The first IPCC report did not downplay anything...
It looks like the projections from the first IPCC report were pretty darn good. Of course, this was published in 2013. A lot has happened since then that may make the projections look a little on the low side.
What argument? I just provided data. The greenhouse theory is basic physics understood even back in the 1800s: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh....
That the world is warming is confirmed by direct measurement, and satellite measurement. We can directly observer the impacts of that warming on the cryosphere, and sea level. We don't need to use pan evaporation rate as a proxy for global temperatures when we have direct measurements. This is especially true since PER makes a very poor thermometer - it's affected by a number of factors other than temperature including humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. A change in any of these other factors would render it useless as a thermometer.
"Boiling seas" is needless hyperbole. The truth is startling enough. This is one year and it's not clear that this dramatic excursion from the trend isn't just an anomaly. Anyone interested in polar ice should follow Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog
So all I have to do to get something declared as "science" is get enough people to agree with me?
No. All you need is for your theory to survive 150 years of attempts to disprove it. The consilience of diverse evidence for that theory should converge to a strong conclusion. At that point most people will agree with you and you will have a consensus.
CONSENSUS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!!!
No. It is the consequence of 150 years of being proven right.
Which one? There are dozens. They all find the same thing. There is a strong consensus. Regardless of the method. Some look at the literature. Some survey scientists. All find a strong consensus This result is not surprising in the least for anyone who has reviewed the literature.
How do you know it didn't? Methane went from 400 to 600 PPB during deglaciation. That is an example of the positive feedback that we are observing now. There is plenty of room between "...problems" and a runaway greenhouse. Just because we won't hit the latter doesn't mean we're not heading into the former.
I see,. So your question "why would the methane suddenly be released now when it (apparently) wasn't then" was a red herring? Fiendishly clever. Still rather unrelated to the post you were responding to though. That post makes a good point that sharply rising methane emissions may offset any thing we can do in the short term to limit CO2 emissions. Methane released from warming tundra is likely to be a big part of that. More than 10 times the amount of methane that is in the atmosphere right now is sequestered under permafrost.
Apparently no sharply rising releases of methane happened during the Holocene Climatic Optimum - because it's still there.
That does not follow, Methane is currently rising sharply. We're still here. One does not preclude the other. You can have a feedback that does not lead to a runaway effect. This happens when the gain is less than 1. You also need to understand that "keep rising" does not imply a runaway effect. For instance, how would you interpret the following recent headlines:
- Treasury yields poised to keep rising (runaway yields?)
- Hi-Pro Feeds - Weak Prices but Beef Supply to Keep Rising (runaway beef?)
- Canadian Debt Levels Increase in Q3 and are Expected to Keep Rising (runaway debt?)
- Death toll in Oakland warehouse fire reaches 30, likely to keep rising. (runaway death?)
Are you suggestion we're soon going to be overrun by cows?
No. Of course not. That would be silly. You're not addressing anything anyone has actually said.
The full sentence was: "Between fracking, livestock & warming tundra, I expect methane emissions to keep rising sharply"
You responded: "Since it was up to 9 degrees warmer in Siberia (and other tundra-rich locations) earlier during our interglacial, ~8000 years ago, why would the methane suddenly be released now"
Well, they weren't doing nearly as much fracking (or livestock for that matter) 8000 years ago. And methane IS being released now. That is not in question. So how does your response address the GGGP? He's not suggesting that Earth will become Venus. He's suggesting only what he said: that several factors are contributing to the current rise in atmospheric methane, and those factors are expected to continue to the extent that it will likely offset any short term measures we take to reduce CO2.
Please follow the logic: If methane emissions from a warming arctic cause runaway warming,
The flaw in your logic is this. GGGP writes:
"Between fracking, livestock & warming tundra, I expect methane emissions to keep rising sharply and that will handily offset any thing we can do in the short term to limit CO2 emissions."
To which you respond:
Since it was up to 9 degrees warmer in Siberia (and other tundra-rich locations) earlier during our interglacial, ~8000 years ago, why would the methane suddenly be released now when it (apparently) wasn't then?
This is obviously flawed reasoning since you have not shown that methane was not released ~8000 years ago. You have asked "why would it now?" seemingly doubtful of this well documented fact. You then follow up with a non-sequitor:
I write apparently since there was no runaway warming caused by methane.
