Recently Grist's Dave Roberts gave a TED talk of his own, essentially discussing that if we don't do something to seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next 5-10 years, we're screwed.

"You die of hotness"
siftbotsays...

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, July 8th, 2012 10:50am PDT - doublepromote requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

alcomsays...

So at what point can scientist's finally say, "We told you so!" I bet it'll happen in the next 5 years. I'm guessing by that point, the climate effects will be severe enough to prove climate science absolutely irrefutable. For now, we can march forward in relative uncertainty with the well-funded media campaigns of climate sceptics and their message of ignorance.

There might even be a bounce-back year coming up. One where the global climate actually averages 1.0 to 0.5C cooler over the year. I'm hoping it doesn't fuel the sceptic campaign too much longer, because the trend is far too frightening to imagine if humanity misses the window.

[edit: 7/8/2012] My father in-law, a staunch climate change denier, says humorously that he was planning to die in 4 years. In order to prove me wrong and laugh in my face however, he says he will now hang on for another 6!

ChaosEngine, your comment below is understandable. I think world citizens will change their tune in the next 5 years, however. The Green Party will probably gain huge waves of support even without SuperPacs because their campaign message will be felt more and more each year. Just as organized religion had its reign and lost influence as science and society have revealed its fallacy, so too will the sceptic's argument lose out over ever-mounting empirical support of the truth: that human activities have indeed altered the Earth's climate for centuries to come. That is to say as long as we have free lines communication through tools such as the Internet.

ChaosEnginesays...

While it was a good talk, there was really nothing there to help the average person when confronted by a climate change denier. The whole thing would simply be dismissed as "deluded left wing greenie paranoia" or some such.

Frankly at this point, I've kinda given up on climate change. It's a terrible thing to say, but it's the truth. We're screwed and given the lack of political will, anything we do will be too little too late. I feel bad for kids growing up today, but their parents and grandparents have screwed them. I might vote green or recycle but I can't even absolve myself either. As a first world citizen, I drive too much, use way more than my share of land and energy.

vaire2ubesays...

and the east coast heat wave continues to kill the elderly ... when can it be winter again so we can use our eyes to deny scientific analysis.

plus if science was right and the world is ending, than... religion was right! nyah nyah now we're all dead so you can't use facts!!

now i see the appeal.

Yogisays...

>> ^vaire2ube:

and the east coast heat wave continues to kill the elderly ... when can it be winter again so we can use our eyes to deny scientific analysis.
plus if science was right and the world is ending, than... religion was right! nyah nyah now we're all dead so you can't use facts!!
now i see the appeal.


On the plus side if the heat wave kills enough elderly people they can't vote and we'll be able to get some Climate Legislation through!

siftbotsays...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, July 8th, 2012 9:07pm PDT - promote requested by geo321.

bmacs27says...

>> ^ChaosEngine:

While it was a good talk, there was really nothing there to help the average person when confronted by a climate change denier. The whole thing would simply be dismissed as "deluded left wing greenie paranoia" or some such.
Frankly at this point, I've kinda given up on climate change. It's a terrible thing to say, but it's the truth. We're screwed and given the lack of political will, anything we do will be too little too late. I feel bad for kids growing up today, but their parents and grandparents have screwed them. I might vote green or recycle but I can't even absolve myself either. As a first world citizen, I drive too much, use way more than my share of land and energy.


Honestly, I wish the conversation shifted more seriously towards, "okay so we fucked up, what now?" As in, what land will be tenable, how can we prepare it for the refugees, how can we conserve the resources we'll need under those conditions, etc...

bcglorfsays...

So the moral is, it is absolutely time to panic.

Not just maybe, but absolutely time to panic.

Fortunately, he IS overstating the situation. Right from the very start he declares how stable the last 10k years have been, and that the last 100 have already broken all records seen over those 10k years. Go use google scholar and read Michael Mann's recent work on reconstructing the last 2k years. Mann is one of the leading scientists arguing that it is time to panic and things are getting bad very fast. His research is publicly available on google scholar for everyone to go and read.

If you can be bothered to go and read that before shouting me down as a denier, you will find the following in his research. That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warm or warmer than current.

