Click pic to embiggen
The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these changes are attributed to very small changes in the Earth’s orbit changing the amount of solar energy the Earth receives.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
Certain facts about Earths climate are not in dispute:
* The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
* Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.
Boring. Been there, done that.
Why can’t we post something more interesting like how Juan Williams firing from NPR conclusively proves that Liberals are far less tolerant of free speech and open mindedness than conservatives?
[Already done]
Israel imitating the Nazis: Gives Uranium-laced fruit juice to workers at nuclear plant to see what happens.
So the Vikings and their gas guzzling longboats are to blame for the medieval warm period? If CO2 levels are twice as high as any other time in recent history… well, why hasn’t the climate changed dramatically? We’ve been in a warm period for the last couple centuries and it doesn’t seem to be accelerating or decelerating. It’s not the first time in history that the earth has warmed enough to melt the glaciers (or even the ice caps) on it’s own.
The fact that we aren’t seeing rapid, widespread climate change as a result of industrialization seems to suggest that the connection between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is weaker than expected… But what do I know, I’m just an electrical engineer. Only climatologists and politicians have brains large enough to discuss climatology.
#3 Most engineers I know are really crappy at stats. Good at math, maybe, but wouldn’t know a trend if it came up and bit them on the ass.
“Certain facts about Earths climate are not in dispute:” Oh but they are. First one s experimentally proven wrong.
*”The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.” – Check NASA own data from satellite temperature measurements 1990-2006. Experimental proof that CO2 IN EARTH ATMOSPHERE does not act as greenhouse gas. Raising concentration of CO2 yields greater heat radiation from the atmosphere(Why? – because Earth atmosphere is much more than just CO2. The whole system reacts differently than expected in 19th century).
*”Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels.” – Maybe some real greenhouse gases, but it have been proven that for millions of years those same ice cores show rise in CO2 levels following (not causing) rise in temperature. With “small” lag of about 700 years. Yes for solar activity (if googling: Be 11 traces this and record is perfect, even right now in 21st century. Earth heating is directly proportional to it).
You will still freeze your ass off this winter I predict.
#5 You’re talking about the GISS studies led by Lacis and Schmidt? I am just guessing you didn’t actually do your homework on that one, did you?
The big scare of anthropogenic global warming is over… didn’t you get the memo?
Ummm, it’s called an anomaly. When we have another few million years worth of data to study maybe it will make sense or maybe it will be just that: anomalous.
Bill, yep. In general people living in places in temperate latitudes like the US should get more snow during the winter. Also, better storms which means more snow days for kids.
This shows a rapid increase in CO2 since 1950. There hasn’t been a rapid and large increase in temperature so isn’t this evidence for calming down a little?
#9: I remember cold to very cold winters in the 1960s and 70s in the Midwest, with unusually heavy rain and snow. In the 1980s and more recent times, it’s been warmer.
I predict that more snow days will mean that parents with kids will be driven nuts. Consider buying snow shovels in the near future.
LDA, what constitutes a rapid and large increase in temperature? 5 degrees in 10 years. 2 degrees in 20 years? 1 degree in 15 years?
The reality is that climate is a huge system and it’s difficult to predict cause and effect. CO2 levels are higher are extremely high. It takes decades for effects to show.
Honestly, you’ll be dead before the outcome of this really hits home. So what do you care, right? As long as it doesn’t affect your standard of living it’s not your problem.
Like watching a bunch of inbred puppies in a round room trying to find a corner to piss in…. Keep up the good work JCD.
Sorry folks, CO2 as a greenhouse gas has nearly run out of capacity.
IR capture is log not linear, and CO2 is topped out for influence. You can double CO2 and still have very little gain in heat retention.
fargonaz, we have 800,000 years of data on atmospheric gas levels like CO2 and nitrogen. But I’m with you. When we have another 800,000 years of data then we’ll know more.
@#13
Why would you immediately assume we don’t care about the environment?
It’s the political element to all this that bugs me. Whether it’s the religious right or the greens… they both have a history of using scare tactics and ignoring/ostracizing opposing arguments.
You know what I have only heard a tiny bit about in the news is that the ozone hole that was going to bring doom and destruction to the entire planet seems to have been mended. Is that anthropogenic, too? If so, Yeah us!!!
What? “Meanwhile, some scientists say the environmental triumph of a recovering ozone layer could have a troubling side effect: boosting global warming” (http://bit.ly/aBgh17)
Poop. Ya just can’t win.
#17 I honestly think people don’t care because it’s not going to affect them personally. I think that’s reality. Humans are like that.
