Human Induced Climate Change is Real:

[paddoboy]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Climate Change: How Do We Know?

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).

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 climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.


Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20thcentury and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

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. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that 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 greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Global Temperature Rise

• 
  
  The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

Warming Oceans

• 
  
  The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.6

Shrinking Ice Sheets

• 
  
  The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.7

Glacial Retreat

• 
  
  Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.8
  
  
  Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.
  

Decreased Snow Cover

• 

Sea Level Rise

• 
  
  Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year.10
  
  
  Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise
  

11


Image: Visualization of the 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum, the lowest on record

12
13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.15,16

Declining Arctic Sea Ice

• 
  
  Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.11
  
  
  Extreme Events
  • 
    
    The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events
  Ocean Acidification
  • 
    
    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Take your nice shiny NASA data and get behind the Trump train.

Vive la résistance!

(Trump quadruples down with constipation?)

 

[sculptor]

with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago

WOW
7,000 years ago
amazing

...............................
author?

 

[paddoboy]

WOW
7,000 years ago
amazing

...............................
author?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[sculptor]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Yeh, I already went there and could not find the name of the deranged author who wrote: "...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...."
It seems that most published data do not agree with either of those two claims.

He/she(?) seems to have a rather peculiar perspective...........ergo searching for more from the same author could shed some light on what, on the face of it, seems insane(or at least poorly educated).

Peculiar claims from anonymous authors leave me wondering why they write what they wrote.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Yeh, I already went there and could not find the name of the deranged author who wrote: "...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...."
It seems that most published data do not agree with either of those two claims.

He/she(?) seems to have a rather peculiar perspective...........ergo searching for more from the same author could shed some light on what, on the face of it, seems insane(or at least poorly educated).

Peculiar claims from anonymous authors leave me wondering why they write what they wrote.

fyi
my data indicates a time log of the americas continent fossil record
transient time data suggesting a thaw of considerable time where migratory fossil evidence shows probable that parts of the americas were still in an ice age state while other parts were in sub tropical.

if you need the source post so and i will see if i can dig it up
it is atleast 15 to 20 years old and online
so may if still up only be in cached form.
im not sure if i could find it.

e.g
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/humans-didn-t-wait-melting-ice-settle-americas

 

[sculptor]

Rainbow
From your link:

Intriguingly, the researchers found more southern bison using the corridor to move north than northern bison coming south, perhaps because the lower reaches of the corridor became passable while the north was still frozen. If that’s case, it’s likely people did the same, flipping the traditional script about the corridor on its head. “We’ve always historically looked at the corridor as the way that people migrated from Alaska down into the interior of the United States,” says Waters, who excavated Page-Ladson and several other pre-Clovis sites. “But now, we’re seeing that it’s the complete opposite. It’s actually a corridor by which people are traveling back up to the north.” That could explain why fluted points in northern Alaska appear to be younger than those discovered in the lower 48, Ives says: It’s likely that Clovis technology developed in the south, and people carried it north.

degreed in archaeology---never was a fan of "clovis first"---which led to some rather interesting discussions/arguments

also a solutrean hypothesis and bolide impact proponent

............................................
that being said
end of ice age at 7 kyrs bp and dawn of civilization at 7 kyrs bp
is rubbish

 

[Schmelzer]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Nice wording. "For millenia, atmospheric carbone dioxide has never been above this line". Sounds impressive, not? "For millenia" sounds for the average person like a metaphor for "Forever".

In fact, the range of time had to be chosen in a careful way to create this impression. In the past, there have been 20% and higher CO2 levels, thus, much much higher than in the picture and much much higher than now, and life was fine.

Global Temperature Rise

Nicely combined with a picture from desert, instead of a rainy forest. Despite the fact that the prediction is also "more rain".

Sea Level Rise
Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year.

In any way, it is in no way impressive. The image was carefully chosen here too, creating the impression of a town which is about to be captured by the floods.

Extreme Events
The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events

More rain is, in the average, good for agriculture. Less rain would be a problem almost everywhere. More rain maybe a problem for the particular crops used in a given region today, it may require building some infrastructure to handle it, but with the natural adaptation it is certainly positive. But in the alarmist picture, more rain appears only in its most catastrophic aspect - more intense rainfall events.

Just to clarify - I neither question the thesis that there is a climate change now that CO2 increase caused by humans is part of the explanation. What I question is the alarmism, the manipulation of the people by suggesting such a climate change is catastrophic, a danger for the survival of humanity or even life on Earth or so. In reality, some amount of warming would be even useful in the long-range, and the time scale is large enough in comparison with the time scale human technology changes today in serious ways and the time scale of replacement of human-build infrastructure.

