AGW +2C? +6C? It has happened before.

[rushmc 18]

It has happened fast and not so fast. So, what really is unique about what is happeing today? Ice core study perspectives

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/01/ice-core-data-shows-the-much-feared-2c-climate-tipping-point-has-already-occurred/

Quote

Summary
When considering the scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions, it is particularly useful to look at climate change from a longer term, century by century or a millennial perspective.

The profile of our current Holocene epoch with temperature averages century by century set against the maximum of the past Eemian epoch and the predictions of Catastrophic Global Warming alarmists this century.



The much vaunted and much feared “fatal” tipping point of +2°C would only bring Global temperatures to the level of the very congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.

If it were possible to reach the “potentially horrendous” level of +6°C postulated by Warmists, by the inclusion of major positive feedbacks from additional water vapor in the atmosphere, that extreme level would still only bring temperatures to about the level of the previous Eemian maximum.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

I'm with Mr. Freeman

[SkyDekker 1,133]

Well you have at least one other idiot on your side. How does one expect to get a decent government when you elect absolute idiots to populate it?

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/01/man-cant-change-climate-only-god-can-says-senate-chair-of-environment-public-works/

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Well you have at least one other idiot on your side. How does one expect to get a decent government when you elect absolute idiots to populate it?

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/01/man-cant-change-climate-only-god-can-says-senate-chair-of-environment-public-works/

So you yet again do not address the content.
And you take a page from Amazon in your reply technic

way to go

See the attachment

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,133]

Rush, I have given up on replying to you on subject. You will twist and turn and move the goal posts so many times, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Just happened to see that story and figured it fit here.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Rush, I have given up on replying to you on subject. You will twist and turn and move the goal posts so many times, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Just happened to see that story and figured it fit here.

Sure you figured that

I think only idiots would not agree with him

Unless you believe in the Great and Powerful Oz!

Hows that for pushing your style back at ya?

BTW
The reason you are giving up is because your ass has been handed back to you some many times you are not sure you can keep your pants on any more

But
If you want to get back on topic

If it has happened in the past (and through scientific research we believe it has) how can you say with any confidense that most of this cycle is not just normal?

It is not happeing faster (one argument used)
We do not have higher CO2 levels than ever before (opps there goes another one)
Increases in temp (if there really are any) are far below any warmists predictions

So tell us oh smartest one on the sight, how can all this be?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Coreeece 2]

SkyDekker

How does one expect to get a decent government when you elect absolute idiots to populate it?

So...you're from Toronto, eh?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 2,416]

>If it has happened in the past (and through scientific research we believe it has) how
>can you say with any confidense that most of this cycle is not just normal?

Just because things have more than one cause does not eliminate other causes. If a friend of yours was run over by a car and killed, the driver could not use the defense "but other people have died in the past, so the fact that I hit him with my car can't have anything to do with his death."

In the case of climate, a great many factors have caused warming and cooling in the past. Now we are causing it.

>If it has happened in the past (and through scientific research we believe it has) how
>can you say with any confidense that most of this cycle is not just normal?

Because the rise in temperature matches what we expect from the forcing.

>It is not happeing faster

It is indeed happening faster.
============================
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/
Today's Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years

Climate change is occurring 10 to 100 times faster than in the past and ecosystems will find it hard to adjust

By Anne C. Mulkern
August 2, 2013

The climate is changing at a pace that's far faster than anything seen in 65 million years, a report out of Stanford University says.

The amount of global temperature increase and the short time over which it's occurred create a change in velocity that outstrips previous periods of warming or cooling, the scientists said in research published in today's Science.

If global temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, the rate will be about 10 times faster than what's been seen before, said Christopher Field, one of the scientists on the study. Keeping the temperature increase that small will require aggressive mitigation, he said.

If the Earth stays on its current course without reversing greenhouse gas emissions, and global temperatures rise 5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is possible, the pace of change will be at least 50 times and possibly 100 times swifter than what's occurred in the past, Field said.
==============

>We do not have higher CO2 levels than ever before

You mean, like since back before Man? Yes, about a million years ago they were higher. The seas were also 100 feet higher.