I'm not saying it's all roses and that there is nothing to see here. I AM saying that if you go read the actual research you'll find a much more nuanced and less panic stricken assortment of facts than what is presented in this video.

siftbotsays...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, July 9th, 2012 5:18am PDT - promote requested by geo321.

Sagemindsays...

Not to try to disprove anything he is saying...

but...

he says to start, that the temperature on earth "hasn't changed more than a degree or so over the past 10,000 years."

There is no way he can know that since we haven't' even kept temperature records more than the last 100 years or so (200 at most.)

And that's fact. Sorry I'm not going to go find my source for this because I don't have time right now.
We just don't have temperature/climate records that date back that far.

Sagemindsays...

*fear and conjecture and hearsay
I believe global warming is possible but I found this talk implausible and unprovable on many of his points.


Conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven.)

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

alcomsays...

@Sagemind: The validity of his Roberts' talk comes from the fact that the cumulative effects of human activities have a self-perpetuating momentum based on things like the methane contained in permafrost. The simple argument that we simply cannot afford to be wrong far outweighs the idea that his entire thesis must be thrown out because of a handful of appeals to popularity or "hearsay" evidence. This is not a court, or even a peer-reviewed research paper.

Ice cores reveal he annual accumulation of snow in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica contains isotopic markers of the temperature, so there are indeed scientific methods of measuring prehistoric temperatures.

bcglorfsays...

>> ^alcom:

@Sagemind: The validity of his Roberts' talk comes from the fact that the cumulative effects of human activities have a self-perpetuating momentum based on things like the methane contained in permafrost. The simple argument that we simply cannot afford to be wrong far outweighs the idea that his entire thesis must be thrown out because of a handful of appeals to popularity or "hearsay" evidence. This is not a court, or even a peer-reviewed research paper.
Ice cores reveal he annual accumulation of snow in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica contains isotopic markers of the temperature, so there are indeed scientific methods of measuring prehistoric temperatures.


Well said Alcom.

Sagemind, If you would take advice from a fellow skeptic, we do have temperature reconstructions going back more than 100 years. The instrumental record, from actual direct human measurement of temperature goes back just over 100 years, to around the late 1800's. That record graphs a rather consistent and linear warming trend from start to finish. More over, it records an increase of exactly the degree the speaker in the video mentions.

There is a trick to all this though. The temperature record going back more than about 100 years is measured with an entirely different methodology. It shows, again, as the speaker mentioned temperatures over the last few thousand years that has not varied very much.

There are people like the speaker who then put those 2 pieces together to declare proof positive that unprecedented warming began 100 years ago, right when man started burning fossil fuels. As I said, I'm skeptical myself. The other significant thing about 100 years ago is the change of methodology for building the graph and reconstruction of temperature. With 1 method, we have a fairly static graph, with another method we immediately have another. Any scientist worthy of the name would look at that and say the same, and investigate ways to rule out the methodology as the cause of the different results.

That's why I insisted on directing people to google scholar and looking at Mann's own work. He's the one that came out with the famous hockey stick graph that 'proved' man-made warming. All of his follow up work is showing more and more evidence that reconstructing the last 100 years with same methodology used to construct the last few thousand shows a much less scary picture.

But don't take my word for it. Don't take the speaker in the video's word for it. Don't even take Mann's word for it. Go look at the raw results in his article's and the other available related scientific literature. I promise I have and come back convinced it is looking like a good portion of the gloom and doom is merely an artifact of methodology change over at the same time as man started burning up fossil fuels.

ChaosEnginesays...

>> ^bcglorf:

So the moral is, it is absolutely time to panic.
Not just maybe, but absolutely time to panic.
Fortunately, he IS overstating the situation. Right from the very start he declares how stable the last 10k years have been, and that the last 100 have already broken all records seen over those 10k years. Go use google scholar and read Michael Mann's recent work on reconstructing the last 2k years. Mann is one of the leading scientists arguing that it is time to panic and things are getting bad very fast. His research is publicly available on google scholar for everyone to go and read.
If you can be bothered to go and read that before shouting me down as a denier, you will find the following in his research. That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warm or warmer than current.
I'm not saying it's all roses and that there is nothing to see here. I AM saying that if you go read the actual research you'll find a much more nuanced and less panic stricken assortment of facts than what is presented in this video.


