidence seems right- but take into account the earth has undergone pole oriented MAJOR change every dozen millenia though, then the last 5years, or 100 are a very small piece of the pie to use in the blame game. Not to mention there weren't many or any humans and suv's in the previous major earth changes. Magnetic changes are likely cyclical- take the sun for instance, it's change is a far shorter cycle, whereas the earth's appears to be a slow one.

Not an excuse not to be responsible- but there's plenty of info to question the official story- where who how and why.
 
no there is not. there is no doubt about the direction the CO2 level is headed and the inability of society to accept it and change.

the libertarians, right wing republicans, and the koch brother's have formed their alliance to block any useful changes from happening in this country
 
dnmun said:
the libertarians, right wing republicans, and the koch brother's have formed their alliance to block any useful changes from happening in this country
Click to expand...
Its one of those imponderables that will ultimately drive us mad. At some point in 'merican history, the GOP formed its bedrock alliance between midwest and southern fundamentalist and the big-money of corporatists. The latter spends vast sums cementing the former. "Climate denier" is a misnomer. There is a culture war and climate science unfortunately got tossed into the mix. Facts have little to do with it - if you're a "believer" acting on faith in a community of the like-minded, you're effectively inoculated from the science of climate change, doomed to remain a "nut-special" posting and re-posting ridiculous assertions ad-nauseam. The Koch industries know better, the reality - they just find it politically unacceptable, and the money they spend is proof of their fore-knowledge.
 
I'm looking to improve my pov, so please correrct my err. What is so assumptively ridiculous in looking past the common right vs left argument, and finding a much bigger picture to calculate.

Has the earth not had ice ages, have the continents always been where they are now? Have the poles not been reversed, just as the sun's poles change every decade or so?
Solar pole flip not as secret- http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/
What about the earth?

How should that not factor in to what all the 'experts' are saying now? I don't see the ridiculous or assumptive-
I'm not trying to argue about climate change happening or not, just making the point that it should be obvious it happens with or without us. As I said, not as an excuse to keep on living unsustainably, but just to point out the picture can always be improved and widened, which hopefully ends wasteful unproductive arguments.
 
polls_two_idiots_1111_720856_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg
 
The problem is not the science or the data, it's YOU. Your conspiracist, anti-science, "smarter than the experts" attitude. *That* is the "ridiculously assumptive".

I don't think you're interested in improving your perspective, just touting your pet theories and seeking out confirmation. If you really want to know the truth you could start with the links I (re)posted yesterday. The NASA one will tell you all you need to know in 20 minutes. The rest will build on that and take you maybe an hour total. Then you'd be an expert compared to 99% of people in the street and media. At the moment the world as you see it is: you: "it's got to be magnetic pole reversal (somehow)!", tens of thousands of scientist: "shit! We didn't think of that?!".

FYI, if you wanted to cherry-pick a data point of questionable accuracy for minimal historic Arctic sea ice, it should have been 1940, not 1922:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/record-arctic-sea-ice-melt-to-levels-unseen-in-millennia.html
 
Informed skepticism is desirable, but you must apply it with a rational mind for it to be of practical use. When conversing about complex topics, many times we'll see or downplay for ourselves the role of the experts, not wanting to fall victim to faulty appeal to authority arguments. It is all too easy to go down the path of baseless cynicism as an overreaction when taken too far, however.

Healthy fields of science with large and diverse membership are by their nature a skeptical discipline. Overturning popular scientific thinking with new theories is prestigious - but it is very difficult, as they have to convince a skeptical audience of experts of the validity of their claims. This is opposite many cultural systems who are illogically resistant to change, often it is described with negative connotations in those circles with words like heresy, unorthodox, abnormal, etc.

A skeptical scientist (expert) will not consult or present a news clipping from 1922 in an attempt to overturn status quo opinion, or challenge a new finding. Why not? One of the most important things to remember about conducting science is who you are trying to convince. You must get other experts, other scientists, to understand, test, replicate results, and accept your hypothesis. Because they are familiar with the state of the art (discipline) they will test the claims, or hypothesize about the results of testing the claims. The process has been formalized into something we call the scientific method. For a claim to be considered, it must be falsifiable. Karl Popper was influential in the academic pursuit of science advising scientists to "try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk." The Wikipedia articles on Scientific Method and Scientific Consensus are useful refreshers for those of us who haven't had a science class in awhile.

We often, and for good reason, are skeptical of modern authority positions because they are so often at there root an attempt at manipulation. It is OK if you can rationally find that the claims are flimsy or an attempt by the figure to manipulate you for their own personal gain. When consulting and studying topics that are of great complexity, and require a high level of knowledge to test, our own ability to levy rational skepticism is severely impeded. We need to turn to experts in these cases, and evaluate what they are presenting critically, by comparing what they are saying with opinions that are well respected among the body of thinkers who can interpret and understand the topic of discussion with great clarity.
 
kd8cgo said:
A skeptical scientist (expert) will not consult or present a news clipping from 1922 in an attempt to overturn status quo opinion, or challenge a new finding. . . . .
Click to expand...

Huh? That's the DEFINITION of when they do it. Because it's the right way to do it.

Anyway, along those lines, they're talking today about the coming warm water storms. Big conference here in California on emergency response. They're citing all the past storms, yada yada yada. It's catastrophic climate change at its' traditional best. The only reason they're not using 1922 is because it was not a year that is important to the cycle. Darn it.

There's even an ancient history NAME for it. El Nino.

There's an old joke in economics. I guess you can apply it to weather, too. The punchline is "This time it'll be different. . . ." Because, of course, it won't be.
 
Dauntless said:
Huh? That's the DEFINITION of when they do it. Because it's the right way to do it.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. The particular article posted was not a scientific finding, it would be of no value to a modern scientific approach to understanding or evaluating climate.

