World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[Ridgerunner]

That is certainly debatable.

You do not have to rely solely on the IPCC. Much of the research they present was gathered by scientists with no financial ties to the IPCC. The IPCC is not paying the salaries of all those doing research in climate science.

Of course it isn’t, and I didn’t claim it did. A lot of the funding comes from a government with a very definite point of view and policies it wants to promote. It has a definite political interest in the outcome of the debate. One can reasonably suspect that this administration, like all political bodies and high school debaters, must necessarily predict theoretical doom in order to persuade people to willingly or at least grudgingly undergo practical hardship.

A lot of it comes from foundations and educational institutions, which also receive governmental funds.

And a great deal of the data some on the “pro” side has IPCC origins, any financially-induced bias of IPCC necessarily flows from the premises to the conclusions.

Which is not to say no “con” researchers or writers are supported by entities or persons with interests in the outcomes.

It’s a debate, and that’s all it is. And when it does not correspond with one’s experience of climate, then it’s not terribly unreasonable to question the theory.

 

[lynnvinc]

Now back to the OP…

"Scientists Identify Possible ‘Tipping Point’ of Global Warming"

“Scientists have long been concerned that global warming may push the Earth’s climate system past a “tipping point,” and a new study from Oregon State University (OSU) may have finally identified that threshold. According to the research, synchronization of climate variability in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans is that tipping point - where rapid melting of ice and further warming may become irreversible. This is what happened a few hundred years before the rapid warming that took place at the end of the last ice age about 15,000 years ago…”

See natureworldnews.com/articles/8232/20140724/scientists-identify-possible-tipping-point-of-global-warming.htm (be sure to “close the ad” at the upper right)
For the research article in SCIENCE, go to sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/444

I just wanted to say, AGW is serious stuff. We shouldn’t be like kids playing with matches near a huge gas leak. It’s not a matter of opinion on blog sites. The science is quite settled that AGW is happening and a grave threat to civilization as we know it and could be quite costly in terms of human harms and lives.

Our Catholic Church requires that we respond with prudence and mitigate AGW, even if we have doubts. We shouldn’t even be debating AGW, and if we truly love God, at least as a poor response to and reflection of the love God has for us, then we should be mitigating it in every sensible way we can.

Just started a new thread about this tipping point finding - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12200992#post12200992

 

[vz71]

Now back to the OP…

"Scientists Identify Possible ‘Tipping Point’ of Global Warming"

“Scientists have long been concerned that global warming may push the Earth’s climate system past a “tipping point,” and a new study from Oregon State University (OSU) may have finally identified that threshold. According to the research, synchronization of climate variability in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans is that tipping point - where rapid melting of ice and further warming may become irreversible. This is what happened a few hundred years before the rapid warming that took place at the end of the last ice age about 15,000 years ago…”%between%

\

Again?

I have been listening to the reports for a few decades now that we are at the edge of the cliff and the tipping point is right around the corner.
That the point of no return will soon be reached if we do not make draconian changes to our lifestyle.

Yet we are all still here.
No ‘point of no return’ reached (although they do keep revising it).

So why is this report any different from the other wolf cries?

 

[Erich]

“Scientists have long been concerned that global warming may push the Earth’s climate system past a “tipping point,” and a new study from Oregon State University (OSU) may have finally identified that threshold. According to the research, synchronization of climate variability in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans is that tipping point - where rapid melting of ice and further warming may become irreversible. This is what happened a few hundred years before the rapid warming that took place at the end of the last ice age about 15,000 years ago…”

Was that period of rapid warming also anthropogenic? And did folks at the time try to “mitigate it in every sensible way they can”? If so, we know that whatever it was they (might have) tried, didn’t work.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The science is quite settled that AGW is happening and a grave threat to civilization as we know it and could be quite costly in terms of human harms and lives. It’s not settled, and there is no consensus concerning any of its sub-issues.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/4/v15n2-9.pdf

Our Catholic Church requires that we respond with prudence and mitigate AGW, even if we have doubts.