But that doesn't matter, right? You just claimed CO2 doesn't have anything to do with warming. Or are you twisting?

>Increases in temp (if there really are any) are far below any warmists predictions

No, they're not. They match the predictions quite well. It is interesting to compare the IPCC's predictions (and the predictions of deniers) to see which is the more accurate; results below.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions_500.gif

[lawrocket 3]

Bill. As j have mentioned previously, linking to skeptical science is the equal and opposite of linking to wattsupwiththat.

And to suggest climate change occurring faster than at any time in the last 65 million years basically is an insult to history. Then again, if history itself can be obfuscated and rewritten...

Which goes back to the definition of "Climate change.". The political definition. Is that climate change is man made climate change. It being thus obfuscated, true. Man has never had the impact on climate as man has had over the last 150 years. So climate change like this has never occurred. Ever. Because climate change means anthropogenic climate change.

It is why there is the term "Climate change denier." it creates the assumption among the ignorant that those clowns won't even admit that climate changes. Of course humans are causing all climate change. Climate change means human caused.

And those Assholes at skepticalscience have battled for years to to make the terms mean the same thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,416]

>And to suggest climate change occurring faster than at any time in the last 65 million
>years basically is an insult to history.

OK. When has it changed more rapidly?

> As j have mentioned previously, linking to skeptical science is the equal and opposite
>of linking to wattsupwiththat.

Then do the math yourself. The IPCC SAR, published in 1996, predicted a 2C rise by 2100 for its median model. That's .019C a year. That means we'd expect to see a .32C rise from 1996 to 2014. The actual rise has been .35C from 1996 to 2014.

>It is why there is the term "Climate change denier." it creates the assumption among
>the ignorant that those clowns won't even admit that climate changes.

Many climate change deniers (type 1) are indeed denying that the climate changes. We see it every time there is a cold winter.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>And to suggest climate change occurring faster than at any time in the last 65 million
>years basically is an insult to history.

OK. When has it changed more rapidly?

The 8k even saw temperatures in Greenland cool in excess of 3 degrees C in two decades. In two decades. Sorry, Bill, but what we have seen has not even been close to that. Not even close.

I just did a quick search. And rather that quote some denier site, take a look at this. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data5.html

Note the climate change was the result of climate change. Rapid, extreme climate change that saw a whole ice sheet collapse in the span of two or three thousand years. By climate change I mean the scirific definition of it, meaning "the climate granted." And rapidly. I don't think humans were involved.

The evidence is rather convincing that this event occurred. It has been generally accepted that this event occurred, unto a bunch of deniers came in and said that climate has never changed rapidly in the last 64 million years.

Yes. I will gladly call your quoted paper the work of deniers with some agenda to line their pockets.

They could have written, "we haven't seen climate change like this since human civilization began." okay. Fair enough. It would mean arguing the MWP didn't exist but that argument has been made for the last fifteen years as a necessity. But at least I see their arguments. "We don't have data suggesting a worldwide event because we don't have records from. The Southern Hemisphere."

Quote

Then do the math yourself. The IPCC SAR, published in 1996, predicted a 2C rise by 2100 for its median model. That's .019C a year. That means we'd expect to see a .32C rise from 1996 to 2014. The actual rise has been .35C from 1996 to 2014.

Climate models are not predictions. Remember a couple of years ago where I did the math. Mann published a hypothetical showing massive warming by 2036. And then he stated his assumptions used for it. I showed that his assumptions on think like insolation had never before been recorded. That he took numbers tk engineer a result.

go back from 1996. What do the models show. You have insisted that NASA said that 2014 was the warmest year ever. NASA and Schmidt quickly admitted that there was less than 50% chance that this was the case.

But the first message stuck. We don't even know what the temperature from last year was within the significance of the measurement as compared to other years. Ask Hadley what the warmest year was. Hadley is nice because they don't conjure data where no measurements exist.

