Guest Post by Steven Goddard
Steve McIntyre points out that NOAA’s Susan Solomon saw fit to exclude a statement of measurements from IPCC WG1. With such certainty then, it’s no wonder she’s certain that our current situation is “irreversible”. Well then, let’s not worry about it if one of NOAA’s lead scientists says the effects are well nigh irreversible. What she’s serving up is pure alarmism.
NOAA has issued a warning to the occupants of (some) planet :
Global warming has reached the point of no return, a study published in the Tuesday edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a joint team of the U.S., French and Swiss researchers concludes. Even if the world reduces emissions of CO2 to the level before the industrial revolution, it will take at least 1,000 years to reverse the climate change effect that have already taken hold, AP on Sunday quoted the team as saying. Dr. Susan Solomon of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research laboratory led the study. “People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that’s not true,” she said, adding the effects are well nigh irreversible.
That got me wondering what she meant by “back to normal.” Perhaps it means sea ice at normal levels? No that can’t be it, because sea ice area has already recovered to “normal.”
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Perhaps she means violent weather, like strong tornadoes? Longing for a return to the 1970s, when there were lots more of them?
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
In 1908, a hurricane formed on March 6, the earliest on record. Ah, for the good old days of early spring hurricanes…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1908_Atlantic_hurricane_season_map.png
In 1954, Hurricane Alice formed on December 30, the latest on record. Nothing like a New Year’s hurricane to brighten up the holidays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1954_Atlantic_hurricane_season_map.png
In 1961, Hurricane Carla made landfall in Texas. It was the most intense hurricane to ever hit the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Carla
In 1900, a hurricane killed 8.000 people in Galveston, Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galveston_Hurricane
In 1780, a hurricane killed more than 27,500 people in the Carribean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
In 1960, 60% of the farmland in China received no rain. Somewhere between 20 and 43 million people died due to extreme weather and mismanagement by the socialist government.
In the 1930s, the US suffered extreme heat and drought, resulting in the dust bowl. It was the warmest decade on record in the US (at least before USHCN cleverly adjusted it downwards.)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl
If we do see temps go up as much as 1.5 degrees in a century, what happens? I would like a debate with susie. I know she would be afraid to debate from then onward. We will see an end to 1 on 1 debates because the skeptics now have to only raise a few questions and the debates end rapidly.
Example, Algore liked to evoke Poley bear extinctiuon. The question of polar bear extimates for the last 30 years kills his claim. why is the number going up inspite of hunting permits in Canadia?
jeff brown (11:13:22) :
“Smokey…the more recent results on Antarctica actually show warming everywhere in Antarctica.”
Implied message: EVERYBODY PANIC!!
click1
click2
click3
You keep avoiding the null hypothesis: what we are observing is well within the parameters of natural climate variability: click1, click2
You keep parroting evidence-free opinions and always-inaccurate models. But unless you can falsify the null hypothesis, you’ve got nothing. I’m not sure you even understand the concept.
Ibrahim (12:26:31) :
I don’t think anyone has written about the factors related to the 30s/40s warming period, though it was focused in the Arctic and more importantly on the Russian side of the Arctic. It certainly wasn’t global, but adds to the global averaged temperature plot. So whatever caused it in the Arctic hasn’t been well discussed yet, but it should be.
btw..thanks for the link to the figure!
Smokey (12:56:47) :
I don’t think I’m avoiding anything and I do believe I have a good understanding of the concept. I never said anyone needed to panic, I don’t bring the emotions into the debate. I believe in facts, and improved scientific understanding of the processes so that we all can better understand our climate system and future predictions.
What I think you fail to understand is that climate does not change without a forcing acting on it. We understand the past forcings that led to glacier and interglacial periods (e.g. orbital variations). So when you point to the natural variability plots from say Vostok, that doesn’t mean anything to me. Of course the planet has been warmer in the past than it is today, but there are different forcing mechanisms responsible for the changes then than are observed today. What we need to get at is: what are the forcing mechanisms responsible for the changes we are seeing today? If the sun explains less than 10% of the warming, then what are the other forcing mechanisms? That is what climate science is trying to understand. And by all means…let the science show it is something else besides GHGs. It hasn’t yet, and until a scientist shows there is another mechanism at work, it’s hard to deny that GHGs may be in part responsible.