The Church absolutely, positively, does not. Some churchmen have expressed various opinions about preserving the environment genrally. The Church does NOT teach that we should “mitigate AGW even if we have doubts.” This is a terrible thing to be telling people.

 

[estesbob]

The Church absolutely, positively, does not. Some churchmen have expressed various opinions about preserving the environment genrally. The Church does NOT teach that we should “mitigate AGW even if we have doubts.” This is a terrible thing to be telling people.

So is buying carbon credits like buying indulgences?

 

[lynnvinc]

Was that period of rapid warming also anthropogenic? And did folks at the time try to “mitigate it in every sensible way they can”? If so, we know that whatever it was they (might have) tried, didn’t work.

It’s paleo-climatology. They are speaking about the past, and not so much a time of warming hysteresis (as we are facing today, like the end-Permian warming when 95% of life on earth died). They are referring to the last ice age and how there was a rapid warming tipping point during that time. They were only able to detect that bec they can now get data on a decadal scale.

It’s a good idea to read some paleo-climatology to get some idea what we might be facing now. However, the rapidity of the warming we are causing – within a few 100 years – is nothing like past warmings that took many many 1000s of years. There’s no analog from the past for the rapidity of the current warming, and the odds are this will bring more severe problems, not less, bec it doesn’t give species and us much time to adapt.

If we do manage to push the system into a tipping point, going into a new regime, it will most likely be quite inhospitable to life.

It’s like we’re conducting this huge experiment on earth to see what happens. Sort of like how people like to watch bloody, gory accidents – can’t take their eyes off of it.

C’est la mort.

 

[Bill1940]

It’s paleo-climatology. They are speaking about the past, and not so much a time of warming hysteresis (as we are facing today, like the end-Permian warming when 95% of life on earth died). They are referring to the last ice age and how there was a rapid warming tipping point during that time. They were only able to detect that bec they can now get data on a decadal scale.

It’s a good idea to read some paleo-climatology to get some idea what we might be facing now. However, the rapidity of the warming we are causing – within a few 100 years – is nothing like past warmings that took many many 1000s of years. There’s no analog from the past for the rapidity of the current warming, and the odds are this will bring more severe problems, not less, bec it doesn’t give species and us much time to adapt.} End quote

Lynn, Did I miss your reply to my previous simple question concerning what caused the Medieval Warming period? It was warmer than the more recent warm period. Greenland was settled by Europeans; chilly Newfoundland produced grapes and was dubbed “Vineland”; population increased; cathedrals built; education and prosperity greatly improved; and was it not a happy time for Christendom? Our carbon footprint was miniscule. So tell me what happened?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s paleo-climatology. They are speaking about the past, and not so much a time of warming hysteresis (as we are facing today, like the end-Permian warming when 95% of life on earth died). They are referring to the last ice age and how there was a rapid warming tipping point during that time. They were only able to detect that bec they can now get data on a decadal scale.

It’s a good idea to read some paleo-climatology to get some idea what we might be facing now. However, the rapidity of the warming we are causing – within a few 100 years – is nothing like past warmings that took many many 1000s of years. There’s no analog from the past for the rapidity of the current warming, and the odds are this will bring more severe problems, not less, bec it doesn’t give species and us much time to adapt.

If we do manage to push the system into a tipping point, going into a new regime, it will most likely be quite inhospitable to life.

It’s like we’re conducting this huge experiment on earth to see what happens. Sort of like how people like to watch bloody, gory accidents – can’t take their eyes off of it.

C’est la mort.

No.

The “Little Ice Age” from which we have been warming for some 160 years now, was not an “Ice Age” in the true sense of the term. The “year without a summer” is hardly comparable to having glaciers a mile thick in the upper midwest.

The real “experiment” is the experiment governments like ours (pretty much no one elses, though) is attempting with the lives and wellbeing of its citizenry by making energy costs artificially high. It probably doesn’t really need to “experiment” because the consequences are not really unpredictable. Raise somebody’s utilty bill by $1400 (projected for my state based solely on what Obama has done so far) and some people are going to suffer. Some of them are going to suffer a great deal. But it’s only people, right?

 

[GEddie]

No.