This idea of runaway warming was introduced by you. Certainly methane is now escaping from the arctic. Certainly it is now a feedback to the current warming as it may have been then. Nothing you've said addresses the points of the GGGP:
"Between fracking, livestock & warming tundra, I expect methane emissions to keep rising sharply and that will handily offset any thing we can do in the short term to limit CO2 emissions."
Your link does not support your claim. My original question: Why we would see methane release now when it wasn't (apparently, due to lack of runaway warming) 8000 years ago still stands
We do see methane release now. That is not in question. You have not provided evidence that we did not see methane release 8000 years ago. There were certainly feedbacks in play during the transition from the glacial phase to the current interglacial. This may have been one of them.
The last time the global monthly average was this cool was 2014, which at the time was the hottest year on record. See this link in case a longer term perspective is of interest. Note that the cheerleader now has her panties higher than she has for over 97% of her life, and she's been around since 1850. Assuming she's had her panties in the normal place for most of her life she's probably looking for a doctor to perform a surgical extraction.
The ideal temperature is approximately what it's been since the dawn of civilization. Only for the reason that we built this civilization, (the farms, the coastal properties, the dykes, the infrastructure, etc), with that climate in mind. Transport all that to a different climate and it no longer fits. It's expensive to have to redo it all.
Slashdot Mirror
Meet the New EPA Fracking Report, Same as the Old EPA Fracking Report.
The first IPCC report did not downplay anything...
It looks like the projections from the first IPCC report were pretty darn good. Of course, this was published in 2013. A lot has happened since then that may make the projections look a little on the low side.
What argument? I just provided data. The greenhouse theory is basic physics understood even back in the 1800s: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh....
That the world is warming is confirmed by direct measurement, and satellite measurement. We can directly observer the impacts of that warming on the cryosphere, and sea level. We don't need to use pan evaporation rate as a proxy for global temperatures when we have direct measurements. This is especially true since PER makes a very poor thermometer - it's affected by a number of factors other than temperature including humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. A change in any of these other factors would render it useless as a thermometer.
"Boiling seas" is needless hyperbole. The truth is startling enough. This is one year and it's not clear that this dramatic excursion from the trend isn't just an anomaly. Anyone interested in polar ice should follow Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog
That's part of how we arrive at a consensus. People propose a hypothesis and suggest likely consequences. If the predicted observations come to pass (as is the case with IPCC AR4 projections accurately predicting the observed global atmospheric temperature increase over the last 16 years) then we have more confidence in that idea. If they do not then we need to understand why not.
No. Of those who study the issue, this is what the consilience of evidence converges upon.
So all I have to do to get something declared as "science" is get enough people to agree with me?
No. All you need is for your theory to survive 150 years of attempts to disprove it. The consilience of diverse evidence for that theory should converge to a strong conclusion. At that point most people will agree with you and you will have a consensus.
CONSENSUS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!!!
No. It is the consequence of 150 years of being proven right.
Which one? There are dozens. They all find the same thing. There is a strong consensus. Regardless of the method. Some look at the literature. Some survey scientists. All find a strong consensus This result is not surprising in the least for anyone who has reviewed the literature.
No evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change? How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this?
How do you know it didn't? Methane went from 400 to 600 PPB during deglaciation. That is an example of the positive feedback that we are observing now. There is plenty of room between "...problems" and a runaway greenhouse. Just because we won't hit the latter doesn't mean we're not heading into the former.
I see,. So your question "why would the methane suddenly be released now when it (apparently) wasn't then" was a red herring? Fiendishly clever. Still rather unrelated to the post you were responding to though. That post makes a good point that sharply rising methane emissions may offset any thing we can do in the short term to limit CO2 emissions. Methane released from warming tundra is likely to be a big part of that. More than 10 times the amount of methane that is in the atmosphere right now is sequestered under permafrost.
For example, this image from IPCC AR4 shows that there was a spike in methane from 400 ppb to 600 ppb at the end of the last glacial period.
We're supposed to be concerned about something that didn't happen under similar circumstances back then.
Why do you believe that methane was not released back then? Probably it was.