I'd search some more for stuff but Comcast is having big time problems. I'd like to look at woodfortrees and see what the data shows. I trust your statement about 96-14 but I'd also like to verify it. (note that 94-98 would have shown an amazingly high trend)

Quote

Many climate change deniers (type 1) are indeed denying that the climate changes.

The Senate passed a resolution with the type 1 deniers like I hope saying that climate changes. And they were roundly criticized for their use of the term "Climate change." These type 1 deniers admitted it. do you deny this, as well?

Rhetoric trumps fact and reason. Hence my distaste for WUWT And skepticalscience. Neither has any interest is seeing the other side's points. And both would rather put out rhetorical argumentative bullshit than show a measured approach that seeks to balance. Skeptical science is devoted to the same thing as WUWT. Leading their own circle jerk. Devoted tk trashing the other side with cherry picked info.

It's why I like woodfortrees. No arguments. No rhetoric. Just see for yourself.

Quote

We see it every time there is a cold winter.

And we see it every time there is a rainstorm. Did you know that the Nepal earthquake has people blaming climate change? Did you know that there are people (like Mann) who claim that the immense snowfall in Mass was due to 34 degree ocean water being 8 degrees above normal? There is not a weather event (or lack of a weather event) that is not being blamed on "Climate change."

Both sides have gone so far as to be repugnant.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>And to suggest climate change occurring faster than at any time in the last 65 million
>years basically is an insult to history.

OK. When has it changed more rapidly?

January 24th, 32841973 BC

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cvfd1399 0]

turtlespeed

***>And to suggest climate change occurring faster than at any time in the last 65 million
>years basically is an insult to history.

OK. When has it changed more rapidly?

January 24th, 32841973 BC

Holy shit your on a roll this morning!!

[turtlespeed 212]

Here is something interesting.

I wonder if the usual suspects will argue with scientists from MIT.

Quote

Exactly why our planet occasionally cools down has taken more than a century to work out. Now we know that cyclic gravitational tugs from Jupiter and Saturn periodically elongate Earth’s orbit, and this effect combines from time to time with slow changes in the direction and degree of Earth’s tilt that are caused by the gravity of our large moon. Consequently, summer sunlight around the poles is reduced, and high-­latitude regions such as Alaska, northern Canada, and Siberia turn cold enough to preserve snow year-round. This constant snow cover reflects a great deal of sunlight, cooling things down even more, and a new ice age begins. Naturally, this process does not occur with anything like the speed portrayed in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but geological and other evidence shows that it’s happened at least four times.

Quote

http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

turtlespeed

***>And to suggest climate change occurring faster than at any time in the last 65 million
>years basically is an insult to history.

OK. When has it changed more rapidly?

January 24th, 32841973 BC

But seriously . . .

Quote

Timescales of events described as 'abrupt' may vary dramatically. Changes recorded in the climate of Greenland at the end of the Younger Dryas, as measured by ice-cores, imply a sudden warming of +10°C within a timescale of a few years.[6] Other abrupt changes are the +4 °C on Greenland 11,270 years ago[7] or the abrupt +6 °C warming 22 000 years ago on Antarctica.

Quote

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,635]

turtlespeed

Here is something interesting.

I wonder if the usual suspects will argue with scientists from MIT.

Quote

Exactly why our planet occasionally cools down has taken more than a century to work out. Now we know that cyclic gravitational tugs from Jupiter and Saturn periodically elongate Earth’s orbit, and this effect combines from time to time with slow changes in the direction and degree of Earth’s tilt that are caused by the gravity of our large moon. Consequently, summer sunlight around the poles is reduced, and high-­latitude regions such as Alaska, northern Canada, and Siberia turn cold enough to preserve snow year-round. This constant snow cover reflects a great deal of sunlight, cooling things down even more, and a new ice age begins. Naturally, this process does not occur with anything like the speed portrayed in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but geological and other evidence shows that it’s happened at least four times.

***http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

Yes, if "now" goes back 300+ years. Isaac Newton's "Principia" (Vol 3) predicts exactly this effect. Cambridge Mass is just 300 years behind Cambridge England.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

***Here is something interesting.

I wonder if the usual suspects will argue with scientists from MIT.