 

[paddoboy]

Just to clarify - I neither question the thesis that there is a climate change now that CO2 increase caused by humans is part of the explanation. What I question is the alarmism, the manipulation of the people by suggesting such a climate change is catastrophic, a danger for the survival of humanity or even life on Earth or so.

Just to clarify, perhaps you need to start having a talk to inhabitants of some Pacific Islands just for starters.
I'm not going to argue with your interpretations about what is or is not happening, other then to say that if any doubt at all exists, whether on the human induced part of climate change, or any doubt on severity, we should logically err on the side of caution. The "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" attitude is selfish and criminal to say the least.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nice wording. "For millenia, atmospheric carbone dioxide has never been above this line". Sounds impressive, not? "For millenia" sounds for the average person like a metaphor for "Forever".

In fact, the range of time had to be chosen in a careful way to create this impression. In the past, there have been 20% and higher CO2 levels, thus, much much higher than in the picture and much much higher than now, and life was fine.



Nicely combined with a picture from desert, instead of a rainy forest. Despite the fact that the prediction is also "more rain".


In any way, it is in no way impressive. The image was carefully chosen here too, creating the impression of a town which is about to be captured by the floods.

More rain is, in the average, good for agriculture. Less rain would be a problem almost everywhere. More rain maybe a problem for the particular crops used in a given region today, it may require building some infrastructure to handle it, but with the natural adaptation it is certainly positive. But in the alarmist picture, more rain appears only in its most catastrophic aspect - more intense rainfall events.

Just to clarify - I neither question the thesis that there is a climate change now that CO2 increase caused by humans is part of the explanation. What I question is the alarmism, the manipulation of the people by suggesting such a climate change is catastrophic, a danger for the survival of humanity or even life on Earth or so. In reality, some amount of warming would be even useful in the long-range, and the time scale is large enough in comparison with the time scale human technology changes today in serious ways and the time scale of replacement of human-build infrastructure.

I can understand that you wish to push back against alarmist rhetoric. But to do so in disregard for observable facts, only stands to generate more alarm, as people can see the denial in your words only further enhancing the tendency towards hysteria.
If more rain was the only problem and that rain was evenly spread in a "normal" way then sure you may have the starting of a point.
However it is not just a general increase in precipitation that is the concern. It is the extreme intensification of that precipitation as the water mass in the atmosphere clumps and forms dense systems. The sort of rain that delivers meters of water in a 12 hour period, wiping out a regions annual food production and leaving thousands now, millions later, with out accommodation, facing famine, or any ability to survive when their farmland is unable to produce a crop for the next season due to soil degradation and extreme financial hardship. Especially when you consider that the meter+ high flooding will most probably get worse every year to the point that abandoning the land is the only option.

Thus the scenaio of rapid agricultural adaptation fails the reality test.
It only takes a couple of major agriculture failures that allow no future certainty of future cropping and no crops will be planted due to the risk of losing it all....again.

In the space of less than 5 years the world could be facing extreme food security issues well beyond anything previously experienced. ( As reserves are depleted and arable land dissappears under severe flood water anually)

 

[iceaura]

More rain is, in the average, good for agriculture.

You've been corrected on that matter more times than you can count. And learned nothing.

But in the alarmist picture, more rain appears only in its most catastrophic aspect - more intense rainfall events.

Another false assertion.
Drop wordsn like "only", pay attention to physical facts in the future, avoid the loaded vocabulary of the US Republican propaganda feed, and you may someday be able post on this topic without making a fool of yourself.

Meanwhile, as responsible adults must turn and address: Most of the extra rain from AGW is likely to fall as increased severity of event, rather than increased frequency or extended season or longer duration or expanded net area or in any other manner providing a net benefit to global agriculture - that is the published, peer-reviewed, exhaustively investigated conclusion of the professional researchers into AGW's most likely effects.

What I question is the alarmism, the manipulation of the people by suggesting such a climate change is catastrophic, a danger for the survival of humanity or even life on Earth or so

You don't "question" anything - you deny and dismiss. Questioning would require information you do not possess.

For example: You just now - last few posts right here - denied that the extra rain expected from AGW is likely to fall as the most careful and reputable and evidence-backed research indicates it most likely will, and therefore harm human agriculture as such findings indicate it probably will. You didn't "question" any of those findings, apparently because you can't - you don't seem to know what they are, or from what basis of evidence they derived. You simply declared them to be false and/or misleading- "alarmist", "manipulation", etc.

and the time scale is large enough in comparison with the time scale human technology changes today in serious ways and the time scale of replacement of human-build infrastructure.