Henry chance (12:44:08) :
I happen to know that climate skeptic scientists were recently asked to debate climate scientists in LA on April 21st and that no skeptic scientists were willing to come to the debate. Glenn Beck also declined to debate Jim Cameron on the same day. So tell me, why are the skeptics afraid to do a real debate with climate scientists?
Another attempt is being tried with Imhoff. We’ll see if he’s game.
Smokey (12:56:47) :
and btw..I’m actually referring to real scientific papers in my debate with you, based on evidence in data collected, what is the basis of your conclusions?
jeff brown (10:09:38): Ask yourself if you would mind having to move your entire town because your home fell into the ocean.
Ask yourself if you would mind if the entire economy fell into the ocean due to global warming alarmism and you and all your neighbors were forced to live under a bridge.
jeff brown (12:27:48): Lets be realistic. If all of Greenland were to melt, humans would likely no longer exist on this planet
And yet during the Eemian interglacial 115,000 years ago all of Greenland did melt, and humanity was not extinguished. Nor were any other species driven to extinction that we know of, including polar bears. Where in the world did you get the cockamamie idea that Greenland melting is bad? I think it’s you who needs a reality check, buddy.
Warmer Is Better. Fight The Ice.
“jeff brown (13:08:15) :
[….]
warming period, though it was focused in the Arctic and more importantly on the Russian side of the Arctic. It certainly wasn’t global,[…]”
…like the MWP, right? Or any other warm period before this one, right? Because this is the first warm period that is global, right? Sigh… yeah sure, it was focussed on the “Russian side of the Arctic”.
How much longer do we have to hear entirely made-up fluff like that…
“jeff brown (12:27:48) :
[…]
Lets be realistic. If all of Greenland were to melt, humans would likely no longer exist on this planet…that would be too warm of a world to live on.[…]”
When you have the time, you should really try to understand the implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Hint: The radiation is proportional to T^4.
Jeff brown
These are global temperature anomalies according to the IPCC.
And yes no scientist explained it to me yet.
And indeed it was warm in the period 1910 – 1945 as you can read here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticice00zubo#page/444/mode/2up
then you will also that the melting of the articic ice in 2007 isn’t unusual
furthermore I’d like to point to the next figure of the Law Dome ice core which show a clear MWP (and which was left out of the IPCC AR 4)
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/lawdome.gif
stevengoddard (12:24:55) :
Good idea, but Obama wants a world free of nuclear weapons, like we had during the happy years of WWI and WWII.
(…)
Good thing then that I’m talking about Quantum relativity-Based Renewable Energy Generators (QB-REG’s), which are perfectly acceptable.
And what was that bit about nukes anyway, heard it briefly on the nightly news. Get rid of all weapons-grade nuclear materials within 4 years? How can we ever get rid of ALL of it when it’s a natural byproduct of our reactors that’s being generated all the time?
Wait a minute. I have an answer for that. And I don’t like it.
Smokey look:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1980&year2=2009&base1=1910&base2=1945&radius=1200&pol=reg
explain please
Ryan,
“Please Steven, I know all about JET and ITER. . .”
Do you also know about Polywell fusion?
http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2010/03/bussard-polywell-fusion-advances.html
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
“”” jeff brown (12:27:48) :
Feet2theFire (10:17:42) :
…….
Lets be realistic. If all of Greenland were to melt, humans would likely no longer exist on this planet…that would be too warm of a world to live on. “””
Well if all of Greenland were to melt; that would certainly be too warm for anything living to remain alive; I’m not sure what sort of rocks make up Greenland; but I am sure almost any molten rock is hot enough to kill all life on the planet.
But I don’t see CO2 doing that here on earth.