It’s obvious that we’re having an affect on the environment but I also wish Al Gore would quietly go away. But that would make for poor theatre.
There are economic realities and opportunities around the changing world climate and energy efficiency. The world is changing and people will adjust over time. Look at the world wide decline in birth rate. It took 2-3 generations for behavior to change – it’ll take that long with climate and energy issues as well.
Over 1 or 2˚C world average in 50 years. Which could be a 2˚C increase in the coldest parts (still well below freezing) or evenly distributed. If the temperature rises in Antarctica 10˚C it is still far below freezing, why should that cause melting?
“It takes decades for effects to show.”
The graphs (not this one, it doesn’t show temp. ) seem to show CO2 and temp. changes fairly close together. Doesn’t this indicate natural temp. fluctuation leads/ follows/ coincides with natural CO2 increases? The fact that there has been a huge increase in CO2 but not temperature suggests that the natural increase in CO2 probably comes from the temp. increase not the other way around. If so you can not assume (man made) temp. will follow man made CO2.
“…As long as it doesn’t affect your standard of living…”
Don’t be a presumptive pompous asshole. I do care. The fact that you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t care illustrates that you are a zealot.
If extreme measures are taken, that will effect the standard of living of the poorest people in the short term. There are already people starving to death unnecessarily (there is enough food just not the will to transport it), those that are on the brink will join them if the wrong measures are taken (rezoning of farm land / water buybacks / ethanol production) and the schemes that are proposed currently will benefit the small percentage of the populous that are already in control of most of the resources of the world and will not reduce CO2 output because there will always be those able to afford the ‘credits’ (mainly because they print the money).
P.S. I will not make the assumption that you don’t care what happens to them because you haven’t had a chance to offer your opinion. Maybe you could show the same courtesy to others.
#20 LDA (Me)
Should have been addressed to…
#13 Someone Else
When someone proposes a solution that doesn’t involve a multi-trillion dollar trading scheme, I’ll look at it.
We all know that peer-reviewed science in UnAmerican. It doesn’t involve a minimum of four confessional committees or review by skeptical analysts. The latter being qualified by virtue of the size of their readership.
Or their hoped-for readership.
LDA, that’s Mr Pompous Asshole to you. Am I stopping you from talking? Apparently not.
You did put your finger on one important social item. This will, as usual, affect poor people and developing nations the most. As usual, life is never fair.
From a technical point of view, what is most interesting is overall ocean temperatures and changes in current patterns. It’s already having significant effects in the arctic. These are interesting times for climatologists.
Doubling CO2, and despite the trick of starting the Y axis labels away from zero this hasn’t happened yet, raises temperatures about 1 degree celsius. To get the disaster scenarios, you have to believe that CO2 causes positive feedback in warming, instead of the ordinary negative feedbacks we see all the time.
And this data is from the agency that went to the moon how many times and couldn’t detect water?
And how much was the CO2 levels before that chart starts?
Just a wonder.
Cursor_
Lets suggest something..
The evaluation material we have NOW, is day to day, Month to month, year to year…
Older data(over 100 years ago) tends to be when something strange happened.
Older data(over 1000 years) tends to be from EARTH samples. Ice/trees, and other ways. but they ARE NOT on a yearly basis.
We are measuring drops of rain water, to decide what the ocean is made of.
Yes we can CLEAN the rain water, but WHAT is added on its way to the ocean.
I WOULD LIKE, a full listing of chemicals in these tests. BACK in the 70’s it WASNT CO2, it was sulfur dioxide(acid rain). So, HOW did a change from 1 chemical to another HAPPEN?
On another point.
from the Early 1900’s until NOW. USA corps have cut MUCH of the pollutants from the beginning and BEFORE the 1900 century mark. In a strange way. WE SHIPPED IT to other nations. Does this REALLY cut pollution? NOW you also know where OUR JOBS went.
Hard to imagine how billions of people busily dumping junk into the atmosphere for decades and decades wouldn’t have at least _some_ kind of effect, eventually. The planet is a pretty darn big place though.
I heard it said that “if it is the fault of the stars, there’s nothing we can do. If it’s caused by humans, though, then it is SHAMEFUL!” But wait a minute!…we came from those stars, too, didn’t we? Like Sagan romantically said, “We are made of star-stuff.”
So, perhaps in some ways we are just another Force of Nature, like all those other squiggling things, insects, plants that take over your lawn, etc.
Oops. Forgot to add a quote I heard somewhere:
“A lawn is Nature under totalitarian control.”