The “Little Ice Age” from which we have been warming for some 160 years now, was not an “Ice Age” in the true sense of the term. The “year without a summer” is hardly comparable to having glaciers a mile thick in the upper midwest.

The real “experiment” is the experiment governments like ours (pretty much no one elses, though) is attempting with the lives and wellbeing of its citizenry by making energy costs artificially high. It probably doesn’t really need to “experiment” because the consequences are not really unpredictable. Raise somebody’s utilty bill by $1400 (projected for my state based solely on what Obama has done so far) and some people are going to suffer. Some of them are going to suffer a great deal. But it’s only people, right?

Energy costs are much higher in the rest of the postindustrial world, however.

ICXC NIKA

 

[lynnvinc]

lynnvinc;12204047:

Lynn, Did I miss your reply to my previous simple question concerning what caused the Medieval Warming period?

I don’t know. Why don’t you look it up and tell me. Not sure what your point is.

BTW, it was a lot hotter during the end-Permian great warming 251 mya, when 95% of life died. Much much warmer than the MWP, and about as much warmer as we’re projected to go in 100 to 200 years if we don’t start mitigating.

It was warmer than the more recent warm period.

My understanding was that it was warmer perhaps in Europe than our temps around 1950 or so, not globally warmer than temps from 2000 on.

The globally averaged temps for the MWP and out period look like this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Moberg_Hockey_Stick.gif

Check out why the MWP argument against AGW today is fallacious as skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

But my point would be the MWP proves beyond a doubt that the climate can warm, which support the fact that there global warming today, regardless if the mechanisms are not exactly the same. There are many factors that contribute to warming, and many that contribute cooling, and climate scientists know that.

 

[vz71]

The globally averaged temps for the MWP and out period look like this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Moberg_Hockey_Stick.gif

So I am now expected to believe we have detailed temperature analysis data going back 2000 years that is accurate to a tenth of a degree.

I do not believe this data.

 

[Monkey1976]

So I am now expected to believe we have detailed temperature analysis data going back 2000 years that is accurate to a tenth of a degree.

I do not believe this data.

Agreed. What do the error bars for this graph look like?

 

[Bill1940]

Bill1940;12204149:

I don’t know. Why don’t you look it up and tell me. Not sure what your point is.

My point is that it was warmer than the more recent warm period as indicated by simple historical facts. Greenland was settled by Europeans; chilly Newfoundland produced grapes and was dubbed “Vineland”; population increased; cathedrals built; education and prosperity greatly improved. Our carbon footprint was miniscule then and the climatic conditions are not replicated today. Would you buy a farm in Greenland? So tell me what happened, without relying on a hockey stick graph of disputed derivation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Energy costs are much higher in the rest of the postindustrial world, however.

ICXC NIKA

Correct, the cheapest is Finland because of its hydroelectric resources. The next cheapest are Canada, U.S. and Australia due to their coal, oil and gas resources and efficiency. It goes up sharply from those four.

But one has to realize that, e.g., coal burning is increasing in China and India and elsewhere. The U.S. is not the greaters CO2 emitter, and the gap is growing. Nothing this government imposes on the populace in the name of MMGW will alter the outcome significantly.

 

[lynnvinc]

So I am now expected to believe we have detailed temperature analysis data going back 2000 years that is accurate to a tenth of a degree.

I do not believe this data.

As statisticians and scientists will gladly point out, we live in a stochastic (probabilistic) world. People take measurements in all sorts of scientific fields AND give them “margins of error” or “confidence intervals” around which they are 95% or 90% or 99% confident that true points lie.

So what you will get is a point (the reading), then a plus or minus factor at which the scientist is (usually) 95% confident. That means there is still a 5% probability the scientist could be wrong and the actual God-only-knows truth falls above or below that confidence interval.

So there is a 5% probability that we have warmed a great deal more than scientists are telling us or we have not warmed.

As for me and my house we will serve the Lord by being prudent (expecting the worst, but hoping for the best) and take measures to mitigate AGW.

Others can do whatever they please. As they say, it’s a free country. And even if they do put modest fees on fossil fuels – which seems very doubtful – people can still emit as much as they want paying those fees.

