Yes and the atmospheric CO2 level was around 180 ppm which was a significant factor in how cold it was.
There have always been ice caps during the time primates have existed on the Earth. That's about 7 million years. The ice caps first started forming something like 30-40 million years ago.
Thermometers made in the 1880's were plenty accurate. Accurate thermometers have been available for around 300 years. It doesn't really matter if the new thermometers can measure in tenths of a degree because that level of precision is not necessary for the measurements we're talking about.
Digital thermometers are more precise than analog thermometers but aren't necessarily more accurate. Accurate thermometers have existed for over 300 years.
Where I live, in the northwest we have lots of hydropower and plenty of wind power. I you drive east out of Portland, OR on I-84 once you get through the Columbia River Gorge you start seeing hundreds of wind turbines. The total number must be in the thousands counting the ones over the hill from your view. As far as I know they're all receiving regular maintenance and most of them are turning when I've seen them.
Has there been a warming trend over the last 15-17 years, or hasn't there - and how, in the name of Zombie Tyndall, is that a 'long term trend'?
In our world of instant gratification 15-17 years seems like forever, especially to the younger ones. But the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years by the World Meteorological Organization for a reason. It's long enough for the decadal and shorter cycles to average out.
You know, that sentiment cuts both ways. None of the people who are blocking action on AGW will be around to be pilloried either if it turns out that they were wrong.
If ALL of the ice on the Earth melted including the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets the total sea level rise would be over 200 feet. But don't worry, that would take thousands of years no matter how hot it gets (unless it gets too hot for humans to survive and then it doesn't matter).
Yes, 3.2 mm/year since 1993 but the rate in the early 20th Century was about 1 mm/year and in the middle of the 20th Century it was around 2 mm/year. That looks like an accelerating trend to me. For comparison from about 6,000 years ago until the start of the 20th Century the rate was less than 0.1 mm/year.
On top of that scientists can't rule out some non-linear reactions of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where it collapses like a slow moving landslide into the ocean rather than simply just melting away. That could cause a substantial sea level rise on a scale of a decade or so.
If we have a good idea of the temperature then we have a good idea of how much water vapor was in the atmosphere because temperature is the main control of that.
The problem with scientists trying to dupe us is that the physical reality will catch up with them sooner or later. Most scientists are smart enough to realize this therefore I find it highly unlikely that they are purposely doing any such thing.
Scientific analysis of the problem shows that the natural processes that reduce CO2 in the carbon cycle act on scales of 10,000 years and more. Without active removal of carbon the level will hardly drop in 1,000 years. There was a study about that several years ago but I'm too lazy to look up the reference to cite it right now.
Climate models are not even expected to predict a pause as short as 15 years. The results you see are the average of many runs of the code. Individual climate model runs may show "pauses" such as we are now experiencing but when you start averaging all the runs together you get a smoother curve. It seems like you ought to understand climate models better before you start criticizing them.
Yes, in particular, language like the word "believe" being used for scientific theories.
I don't "believe" in AGW or science in general. If I believe in anything it's that the scientific method is a valid and useful methodology for discovering our world and it's proven worthy of that belief.
So, are you going to repeat every experiment going clear back to Archimedes? Of course not. Isaac Newton famously said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Science advances by building on what has been done by others in the past. If their results are incorrect then it will become evident in your incorrect results. Communicating your scientific findings is as important as doing it in the first place.
There is plenty of power available from wind and solar. It's just a matter of building up the infrastructure. Our present infrastructure developed over a couple of centuries and it's going to take time to replace it. 30 or 40 years once we get serious about it.
Don't you think the Earth's climate would be worthy of study regardless of the fact of AGW or not? Were AGW found to be wanting we'd still want to understand what was causing the changes to occur.
It continually astounds me that people think climate scientists haven't studied the natural causes of climate change. It's not possible to produce a coherent theory of climate without that understanding. What you're seeking is some natural process that we haven't discovered yet but after more than 30 years of intense study of past and current climates it seems less and less likely that something truly significant will turn up that fundamentally changes our understanding. With proxies we have data going back millions of years and with ice cores we have some pretty detailed data going back hundreds of thousands of years. Current conditions are still within the uncertainty range of climate models so I think they're doing a pretty good job.
The Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991, the largest volcanic eruption in over a century may have equaled human daily emissions for a day or two during it's major eruption. In general volcanoes are emitting less than 1% as much CO2 as human activities every year.
I suspect a lot of AGW denialists are also Evolution deniers,
That's true but it's also true that there are also a lot of libertarians who accept evolution but can't accept the science behind AGW because of the government regulation implications of it. It doesn't fit their worldview so they seek anything they can find no matter how weak to try and denigrate it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and the atmospheric CO2 level was around 180 ppm which was a significant factor in how cold it was.
There have always been ice caps during the time primates have existed on the Earth. That's about 7 million years. The ice caps first started forming something like 30-40 million years ago.