No, it isn't. Not if the published science is anywhere near correct in its findings.

btw: another example of the deterioration of language that marks the posts of the irrational and manipulated, when cornered. That quoted posting is gibberish as it stands - one must assume, guess, mentally revise, grant unusual benefit of doubt, etc, to reply to such posting as if it made sense.

 

[iceaura]

An issue worth separating from the general confusion of the typical climate change denier's claims and dismissals:

In the past, there have been 20% and higher CO2 levels, thus, much much higher than in the picture and much much higher than now, and life was fine

1) Once again you need a repetition of the correction of some idiocy you have repeatedly posted -> That post, and all similar claims or related arguments, is irrelevant - the rate of change, the rapidity of AGW, is where the threat lies.
2) Human life as we know it was not "fine" then. Human civilization did not exist. Agriculture did not exist. No human civilizations - and very few natural ecosystems - are known to have survived even a local climate change of this scale and speed.
3) The conditions under which "life was fine" under high atmospheric levels of CO2 in the past would be characteristic of disaster's aftemath from a present day human's point of view.

Nice wording. "For millenia, atmospheric carbone dioxide has never been above this line". Sounds impressive, not? "For millenia" sounds for the average person like a metaphor for "Forever".

For human civilization as we know it (agriculture based, etc), which has existed for millenia only, the millenium scale is a perfectly good and informative scale at which to evaluate the consequences of AGW. It can be and is used by experts and pros, making sense to laymen as well is another of its advantages.

Note that many of the predicted likely harms from AGW are rapidly incoming, have already crossed some of the identified bad tipping points, and are normally analyzed at a scale of centuries or even decades.

 

[Schmelzer]

Just to clarify, perhaps you need to start having a talk to inhabitants of some Pacific Islands just for starters.

I have seen the maps of actual increase/decrease of the sea water level, in some Pacific regions there is even a decrease.
https://news.ucar.edu/132639/uneven-rates-sea-level-rise-tied-climate-change


The unit is mm/year.

I can understand that you wish to push back against alarmist rhetoric. But to do so in disregard for observable facts, only stands to generate more alarm, as people can see the denial in your words only further enhancing the tendency towards hysteria.

A denial from my side exists only in your fantasy. What I question is the denial of positive effects.

If more rain was the only problem and that rain was evenly spread in a "normal" way then sure you may have the starting of a point.

No, I have a point even if the increase is unevenly spread and if there are some other problems. Because I do not deny any problems, but simply look at them applying a little bit common sense.

However it is not just a general increase in precipitation that is the concern. It is the extreme intensification of that precipitation as the water mass in the atmosphere clumps and forms dense systems. The sort of rain that delivers meters of water in a 12 hour period, wiping out a regions annual food production and leaving thousands now, millions later, with out accommodation, facing famine, or any ability to survive when their farmland is unable to produce a crop for the next season due to soil degradation and extreme financial hardship. Especially when you consider that the meter+ high flooding will most probably get worse every year to the point that abandoning the land is the only option.

Nice horror picture, but I'm not impressed. I'm actually living in a tropical region, and can support that, indeed, the rains are more heavy than I'm used to in Europe. But what follows? If there will be similar tropical temperatures in Europe, there will be also similar heavy rains. Would this be a serious problem? Not at all. I see here a Third World sewer system which is nonetheless used to it and does the job, on a Third World quality level, of course, but no real problem.

It only takes a couple of major agriculture failures that allow no future certainty of future cropping and no crops will be planted due to the risk of losing it all....again.

Nonsense. All one needs in such a case would be appropriate insurance.

Most of the extra rain from AGW is likely to fall as increased severity of event, rather than increased frequency or extended season or longer duration or expanded net area or in any other manner providing a net benefit to global agriculture - that is the published, peer-reviewed, exhaustively investigated conclusion of the professional researchers into AGW's most likely effects.

Up to now, it is only a statement you have made without evidence. Feel free to link some evidence. But, just to clarify, there is no need for me to "deny" this. I have no problem to accept this as if it would be a fact, and, I have no doubt that, indeed, rains will be heavier and more severe. Just common sense tells me that there will be also expanded net area, longer duration and so on too. And I would like to see the evidence against this.

My main argument is that this increased severity is not a decisive problem. The techniques to collect water once it is there are well-known and age-old. Remember Ancient Egypt. Which had one horrible flood once a year - during this time of the flood, the whole Nile valley was unusable for anything - and no rain at all. Sufficiently severe conditions? Of course. A death penalty for Ancient Egypt? Not at all.

That post, and all similar claims or related arguments, is irrelevant - the rate of change, the rapidity of AGW, is where the threat lies.

