Scientists: World likely won't avoid dangerous warming mark

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
Sea levels rose dramatically after the last ice age. They receded during the “Little Ice Age” which ended in about 1850, and have risen at a fairly constant, and very low, rate since then; a little less than 3 mm/year.

The Little Ice Age lasted between 500 and 300 years, depending on whose version one accepts. There is no particular reason not to think we’re still in "Little Ice Age Recovery"

Subsidence, of course, is another thing.

[emphasis mine]
Click to expand...
Yes, there is.
 
XndrK said:
Yes, there is.
Click to expand...
I guess sea levels over time are extremely difficult to make much out of for a number of reasons, not the least of which is tectonic movement. If, say, there is a lot of “spreading” in some part of the oceans, it tends to lower sea levels. But if there is a counterbalancing “upwelling” elsewhere, it will tend to raise them. Both are going on all the time, and nobody knows the “net” effect.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I guess sea levels over time are extremely difficult to make much out of for a number of reasons, not the least of which is tectonic movement. If, say, there is a lot of “spreading” in some part of the oceans, it tends to lower sea levels. But if there is a counterbalancing “upwelling” elsewhere, it will tend to raise them. Both are going on all the time, and nobody knows the “net” effect.
Click to expand...
The response you quoted from XndrK was not about sea level rise. It was about temperature, and it directly addressed your assertion that we are just recovering from the Little Ice Age. Look at the link in what you quoted and you will see the Little Ice Age and so much more.
 
XndrK said:
Yes, there is.
Click to expand...
An interesting cartoon, but scientifically dubious. It assumes we can know as much about the global climate 20,000 years ago as we can about it 10 years ago. Personally, I’m not convinced our data from 10 years ago is super accurate and I’m incredibly skeptical that we can get reliable data from much more than 50 years ago, let alone 20,000.
 
fin said:
Global warming proponents are saying that overpopulation is the cause, therefor cut down on the number of children being born, especially those that are deemed useless. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Look for a tax on exhaling all that nasty carbon dioxide. You can easily avoid the tax by holding your breath until we elect politicians with some common sense.:rolleyes:
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The response you quoted from XndrK was not about sea level rise. It was about temperature, and it directly addressed your assertion that we are just recovering from the Little Ice Age. Look at the link in what you quoted and you will see the Little Ice Age and so much more.
Click to expand...
Oh, there are plenty of “hockey sticks”, as well as a lot of charts of sea level rise and temperature that show a flatter upturn after the Little Ice Age. So I don’t take any of the competing charts too seriously, particularly not if they’re presented in a cartoon-like manner. In any event, XndrK didn’t seem troubled by it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Oh, there are plenty of “hockey sticks”, as well as a lot of charts of sea level rise and temperature that show a flatter upturn after the Little Ice Age. So I don’t take any of the competing charts too seriously, particularly not if they’re presented in a cartoon-like manner. In any event, XndrK didn’t seem troubled by it.
Click to expand...
Apparently you are not familiar with Randall Munroe. Like any good scientist (he did work for NASA for a while), he gives references for this data. Shakun (2012), Markott (2013), Annan & Hargreaves (2013). It’s in the cartoon, which I highly recommend you peruse from the very beginning to get a sense of the amount of research Randall puts into his work. But I see you have an ironclad reason for disregarding any scientific result you wish by saying “I’ll bet there’s some graph that doesn’t quit agree with this one”. You may think it is all rather silly, putting one scientific claim up against another opposing claim, but that is how science progresses. And I would go further to say that is how our personal knowledge of science progresses too.

As for your “competing charts”, please cite one chart presented by a serious scientist covering the period from 1500 to the present that does not show an acceleration of some magnitude after the Little Ice Age. That is the way you refute a claim.
 
Captain Obvious here but, ummmm I see a warming mark for the summer and a cooling mark for the winter
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Apparently you are not familiar with Randall Munroe. Like any good scientist (he did work for NASA for a while), he gives references for this data. Shakun (2012), Markott (2013), Annan & Hargreaves (2013). It’s in the cartoon, which I highly recommend you peruse from the very beginning to get a sense of the amount of research Randall puts into his work. But I see you have an ironclad reason for disregarding any scientific result you wish by saying “I’ll bet there’s some graph that doesn’t quit agree with this one”. You may think it is all rather silly, putting one scientific claim up against another opposing claim, but that is how science progresses. And I would go further to say that is how our personal knowledge of science progresses too.

As for your “competing charts”, please cite one chart presented by a serious scientist covering the period from 1500 to the present that does not show an acceleration of some magnitude after the Little Ice Age. That is the way you refute a claim.
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s many of the global warming alarmists who don’t want to hear any other points of view.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Shocking, isn’t it, that experts disagree with political correctness.
Click to expand...
Not really shocking, as most experts do not care about political correctness one way or the other, and your example was not of experts disagreeing with political correctness. What I thought you were saying before is that we should distrust what experts say now about global warming because experts have been wrong in the past. I thought that was your point in this post.

My response pointed to the fact that the majority of experts today who warn of global warming are not the same as the group who made that claim about September 2016. Therefore the truth of global warming should not be discounted because of them.

Whenever we see articles about “experts”, it is important to realize that the media which convey’s that message is doing a tremendous simplification of the facts - often without the media having a solid scientific understanding of what they are reporting, and with actual motivation for distortion to make the story more sensational. They lack the scientific objectivity for putting facts into perspective. As intelligent readers it is important that we keep that in mind when we read headlines in the popular press.

In this particular example, we have an article in the Telegraph that leads one to think there was a consensus of experts making this very specific prediction about September 2016. In fact they cite only two such experts: Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, although they imply there are more. What they don’t tell us is that other experts, although agreeing with Wadhams about the trend, do not go so far as to make the same prediction he did. So what we really have is two experts who made a very specific prediction about sea ice and a date. This can lead some casual observers to conclude that the trend being reported by thousands of experts about global warming is similarly in great doubt. You would not be concluding that from just a dispassionate review of what experts are saying.

Even the article you cited says:

*Although a quick glance at NSIDC satellite data going back to 1981 shows an undeniable downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years, scientists have accused Prof Wadhams and others of “crying wolf” and harming the message of climate change through “dramatic”, “incorrect” and “confusing” predictions.

Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor in the Department of Meterology, at the University of Reading, said: “There has been one prominent scientist who has regularly made more dramatic, and incorrect, in my view predictions suggesting that we would by now be in ice-free conditions.

“There are very serious risks from continued climatic changes and a melting Arctic, but we do not serve the public and policy-makers well by exaggerating those risks.

“We will soon see an ice-free summer in the Arctic, but there is a real danger of ‘crying wolf’ and that does not help anyone.

“As global temperatures rise, we will see a continuing decline in Arctic sea ice extent, although this will happen somewhat erratically, rather like a ball bouncing down a bumpy hill.

“Without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the ball will reach the bottom of the hill, meaning the Arctic is ‘ice-free’, starting with a few days one summer, a few weeks another summer and gradually becoming more and more frequent over the next few decades."
*

A much more nuanced message than the headline, isn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top