Can you post a link to the page your talking about? I used google scholar, but Mann has published quite a few papers and I really don't have time to read them all.

That said, even if I read the paper, I'm not confident I'd understand it fully. From my limited research into climatology, it's a reasonably complex science. My problem is that I don't really have time to study all the theory around this.

And frankly, I shouldn't have to. I'm not a climatologist. No-one alive today can possibly hope to understand all science in every field. That's why we specialise. With a small amount of ego, I'm willing to say that most climatologists are worse programmers than I am, but that's ok too, 'cos that's not their field.

What I'm trying to say in my trademark, rambling, incoherent way is that I generally accept a scientific consensus (assuming it's been properly peer reviewed and so on). Fallacy of majority? Possibly. I'm willing to accept the possibility that there's a gifted climatologist out there who is desperately trying to get the rest of them to understand the crucial theory/evidence/algorithm they've missed, and it's all going to be ok. Hell, I hope there is, but it seems unlikely to me.

To apply Occams razor: which makes more sense?

bcglorfsays...

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bcglorf:
So the moral is, it is absolutely time to panic.
Not just maybe, but absolutely time to panic.
Fortunately, he IS overstating the situation. Right from the very start he declares how stable the last 10k years have been, and that the last 100 have already broken all records seen over those 10k years. Go use google scholar and read Michael Mann's recent work on reconstructing the last 2k years. Mann is one of the leading scientists arguing that it is time to panic and things are getting bad very fast. His research is publicly available on google scholar for everyone to go and read.
If you can be bothered to go and read that before shouting me down as a denier, you will find the following in his research. That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warm or warmer than current.
I'm not saying it's all roses and that there is nothing to see here. I AM saying that if you go read the actual research you'll find a much more nuanced and less panic stricken assortment of facts than what is presented in this video.

Can you post a link to the page your talking about? I used google scholar, but Mann has published quite a few papers and I really don't have time to read them all.
That said, even if I read the paper, I'm not confident I'd understand it fully. From my limited research into climatology, it's a reasonably complex science. My problem is that I don't really have time to study all the theory around this.
And frankly, I shouldn't have to. I'm not a climatologist. No-one alive today can possibly hope to understand all science in every field. That's why we specialise. With a small amount of ego, I'm willing to say that most climatologists are worse programmers than I am, but that's ok too, 'cos that's not their field.
What I'm trying to say in my trademark, rambling, incoherent way is that I generally accept a scientific consensus (assuming it's been properly peer reviewed and so on). Fallacy of majority? Possibly. I'm willing to accept the possibility that there's a gifted climatologist out there who is desperately trying to get the rest of them to understand the crucial theory/evidence/algorithm they've missed, and it's all going to be ok. Hell, I hope there is, but it seems unlikely to me.
To apply Occams razor: which makes more sense?


You can see Mann's latest work here. Just don't stop with reading the abstract where he declares the reinforcement of his previous studies and findings. Go further down and look at the reconstruction of the last 2k years the article was built on. The green EIV line is the 'newer' statistical method recommended to him by statisticians that claimed his previous method was biased towards 0(minimized highs and lows). You can clearly see the EIV reconstruction shows multiple peaks in the past. More importantly though, look at the last 100 years on the graph. The bold red line is the instrumental record. It blots out most of the last 100 years, but if you look closely, you can see that none of the reconstructed lines spike away into scary land like the instrumental record. In fact, none of the reconstructed lines climb above where the EIV line has peaked multiple times in the past. To me that screams the need to look harder still at the probability that our methods for reconstruction aren't sensitive enough to pick up a short spike like what we know from the instrumental record is currently taking place. That doesn't prove spikes like the last 100 years are common, but it DOES call into serious question the claim that it's never happened before in the last 2k years. That final claim is the vital and key point between everyone panic and lets study this further to understand it fully.

bcglorfsays...