A very fast change can create, indeed, adaptation problems. I have never questioned this.

2) Human life as we know it was not "fine" then. Human civilization did not exist. Agriculture did not exist. No human civilizations - and very few natural ecosystems - are known to have survived even a local climate change of this scale and speed.
3) The conditions under which "life was fine" under high atmospheric levels of CO2 in the past would be characteristic of disaster's aftemath from a present day human's point of view.

Learn to read, the time with high CO2 was not about a large increase of CO2. CO2 was simply high at that time, all the time. Nothing catastrophic.

For human civilization as we know it (agriculture based, etc), which has existed for millenia only, the millenium scale is a perfectly good and informative scale at which to evaluate the consequences of AGW. It can be and is used by experts and pros, making sense to laymen as well is another of its advantages.

But to remember those times with 20% CO2 is also useful. It clarifies that even the consequences of 20% CO2 would not be temperatures like on Venus or the death of life.

Note that many of the predicted likely harms from AGW are rapidly incoming, have already crossed some of the identified bad tipping points, and are normally analyzed at a scale of centuries or even decades.

This is, for adaptations of human infrastructure, a harmless scale. If the scale is centuries, infrastructure adaptation will not even recognize this, because 100 yo infrastructure is any way relevant only in poor Third World countries. If the scale is decades, there may be already some adaptation costs, but they will be hardly catastrophic.

 

[paddoboy]

I have seen the maps of actual increase/decrease of the sea water level, in some Pacific regions there is even a decrease.

Yep and I have seen the effects, and as I said, if there is doubt anyway, then we are obliged to err on the side of caution. It's the next generation we need to be concerned about.

Nice horror picture, but I'm not impressed.

Perhaps you should be.

 

[Schmelzer]

It's the next generation we need to be concerned about.
Perhaps you should be.

Not if I can easily identify an intentional and well-organized fearmongering campaign by the mass media. The same mass media which have already discredited themselves by similar campaigns of lies with murderous intentions and consequences in various domains of politics.

 

[paddoboy]

Not if I can easily identify an intentional and well-organized fearmongering campaign by the mass media. The same mass media which have already discredited themselves by similar campaigns of lies with murderous intentions and consequences in various domains of politics.

Your extreme views are just that. What you recognise as "fearmongering" is the overwhelming view by scientists of human induced climate change according to the evidence.
Fearmongering imo is simply enacting the greedy "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" attitude.
Again the common sense approach is that even if there was doubt, we err on the side of caution.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I have seen the maps of actual increase/decrease of the sea water level, in some Pacific regions there is even a decrease.



The unit is mm/year.

I didn't read paddo's post beyond the first pic really. But it does go back back 800 000 yrs, not just a look at one. And it is about CO2 levels, not ice ages or water levels.

So...

 

[Schmelzer]

Your extreme views are just that.

I have not questioned even a single scientific paper. What is extremist in my approach?

(There was a paper about the economic consequences which I have criticized, but not by questioning the results themselves, but simply by clarifying that what was measured are the possible consequences if the people change nothing if the climate changes, in particular, do not switch to other crops more appropriate for the new climate.)

What you recognise as "fearmongering" is the overwhelming view by scientists of human induced climate change according to the evidence.

No. This is just what the alarmists claim all the time.

Again the common sense approach is that even if there was doubt, we err on the side of caution.

Not if the fearmongers overplay their cards in such an obvious way as done in the climate change hysteria. Once they try to cheat me in such an obvious way, by hiding completely the positive aspects of warming, there is no base for taking them seriously at all.

 

[Schmelzer]

I didn't read paddo's post beyond the first pic really. But it does go back back 800 000 yrs, not just a look at one. And it is about CO2 levels, not ice ages or water levels.

So...

So in my answer to the OP I have mentioned the times with CO2 levels being around 20%, that means much much larger than today.

And in the posting you answered I have answered another posting, where it was suggested

Just to clarify, perhaps you need to start having a talk to inhabitants of some Pacific Islands just for starters.

Such inhabitants are usually mentioned if one has in mind rising sea levels, so I have given some facts about rising (or not rising) sea levels. So what is your problem?

 

[paddoboy]

No. This is just what the alarmists claim all the time.

More conspiracies? Tell me why do the vast majority of scientists want to alarm people without reason.Please avoid any conspiracy nonsense, OK?

Not if the fearmongers overplay their cards in such an obvious way as done in the climate change hysteria. Once they try to cheat me in such an obvious way, by hiding completely the positive aspects of warming, there is no base for taking them seriously at all.

It appears at least among your own kind [scientists[ that you are the one not being taken seriously, thankfully.