Quote

Exactly why our planet occasionally cools down has taken more than a century to work out. Now we know that cyclic gravitational tugs from Jupiter and Saturn periodically elongate Earth’s orbit, and this effect combines from time to time with slow changes in the direction and degree of Earth’s tilt that are caused by the gravity of our large moon. Consequently, summer sunlight around the poles is reduced, and high-­latitude regions such as Alaska, northern Canada, and Siberia turn cold enough to preserve snow year-round. This constant snow cover reflects a great deal of sunlight, cooling things down even more, and a new ice age begins. Naturally, this process does not occur with anything like the speed portrayed in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but geological and other evidence shows that it’s happened at least four times.

***http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

Yes, if "now" goes back 300+ years. Isaac Newton's "Principia" (Vol 3) predicts exactly this effect. Cambridge Mass is just 300 years behind Cambridge England.

Prediction is not fact, or, maybe is it in your reality? That would certainly explain some things.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

turtlespeed

******>And to suggest climate change occurring faster than at any time in the last 65 million
>years basically is an insult to history.

OK. When has it changed more rapidly?

January 24th, 32841973 BC

But seriously . . .

Quote

Timescales of events described as 'abrupt' may vary dramatically. Changes recorded in the climate of Greenland at the end of the Younger Dryas, as measured by ice-cores, imply a sudden warming of +10°C within a timescale of a few years.[6] Other abrupt changes are the +4 °C on Greenland 11,270 years ago[7] or the abrupt +6 °C warming 22 000 years ago on Antarctica.

Quote

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

Yeah. These are just the recent ones that haven't had all the evidence destroyed by natural processes. There is pretty strong evidence cell that the end of the last Ice Age had some pretty abrupt and extreme ping ponging.

Back then, a person living in a spruce forest ten miles inland as a ten year old would find herself on the beach at the age of forty would during where all those ten foot Pines came from and why all the spruce trees are dead. But happy because she remembers how much colder it was back then.

These are the sort of changes that happened. Abrupt climate change that people had nothing to do with. In the interest of building fear, scientists (who in so many other branches have a profound respect for history. Really, if you want an education in history, talk to a scientist. Someone like kallend, who can explain to you how it is that without folks like Goldschmidt in the early part of the last century zapping things with x-rays to see what the structure is like that we wouldn't have blue pills giving us erections).

When a political end cannot be reconciled with history it is best to ignore history. In climate science we see much of that. Established history is ignored. It is outright denied. The 8ka event? That is just one of them.

It would be as if volcanologists said after Mt. St Helen's blew, "the world hasn't seen an eruption this big in at least the last 10k years!" To which people might say, "huh? What about Krakatoa? That was only a hundred years ago. Or Tambora? That one put earth into a two year winter."

We didn't t hear that because there was nothing to be gained. No reason to exaggerate. Just Loom at what was happening. Bad enough. Now we have to tel people how bad things are because people's own senses aren't telling them. "The ocean is rising quickly!" hmm. I was just at the beach in Cayucos. Looks the same as it did fifteen years ago. And that was at high tide."

But it's hotter now. Really? It's been so subtle I haven't noticed it.

Now the focus is on climate change. All to take subjective things "extreme" events, "abrupt" changes, and give opinions a position of objective fact. This is the language of lawyering. I hate it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 212]

Never let a good disaster go to waste.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

Prediction is fact if it has been verified and repeated. We know for a fact where the moon will be in 30 days. We used that sort of knowledge to get there.

This is the crucial difference between a prediction and a projection. Computer models are the latter. The climate modeling community has done a fine job of obfuscating the difference between the two. Projections aren't testable. They aren't supposed to be. It's like making a projection of what kids would look like from two parents. You just don't know.

Models are useful. No doubt. They are useful. They are used all the time in economics. The Office of Management and Budget puts out projections for a living. And because they are based on myriad assumptions they aren't ever right. Maybe they are off by a couple of hundred billion dollars here and there. The same models that projected a balanced budget by 2010 due to the increasing revenues of the amazing economy the US had.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 212]

lawrocket

Prediction is fact if it has been verified and repeated. We know for a fact where the moon will be in 30 days. We used that sort of knowledge to get there.