Perhaps a simpler observation is in order. Go and google the instrumental temperature record. There are plenty of sources for it out there, and it's pretty well known and agreed upon. Or you can go to the NOAA graph of the same here. Again, as the speaker points out, the last 100 years has shown an approximate increase of 0.8 degrees. If anyone remembers their high school math, try and tell if the warming in the graph looks linear or polynomial? Does it average it's way up in a straight line, or a curve that gets steeper and steeper? The speaker is emphatically stating the trend WILL become a very steep curve indeed. The current instrumental record though is linear, if you extend it out to the year 2100 it ends up another 0.8 higher than current. That's of course a really poor way to project climate, you'd really want more than 100 years of data. But the clear point is the speaker blithely ignores that simple measure because it doesn't fit his argument that 4 degrees of warming in the next 100 years is likely, and everyone should stop thinking and panic asap.

criticalthudsays...

This is the first presentation that i've seen publicly that has mentioned "system adaption" - ie: the period of time it takes the ecosystem to adapt to events that are presently taking place or have already taken place. imho, this is a central concept that has been ignored. let's face it, human's lack both foresight and an awareness of our species as a whole. we are self-centered beings intent on immediate gratification.

the basic idea of system adaption is that even if we stop mucking about now, the damage that we have already done is still in the process of manifesting and will continue for some time.
the very same idea applies equally to the human body, and the human body is an expression of the planet. In other words, if we traumatize the human body, the effects, adaptation, and compensations take some time to fully manifest. this is very far from conjecture. it is fact. and the sooner you can attend to the problem, the easier your job is, and less suffering will be endured.

criticalthudsays...

and "climate change" should really be re-termed as "planet change"

you cannot chemically alter the composition of the atmosphere without causing a systemic compensation of the entire ecosystem.

and that, my friends, is a motherfucking fact.

alcomsays...

After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.

These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.

As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.

The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

bcglorfsays...

>> ^alcom:

After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.


Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.

My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.

alcomsays...

Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:

CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)

If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.

Peroxidesays...

>> ^bcglorf:

That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warmor warmer [< INCORRECT] than current.


You'll be keen to note that human civilization, (technically now a global civilization with 7 Billion people, obviously more than ever before,) did not prosper through those past climate changes (not the minor fluctuations that Mann shows, but those further back in time). In this video he points out that temperature has not varied by more than 1 degree in the last 10,000 years, this is a scientifically sound statement.

BcGlorf you keep arguing that it did, according to Mann, but the greatest deviation is by only about 0.8 degrees, we are heading for 2.0 on on track for 6.0 degrees change, Im pretty fucking sure your insistence that we needn't panic is based on conjecture and hearsay. Show me your PHD in any scientific discipline and I'll take you more seriously, but from reading through all your posts, frankly, you just don't seem to get it. 0.8 is not 1.0. If you want to have a peer reviewed paper battle, I'd win, but you strike me as one who can't let him/herself believe that the world could go so wrong. Might I suppose you are a person whom prescribes to a certain faith?

bcglorfsays...

What graph are you reading?

CPS Land with uncertainties: Peaked at 0.05 in 600, but yes a new peak in the lat 1990's at 0.15(not 0.8), recent temp is the internal record by only 0.1.

Mann and Jones 2003: current peak at 0.15(not 0.8), but current is the record by 0.25.

Esper et. Al 2002: peaks once in 990 and again in 1990 at negative 0.05, not positive 0.8 nor is current warming a record.

CPS land+ocn with uncertainties: peaks at 0.2 (not 0.8) and only starts at 1500 not sure how much the record would've been set by if it included the year 600 where land alone hit 0.05.

Briffa et al. : Series begins in 1400, but again peaks at 0.15 (not 0.8). Can't tell from the graph how much of a record but by Briffa et al's original 2001 paper it's by 0.2

Crowly and Lowery (2000): peaks at 0.15(not 0.8), granted it current warming sets the record within the series, by 0.25 higher than 1100.