I feel sorry for the younger and unborn generations if the scientists are correct or are underestimating the problem of AGW, but c’est la mort. Not much I can do about it, except my own pidding 60%+ reductions from my 1990 GHG emissions, which won’t help the situation much if no one else wants to join it.

 

[lynnvinc]

I don’t know. Why don’t you look it up and tell me. Not sure what your point is.

Okay even tho my knowledge tells me it was not warmer globally during the MWP (maybe in some regions it was) than the past 14 years of climate data (say from 2000 to today), let’s just assume you are correct.

If you are, then that just proves GW can happening and strengthens the case for GW today.

Do you dispute that it got much warming than the MWP during the PETM and end-Permian warmings? Perhaps that’s your point…that it is impossible for the climate to get any hotter than the MWP (or the amount of warming you say happened).

All I can say to that is that others (who are doing research in paleoclimatology) say differently.

Re margins of error mentioned in my last post, here is a graph that shows those (in gray). Notice that the highest level the margins of error get are still lower than the temp by 2000:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...es/proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png

But if you want to say the MWP was warmer than today on a global basis, then fine. That just proves GW all the more. AND it was a lot warmer than the MWP and today during the PETM and end-Permian warmings.

Here is a graph covering the PETM (narrow spike before the Eocene. Note that the Eocene gets up to nearly the same level (and much hotter than today – alligators and palm trees in the arctic), but it didn’t do nearly as much harm to life since it happened over many millions of years and life had time to adapt, while the PETM happened over 1000s of years and what’s happening today is happening over a couple 100 years:



And one covering the end-Permian:


We need to get out of “minor” climate variations of the Holocene, such as the MWP, and realize we are entering a new climate regime of the Anthropocene in which the global average temp is projected to increase by 6C (we are now only at a 0.8C increase) within 100 to 200 years IF we fail to mitigate, and there is already about 2C warming in the pipes (due to the long lag time for the current GHG emissions to play out in the warming) even if we drastically mitigate – at this point we can only cut our losses and perhaps stave of really bad conditions for life.

 

[vz71]

As statisticians and scientists will gladly point out, we live in a stochastic (probabilistic) world. People take measurements in all sorts of scientific fields AND give them “margins of error” or “confidence intervals” around which they are 95% or 90% or 99% confident that true points lie.

So what you will get is a point (the reading), then a plus or minus factor at which the scientist is (usually) 95% confident. That means there is still a 5% probability the scientist could be wrong and the actual God-only-knows truth falls above or below that confidence interval.

So there is a 5% probability that we have warmed a great deal more than scientists are telling us or we have not warmed.

As for me and my house we will serve the Lord by being prudent (expecting the worst, but hoping for the best) and take measures to mitigate AGW.

Others can do whatever they please. As they say, it’s a free country. And even if they do put modest fees on fossil fuels – which seems very doubtful – people can still emit as much as they want paying those fees.

I feel sorry for the younger and unborn generations if the scientists are correct or are underestimating the problem of AGW, but c’est la mort. Not much I can do about it, except my own pidding 60%+ reductions from my 1990 GHG emissions, which won’t help the situation much if no one else wants to join it.

The graphs do not indicate any margin of error.

 

[lynnvinc]

The graphs do not indicate any margin of error.

I’m sure you could find some with the margins of error.

Of course instrumental data is more accurate (or do you have problems with Mr. Fahrenheit?) than the proxy data so the margins of error will not be as great as for proxy data…

All I know is that by 1995 the first studies were coming out that had reached 95% confidence (the .05 on the null, .04 for winter temps) that AGW was happening. Even now the reports, such as the IPCC, do not claim absolute 100% certainty, only a high level of confidence. Which means all the skeptic might be right on. There’s a less than 5% chance they are, so I guess if people want to take the chance that AGW is not real and not happening, then go for it. I’m just not a gambler or risk-taker.

And let’s face it God knows it with 100% certainty and He knows best

 

[Ridgerunner]

And let’s face it God knows it with 100% certainty and He knows best

Are we now saying that God supports the MMGW theory and making utility bills “skyrocket”? Are we really?