Apparently no sharply rising releases of methane happened during the Holocene Climatic Optimum - because it's still there.
That does not follow, Methane is currently rising sharply. We're still here. One does not preclude the other. You can have a feedback that does not lead to a runaway effect. This happens when the gain is less than 1. You also need to understand that "keep rising" does not imply a runaway effect. For instance, how would you interpret the following recent headlines:
- Treasury yields poised to keep rising (runaway yields?)
- Hi-Pro Feeds - Weak Prices but Beef Supply to Keep Rising (runaway beef?)
- Canadian Debt Levels Increase in Q3 and are Expected to Keep Rising (runaway debt?)
- Death toll in Oakland warehouse fire reaches 30, likely to keep rising. (runaway death?)
Are you suggestion we're soon going to be overrun by cows?
No. Of course not. That would be silly. You're not addressing anything anyone has actually said.
The full sentence was: "Between fracking, livestock & warming tundra, I expect methane emissions to keep rising sharply"
You responded: "Since it was up to 9 degrees warmer in Siberia (and other tundra-rich locations) earlier during our interglacial, ~8000 years ago, why would the methane suddenly be released now"
Well, they weren't doing nearly as much fracking (or livestock for that matter) 8000 years ago. And methane IS being released now. That is not in question. So how does your response address the GGGP? He's not suggesting that Earth will become Venus. He's suggesting only what he said: that several factors are contributing to the current rise in atmospheric methane, and those factors are expected to continue to the extent that it will likely offset any short term measures we take to reduce CO2.
Please follow the logic: If methane emissions from a warming arctic cause runaway warming,
The flaw in your logic is this. GGGP writes:
"Between fracking, livestock & warming tundra, I expect methane emissions to keep rising sharply and that will handily offset any thing we can do in the short term to limit CO2 emissions."
To which you respond:
Since it was up to 9 degrees warmer in Siberia (and other tundra-rich locations) earlier during our interglacial, ~8000 years ago, why would the methane suddenly be released now when it (apparently) wasn't then?
This is obviously flawed reasoning since you have not shown that methane was not released ~8000 years ago. You have asked "why would it now?" seemingly doubtful of this well documented fact. You then follow up with a non-sequitor:
I write apparently since there was no runaway warming caused by methane.
This idea of runaway warming was introduced by you. Certainly methane is now escaping from the arctic. Certainly it is now a feedback to the current warming as it may have been then. Nothing you've said addresses the points of the GGGP:
"Between fracking, livestock & warming tundra, I expect methane emissions to keep rising sharply and that will handily offset any thing we can do in the short term to limit CO2 emissions."
That is very likely true.
Your link does not support your claim. My original question: Why we would see methane release now when it wasn't (apparently, due to lack of runaway warming) 8000 years ago still stands
We do see methane release now. That is not in question. You have not provided evidence that we did not see methane release 8000 years ago. There were certainly feedbacks in play during the transition from the glacial phase to the current interglacial. This may have been one of them.
What do you suppose that means?
The last time the global monthly average was this cool was 2014, which at the time was the hottest year on record. See this link in case a longer term perspective is of interest. Note that the cheerleader now has her panties higher than she has for over 97% of her life, and she's been around since 1850. Assuming she's had her panties in the normal place for most of her life she's probably looking for a doctor to perform a surgical extraction.
For perspective, here's how 1979 compares to the last 10,000 years. 1979 was at the time already a record hot year.
Land and sat are pretty similar: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
Look, weather is climate now. 1 month is proof of climate change.
Fortunately we have more than one month of data. Check the green line for the climate change signal: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
Plus or minus 5 degrees
That would have us swinging in and out of an ice age.
What's the "ideal", "average"
The ideal temperature is approximately what it's been since the dawn of civilization. Only for the reason that we built this civilization, (the farms, the coastal properties, the dykes, the infrastructure, etc), with that climate in mind. Transport all that to a different climate and it no longer fits. It's expensive to have to redo it all.
and how you calculate and control it?
Best way to calculate it: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs... (IMHO, YMMV, but all methods produce roughly the same results.
Best way to control it: https://www.theguardian.com/en...
We've just seen the hottest November on satellite record. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...
Here's the full article: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
CMIP3 was used in AR4. CMIP5 was used in AR5.