Jones et al. (1999): peaks at 0.05(not 0.8), current is record by 0.1

Oerlemans (2005) and both borehole sample go back less than 500 years. The boreholes who a smooth curve throughout, with warming starting 500, not 100 years ago. They all peak at 0.2 or lower, again not 0.8.


If I repeat my main point, I think it is reinforced by each of the series above. Instrumental measured warming is completely anomalous compared to the proxy reconstructions. The instrumental record peaks fully 0.6 degrees higher than any of the proxy series. How can anyone look at that and NOT object to the declaration that the last 2k years as shown by proxies proves temperatures have been far cooler and more stable than the last 100 years as shown on the instrumental record. If you instead compare like to like, and compare the last 100 years as projected by each proxy and not the instrumental record, you clearly see that the last 100 years is anything but a radical anomaly.

If you accept Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate, it can be easily said that the last 100 years, as appears in proxy reconstructions, isn't much of an anomaly at all.


>> ^alcom:

Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:
CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)
If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.


bcglorfsays...

>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^bcglorf:
That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warmor warmer [< INCORRECT] than current.

You'll be keen to note that human civilization, (technically now a global civilization with 7 Billion people, obviously more than ever before,) did not prosper through those past climate changes (not the minor fluctuations that Mann shows, but those further back in time). In this video he points out that temperature has not varied by more than 1 degree in the last 10,000 years, this is a scientifically sound statement.
BcGlorf you keep arguing that it did, according to Mann, but the greatest deviation is by only about 0.8 degrees, we are heading for 2.0 on on track for 6.0 degrees change, Im pretty fucking sure your insistence that we needn't panic is based on conjecture and hearsay. Show me your PHD in any scientific discipline and I'll take you more seriously, but from reading through all your posts, frankly, you just don't seem to get it. 0.8 is not 1.0. If you want to have a peer reviewed paper battle, I'd win, but you strike me as one who can't let him/herself believe that the world could go so wrong. Might I suppose you are a person whom prescribes to a certain faith?


Very helpful, you dismiss me with a wave of the hand and a declaration of your own credentials. Mean while I'm pointing at specific data with a specific question and argument. It's hard to swallow an appeal to authority while insisting that authority not be pestered with any questions.

Buttlesays...

>> ^bcglorf:

Perhaps a simpler observation is in order. Go and google the instrumental temperature record. There are plenty of sources for it out there, and it's pretty well known and agreed upon. Or you can go to the NOAA graph of the same here. Again, as the speaker points out, the last 100 years has shown an approximate increase of 0.8 degrees. If anyone remembers their high school math, try and tell if the warming in the graph looks linear or polynomial? Does it average it's way up in a straight line, or a curve that gets steeper and steeper? The speaker is emphatically stating the trend WILL become a very steep curve indeed. The current instrumental record though is linear, if you extend it out to the year 2100 it ends up another 0.8 higher than current. That's of course a really poor way to project climate, you'd really want more than 100 years of data. But the clear point is the speaker blithely ignores that simple measure because it doesn't fit his argument that 4 degrees of warming in the next 100 years is likely, and everyone should stop thinking and panic asap.



In fact, if carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in the same way as everything else (obeys Beer's law), one would expect its effect to be logarithmic, which is to say, much less than linear. With a logarithmic rise, each doubling of carbon dioxide concentration will cause the same rise in temperature. Moreover, the Earth was considerably warmer than it is today in the previous interglacial period (the Eemian). If it could somehow "run away" into uncontrollable warming, how did we ever get another glacial period?

spawnflaggersays...

we just need a space elevator, then we can use that to build a giant solar panel/reflector in geocentric orbit. This could reflect sunlight from building up heat on the surface of the earth, to compensate for the 4, 6, 12C temperature rise. You could even configure it to block/unblock to control average temperatures, or use it to prevent and/or dissolve hurricanes and tornados.

siftbotsays...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, July 9th, 2012 4:44pm PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

probiesays...

It's ok. All the climate change deniers will pay later when I have to walk around with my shirt off. The universe is always in balance.

alcomsays...

By your own admission, the composite readings are now at record highs. Nowhere in my previous post did I mention that these measurements were exactly equal to the 0.8 instrumental record. I only said that they followed the same directional trend. Read it and weep, a 2000 year-old record is a 2000 year-old record.