This is the crucial difference between a prediction and a projection. Computer models are the latter. The climate modeling community has done a fine job of obfuscating the difference between the two. Projections aren't testable. They aren't supposed to be. It's like making a projection of what kids would look like from two parents. You just don't know.

Models are useful. No doubt. They are useful. They are used all the time in economics. The Office of Management and Budget puts out projections for a living. And because they are based on myriad assumptions they aren't ever right. Maybe they are off by a couple of hundred billion dollars here and there. The same models that projected a balanced budget by 2010 due to the increasing revenues of the amazing economy the US had.

Umm, Jerry, are you telling this for my benefit, or others? It feels a lot like you are preaching to the choir.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

turtlespeed

***Prediction is fact if it has been verified and repeated. We know for a fact where the moon will be in 30 days. We used that sort of knowledge to get there.

This is the crucial difference between a prediction and a projection. Computer models are the latter. The climate modeling community has done a fine job of obfuscating the difference between the two. Projections aren't testable. They aren't supposed to be. It's like making a projection of what kids would look like from two parents. You just don't know.

Models are useful. No doubt. They are useful. They are used all the time in economics. The Office of Management and Budget puts out projections for a living. And because they are based on myriad assumptions they aren't ever right. Maybe they are off by a couple of hundred billion dollars here and there. The same models that projected a balanced budget by 2010 due to the increasing revenues of the amazing economy the US had.

Umm, Jerry, are you telling this for my benefit, or others? It feels a lot like you are preaching to the choir.

For all to read. You just happen to be the trigger

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[cvfd1399 0]

I appreciate your posts, I did not know we actually had anyone here that was on the inside and had actual in depth knowledge, and had done actual work on it. Not just posting links and copying opinions others wrote.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm the furthest from the inside on this. But I've taken a lost of Tim e over the last decade or so trying to learn what i can from it. This was motivated because guys like billion and kallend are so damned competent and smart that I had the urge to learn what I could.

The more I learned the more my mind was changed from Type 2 denier. But as time has gone on I'm seeing the polarization is such that it's like the alarmists are arguing that 2+2=5 and deniers yelling that it equals 3. And neither side wanting to say that it might be wrong.

I've looked at it and the math says, yep, CO2 has a warming effect. And then i look at the uncertainty of what the effect is and think, nope, neither side can accurately predict anything. Both convinced e themselves that they do. And realclimate and skepticalscience and wattsupwiththat are all choirs preaching to each other.

What has suffered most is science. It's been perverted by both sides. One side denies the capabilities of the basic science. The other side publicly denies the limitations of it.

The latter side has had so much trouble that the catch term has changed from global warming to anthropogenic global warming to climate change to the new phrase now, "Climate disruption." the latter two are subjective. An D the latter side links every tornado or storm now as being caused by climate change. (Recall Sandy. So many called it the result of climate change. But denied history to do so because the political narrative is lost if reference to other storms n the past is made).

Then the deniers jump in and get the basic science all wrong. Because they are looking at data and working backwards with it. To justify their positions.

It's politics. Science is an adjunct for politics. And politics an adjunct for science. The whole thing makes sense because science doesn't care who is right or wrong. It's just a process a D doesn't tell people who to do with it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,416]

>I wonder if the usual suspects will argue with scientists from MIT.

I won't. Will you? Further in the article:

"There’s little question that global warming is happening. Climate data show that Earth’s average temperature has risen at least 0.7  oC (1.3 oF) over the 20th century. Temperature increases over the 21st century will probably be two and a half to five times as large,because greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide allow sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere but make it harder for outgoing infrared radiation to escape. . . .Even if the rate of growth could be moderated enough to stabilize levels at about 550 ppmv, average temperatures might well rise by about 5 oC–with devastating effects for us earthlings, such as rising sea levels and dramatic changes in weather patterns."

If you've now accepted that, excellent. (And yes, Milankovitch cycles happen as well and drive climate on a long timescale.)