Dauntless said:
It's catastrophic climate change at its' traditional best. The only reason they're not using 1922 is because it was not a year that is important to the cycle.
Click to expand...

You seem to have fixated on a year in making your point, which was not the issue raised. The crux of the statement was the "news clipping" bit, not the time line it existed on. The point being it (that particular article) was of no more value to anyone than tabloid journalism based on hearsay, or opinion editorial - i.e. not useful at all.
 
kd8cgo said:
Dauntless said:
It's catastrophic climate change at its' traditional best. The only reason they're not using 1922 is because it was not a year that is important to the cycle.
Click to expand...
You seem to have fixated on a year in making your point, which was not the issue raised. The crux of the statement was the "news clipping" bit, not the time line it existed on. The point being it (that particular article) was of no more value to anyone than tabloid journalism based on hearsay, or opinion editorial - i.e. not useful at all.
Click to expand...
I've seen that gottcha article in blog posts before - a rather lame attempt to cast doubt into the minds of the ill-informed. Sure its probably worked when dealing with such, so cast here. To the point of the year - it was 1712, the date attributed to Newcomen single-piston steam engine, so the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the harnessing of fossil-fuels for productive work. We've been accumulating CO2 emissions ever since. As to the concept of atmospheric greenhouse gases and potential climate effects, that must be attributed Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927), a Swedish scientist in 1896. He proposed
that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.

After the discoveries of Arrhenius and Chamberlin the topic was forgotten for a very long time. At that time it was thought than human influences were insignificant compared to natural forces, such as solar activity and ocean circulation. It was also believed that the oceans were such great carbon sinks that they would automatically cancel out our pollution. Water vapor was seen as a much more influential greenhouse gas.
Click to expand...
Again, with a little bit of effort, the ill-informed could readily find relevant information, both historical and current science. I find it interesting that he was looking at what might precipitate a new ice age.

For your amusement, Pandemonium, the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony, on the industrial revolution..
[youtube]E6NBHx80ovY[/youtube]
Note the large smokestacks.
 
Ok, sooooo.
I am certainly unwelcome here, even trying to mention or expound on the ideas that VERY LARGE topics like distant history's extreme changes, and the (still growing) science of the earths poles/fields should be considered with the data set currently used.

If you think I had an attitude with any of my posts on this thread, or gave the impression I think I'm smarter than you or the scientists\climatologists by-trade, my words are definitely wasted on you, because it's obvious you're the one stuck and unwilling to consider other aspects when you're defense mechanism is to personally attack.

I don't believe I ever did that here.
Some were very demeaning to Neptronix imo too. A bad pattern with people you don't agree with. Hint- acting irrationally signifies irrational thinking, always a good time to check yerself.

I disagree on the paper as non-applicable (if that's what you are saying)- it was science at the time (and apparently still is today). And I believe it supports my opinion that 'this' has been going on a while.
Otherthan that, I think your points are valid about the way things work. But no mention of your actual take on what I offered. Doesn't really sound like you're willing to have an opinion outside of the group. That's dangerous imo, but it's our right, and it's even natural.
 
nutspecial, I'm not 100% sure who you are replying to in each part of your message, but I'll address what I can.

nutspecial said:
I am certainly unwelcome here,
Click to expand...
On the contrary, you are very welcome here. Some people might take umbrage with your assertions, but rest assured that the best course of action has always been and remains open dialogue on these matters. That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it! :D

nutspecial said:
I disagree on the paper as non-applicable (if that's what you are saying)- it was science at the time (and apparently still is today).
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your opinion here - that was a clip from an associated press piece. It made no reference to any sort of scientific findings, studies, evidence of any kind. It referenced the stories of unnamed fishermen, hunters and explorers. It might be useful in the very narrow context of lighting curiosity in the time of its printing, but it certainly is not a rigorous record or account of anything in particular.
 
wineboyrider said:
Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
Click to expand...
"The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year."
Click to expand...
And its an article about the Cryosat data gathering apparatus, which has significantly improved the quality of the dataset.
 
nutspecial said:
Ok, sooooo.
I am certainly unwelcome here, even trying to mention or expound on the ideas that VERY LARGE topics like distant history's extreme changes, and the (still growing) science of the earths poles/fields should be considered with the data set currently used.

If you think I had an attitude with any of my posts on this thread, or gave the impression I think I'm smarter than you or the scientists\climatologists by-trade, my words are definitely wasted on you
Click to expand...

1) Don't play the hard-done-by victim

2) Your ideas are not worth serious consideration because they are wrong on an elementary level. You would realise this if you spent only a short time reading only the most basic non-technical information available on the subject of AGW. If society is supposed to be having a serious discussion you are hindering the process by muddying the intellectual waters, or just flat out wasting time. It's like interrupting an orchestra practice to ask if violins really need strings.

3) You clearly do think you're smarter than the scientists because you are insisting that your personal theories based on nothing-at-all should be considered as the possible explanation everyone else somehow missed. Everyone says X is true, you think Y is true and the discrepancy must be either because everyone else is incompetent, or is lying. Except it's the third option: you are wrong.

There is a very strong (conservatively, at least 97%) scientific consensus that global warming is caused by mankind's CO2 emissions. The information to answer any possible question you could have is easily available to you.
 
I think the article was based on the science of the day (which hasnt changed much I guess). I can try to find more for ya, but imo it was no more fluffed than 'news' today. AP/reuters are where all the news comes from even still today. I think they've been 'owned' for over 100 yrs btw. Basis: http://www.luckinlove.com/rothmedia.htm

Punxor, thanks for the comment- I don't even know what to say to that. 'Thanks' I guess!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top