To argue that 'Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate,' is to willfully ignore all the other data sources. You completely miss the point that instrumental data is by far the most accurate. Proxy reconstructions are relied on in the absence of instrumental data.

The lack of widespread instrumental climate records before the mid 19th century, however, necessitates the use of natural climate archives or “proxy” data such as tree-rings, corals, and ice cores and historical documentary records to reconstruct climate in past centuries.

The curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources, even if you ignore the two instrumental lines. And what a coincidence that it matches the timeline of the industrial revolution. Ignore science at your own peril!

>> ^bcglorf:

What graph are you reading?
CPS Land with uncertainties: Peaked at 0.05 in 600, but yes a new peak in the lat 1990's at 0.15(not 0.8), recent temp is the internal record by only 0.1.
Mann and Jones 2003: current peak at 0.15(not 0.8), but current is the record by 0.25.
Esper et. Al 2002: peaks once in 990 and again in 1990 at negative 0.05, not positive 0.8 nor is current warming a record.
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties: peaks at 0.2 (not 0.8) and only starts at 1500 not sure how much the record would've been set by if it included the year 600 where land alone hit 0.05.
Briffa et al. : Series begins in 1400, but again peaks at 0.15 (not 0.8). Can't tell from the graph how much of a record but by Briffa et al's original 2001 paper it's by 0.2
Crowly and Lowery (2000): peaks at 0.15(not 0.8), granted it current warming sets the record within the series, by 0.25 higher than 1100.
Jones et al. (1999): peaks at 0.05(not 0.8), current is record by 0.1
Oerlemans (2005) and both borehole sample go back less than 500 years. The boreholes who a smooth curve throughout, with warming starting 500, not 100 years ago. They all peak at 0.2 or lower, again not 0.8.

If I repeat my main point, I think it is reinforced by each of the series above. Instrumental measured warming is completely anomalous compared to the proxy reconstructions. The instrumental record peaks fully 0.6 degrees higher than any of the proxy series. How can anyone look at that and NOT object to the declaration that the last 2k years as shown by proxies proves temperatures have been far cooler and more stable than the last 100 years as shown on the instrumental record. If you instead compare like to like, and compare the last 100 years as projected by each proxy and not the instrumental record, you clearly see that the last 100 years is anything but a radical anomaly.
If you accept Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate, it can be easily said that the last 100 years, as appears in proxy reconstructions, isn't much of an anomaly at all.

>> ^alcom:
Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:
CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)
If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.



bcglorfsays...

@alcom

The speaker in the video makes a very big deal though about the current 0.8 of the instrumental record, and similarly a very big deal about it being unprecedented in the last 10k years, which you have to admit has been plainly proven as apples to oranges.

Yes, most current proxies show a 2k year old record, except the EIV which is the most recent and deemed most accurate record. If you can accept comparing reconstructions using the same proxy data but different analysis, the EIV proxy reconstruction shows that current temperatures are not record breaking at all.

If you want to say that "the curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources" I'd say you need also observe warming trends in the reconstructions over the last 2k years. Again, the rate of change over the last century is not unprecedented in the proxy records over the last 2k years. You can again plainly see that similarly or more severe warming and/or cooling within the last 2k years in the proxy reconstructions.

Peroxidesays...

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Peroxide:
>> ^bcglorf:
That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warmor warmer [< INCORRECT] than current.

You'll be keen to note that human civilization, (technically now a global civilization with 7 Billion people, obviously more than ever before,) did not prosper through those past climate changes (not the minor fluctuations that Mann shows, but those further back in time). In this video he points out that temperature has not varied by more than 1 degree in the last 10,000 years, this is a scientifically sound statement.
BcGlorf you keep arguing that it did, according to Mann, but the greatest deviation is by only about 0.8 degrees, we are heading for 2.0 on on track for 6.0 degrees change, Im pretty fucking sure your insistence that we needn't panic is based on conjecture and hearsay. Show me your PHD in any scientific discipline and I'll take you more seriously, but from reading through all your posts, frankly, you just don't seem to get it. 0.8 is not 1.0. If you want to have a peer reviewed paper battle, I'd win, but you strike me as one who can't let him/herself believe that the world could go so wrong. Might I suppose you are a person whom prescribes to a certain faith?