Thermometers made in the 1880's were plenty accurate. Accurate thermometers have been available for around 300 years. It doesn't really matter if the new thermometers can measure in tenths of a degree because that level of precision is not necessary for the measurements we're talking about.
Do you really thing scientists are so stupid they never thought of any of those things? Sheesh!
Digital thermometers are more precise than analog thermometers but aren't necessarily more accurate. Accurate thermometers have existed for over 300 years.
It doesn't matter what you call it, the physical effects are real and will have to be dealt with one way or another.
Where I live, in the northwest we have lots of hydropower and plenty of wind power. I you drive east out of Portland, OR on I-84 once you get through the Columbia River Gorge you start seeing hundreds of wind turbines. The total number must be in the thousands counting the ones over the hill from your view. As far as I know they're all receiving regular maintenance and most of them are turning when I've seen them.
Has there been a warming trend over the last 15-17 years, or hasn't there - and how, in the name of Zombie Tyndall, is that a 'long term trend'?
In our world of instant gratification 15-17 years seems like forever, especially to the younger ones. But the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years by the World Meteorological Organization for a reason. It's long enough for the decadal and shorter cycles to average out.
BTW, "Zombie Tyndall", I like that.
You know, that sentiment cuts both ways. None of the people who are blocking action on AGW will be around to be pilloried either if it turns out that they were wrong.
If ALL of the ice on the Earth melted including the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets the total sea level rise would be over 200 feet. But don't worry, that would take thousands of years no matter how hot it gets (unless it gets too hot for humans to survive and then it doesn't matter).
And AC can't be bothered to learn the difference between sea ice and ice sheets that are based on land. Oops!!
Here you go:
Clear weather flooding in Miami, FL.
Sea level has risen about 8 inches since 1900.
Yes, 3.2 mm/year since 1993 but the rate in the early 20th Century was about 1 mm/year and in the middle of the 20th Century it was around 2 mm/year. That looks like an accelerating trend to me. For comparison from about 6,000 years ago until the start of the 20th Century the rate was less than 0.1 mm/year.
On top of that scientists can't rule out some non-linear reactions of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where it collapses like a slow moving landslide into the ocean rather than simply just melting away. That could cause a substantial sea level rise on a scale of a decade or so.
If we have a good idea of the temperature then we have a good idea of how much water vapor was in the atmosphere because temperature is the main control of that.
The problem with scientists trying to dupe us is that the physical reality will catch up with them sooner or later. Most scientists are smart enough to realize this therefore I find it highly unlikely that they are purposely doing any such thing.
Of course, the first step is to stop making the problem worse.
Scientific analysis of the problem shows that the natural processes that reduce CO2 in the carbon cycle act on scales of 10,000 years and more. Without active removal of carbon the level will hardly drop in 1,000 years. There was a study about that several years ago but I'm too lazy to look up the reference to cite it right now.
Climate models are not even expected to predict a pause as short as 15 years. The results you see are the average of many runs of the code. Individual climate model runs may show "pauses" such as we are now experiencing but when you start averaging all the runs together you get a smoother curve. It seems like you ought to understand climate models better before you start criticizing them.
Yes, in particular, language like the word "believe" being used for scientific theories.
I don't "believe" in AGW or science in general. If I believe in anything it's that the scientific method is a valid and useful methodology for discovering our world and it's proven worthy of that belief.
Those of us who accept climate science don't have to burn anybody. The Earth will do it for us if we don't get serious about the problem. :j
So, are you going to repeat every experiment going clear back to Archimedes? Of course not. Isaac Newton famously said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Science advances by building on what has been done by others in the past. If their results are incorrect then it will become evident in your incorrect results. Communicating your scientific findings is as important as doing it in the first place.
There is plenty of power available from wind and solar. It's just a matter of building up the infrastructure. Our present infrastructure developed over a couple of centuries and it's going to take time to replace it. 30 or 40 years once we get serious about it.
Don't you think the Earth's climate would be worthy of study regardless of the fact of AGW or not? Were AGW found to be wanting we'd still want to understand what was causing the changes to occur.
It continually astounds me that people think climate scientists haven't studied the natural causes of climate change. It's not possible to produce a coherent theory of climate without that understanding. What you're seeking is some natural process that we haven't discovered yet but after more than 30 years of intense study of past and current climates it seems less and less likely that something truly significant will turn up that fundamentally changes our understanding. With proxies we have data going back millions of years and with ice cores we have some pretty detailed data going back hundreds of thousands of years. Current conditions are still within the uncertainty range of climate models so I think they're doing a pretty good job.
The Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991, the largest volcanic eruption in over a century may have equaled human daily emissions for a day or two during it's major eruption. In general volcanoes are emitting less than 1% as much CO2 as human activities every year.
I suspect a lot of AGW denialists are also Evolution deniers,
That's true but it's also true that there are also a lot of libertarians who accept evolution but can't accept the science behind AGW because of the government regulation implications of it. It doesn't fit their worldview so they seek anything they can find no matter how weak to try and denigrate it.