Very helpful, you dismiss me with a wave of the hand and a declaration of your own credentials. Mean while I'm pointing at specific data with a specific question and argument. It's hard to swallow an appeal to authority while insisting that authority not be pestered with any questions.


I'm measuring trough to peak, but the point remains, THE CLIMATE CHANGED IN THE PAST, but this one is caused by us (undeniable) and its effects will be experienced by us as none of the other climate changes occurred when there were 7 billion people dependent on a stable climate.

bcglorfsays...

If we take Mann as an authority, the EIV reconstruction is the most reliable. The EIV reconstruction shows at least 2 other locations over the last 2k years that have had temperature changes as abrupt as the last 100 years without the benefit of humans.

>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Peroxide:
>> ^bcglorf:
That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warmor warmer [< INCORRECT] than current.

You'll be keen to note that human civilization, (technically now a global civilization with 7 Billion people, obviously more than ever before,) did not prosper through those past climate changes (not the minor fluctuations that Mann shows, but those further back in time). In this video he points out that temperature has not varied by more than 1 degree in the last 10,000 years, this is a scientifically sound statement.
BcGlorf you keep arguing that it did, according to Mann, but the greatest deviation is by only about 0.8 degrees, we are heading for 2.0 on on track for 6.0 degrees change, Im pretty fucking sure your insistence that we needn't panic is based on conjecture and hearsay. Show me your PHD in any scientific discipline and I'll take you more seriously, but from reading through all your posts, frankly, you just don't seem to get it. 0.8 is not 1.0. If you want to have a peer reviewed paper battle, I'd win, but you strike me as one who can't let him/herself believe that the world could go so wrong. Might I suppose you are a person whom prescribes to a certain faith?

Very helpful, you dismiss me with a wave of the hand and a declaration of your own credentials. Mean while I'm pointing at specific data with a specific question and argument. It's hard to swallow an appeal to authority while insisting that authority not be pestered with any questions.

I'm measuring trough to peak, but the point remains, THE CLIMATE CHANGED IN THE PAST, but this one is caused by us (undeniable) and its effects will be experienced by us as none of the other climate changes occurred when there were 7 billion people dependent on a stable climate.

alcomsays...

Is there still a debate here? It sounds like several hundred governments have agreed to do something about climate change because it's a real, measurable global threat. The agreement reached in Paris doesn't even go far enough to mitigate the damage already caused and will continue for decades to come. Sorry that the deniers couldn't interpret the meaning of this early data. I wish you were right.

newtboysays...

New, just released ocean temperature data has shown a dramatic increase in temperatures in the Northern Pacific, and a dramatic decrease in surface temperatures in the Northern Atlantic. As I understand it, those readings are not consistent with normal 'El Nino' patterns. Could this be the beginning of the end of thermohaline circulation? If that happens we'll be facing unavoidable, unpredictable, worldwide, disastrous climate change in short order.
Without the current created by the thermohaline circulations, the oceans die. Equatorial waters become much hotter...fast...and arctic and Antarctic waters become much colder...fast. Ocean organisms can't live through that kind of change, not in any sizeable way anyway. Without the oceans, the entire food web dissolves and we die.
On top of that, without the currents bringing oxygen to the lower oceans, they become anoxic. The bacteria that live in those deep waters will feed on the dead sea life and create toxic gases (hydrogen sulfide) which have, in the past, completed the extinction events by wiping out nearly all life. Once that starts, it's unstoppable and is the end. Let's hope these readings are just an over active El Nino.

What we do today has little to no effect for 50-100 years. That makes us at least 50 years too late to solve this problem, and we are still exacerbating it rather than solving it to this day.
We're hosed.
If you plan on having children in this climate, you are a child abuser IMO, and are adding to the problem with that one action more than almost any other action normal people perform. Your children will most likely not survive to old age, and absolutely won't experience the same quality of life you have.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More