But if we were to limit it to just all of the Greenland ice melting; well I am sure that would be just a ho hum from most of the living things on the planet. Well those people in Bangladesh who run out on to the mudflats when a Tsunami sucks the sea out; while the elephants head for higher ground; you can probably count them out but you’d be surprised what people will do when the water starts lapping at their feet;
I won’t be standing around to watch; so I am sure I would be surprised what they do, also.
Count on some entrepeneur who will make a lot of money simply putting up signs to tell people which direction is up hill to higher ground.
“”” Mike D. (13:21:02) :
jeff brown (10:09:38): Ask yourself if you would mind having to move your entire town because your home fell into the ocean. “””
Well the entire town of Valdez Alaska, WAS moved; and it din’t even fall into the ocean. It mostly fell down in an earthquake, and they didn’t bother to try and fix it so they just went down the road short distance, and built a new town. So far that doesn’t seem like it will fall in the ocean.
“”” jeff brown (13:17:23) :
Henry chance (12:44:08) :
I happen to know that climate skeptic scientists were recently asked to debate climate scientists in LA on April 21st and that no skeptic scientists were willing to come to the debate. Glenn Beck also declined to debate Jim Cameron on the same day. So tell me, why are the skeptics afraid to do a real debate with climate scientists?
Another attempt is being tried with Imhoff. We’ll see if he’s game. “””
Well are you talking about Senator James Imhoffe of Oklahoma; or are you talking about a Climate Scientist named Imhoff ?
Senator Imhoffe is NOT a Climate Scientist; but I am sure there are plenty of skeptic “Climate” Scientists who would be able to debate the science issues with “your” un-named Climate Scientists.
There’s a gathering of Climate scientists set up in Chicago Next month, and I am sure anyone you want to name would be welcome there to debate on either side of the science issues. So send your chaps there; they will be welcomed with open arms.
They have had similar conferences before, and all the big climate scientists like Al Gore, and James Hansen; and Michael Mann have always been welcome to present papers at those conferences; but somehow they are the ones who never show up.
So whoever this Climate Scientist Imhoff is; I hope you are able to get him to debate your anonymous climate scientists; but I wouldn’t expect to get a science debate if you get Senator Imhoffe of Oklahoma instead; but I am sure you will get cogent reasons, why the Federal Government should just stay out of the way.
“”” jeff brown (13:14:08) :
Smokey (12:56:47) :
I don’t think I’m avoiding anything and I do believe I have a good understanding of the concept. I never said anyone needed to panic, I don’t bring the emotions into the debate. I believe in facts, and improved scientific understanding of the processes so that we all can better understand our climate system and future predictions.
What I think you fail to understand is that climate does not change without a forcing acting on it. We understand the past forcings that led to glacier and interglacial periods (e.g. orbital variations). “””
Well there’s your answer; earth’s orbit is different from what it was in 1850 or whenever it was that CO2 was 280 ppm and everything was garden of eden idyllic.
Now it hasn’t changed by much compared to what it was during the Cambrian period; but then climate hasn’t changed much either; hardly enough to even detect that it has changed at all.
I’m curious as to where in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, I might look for a rigorous definition of “Forcing” or “Forcings” and what are the proper SI units of Forcings; and where about on earth do they maintain International Standards of Forcings; or are they some fundamental Physical Constant that doesn’t need hardware standards. Are ther both SI units, and “British system” units of forcings. Isn’t it rather funny that the “British system” of units is maintained and used only in The United States of America. So what are our units of forcings as maintained by NIST.
Why is it that “Climatologists” use their own special jargon; is it something like Cusps and Risings etc as used by “Ancient Astrologers” ? A lot of unanswered questions that you could inform us on.
” jeff brown (13:14:08) :
[…]
What I think you fail to understand is that climate does not change without a forcing acting on it. We understand the past forcings that led to glacier and interglacial periods (e.g. orbital variations).”
What *you* fail to understand is that a vast system with multiple positive and negative feedbacks with different gains and different time lags (i’m talking about the earth) will oscillate for quite a while before reaching equilibrium – and as the most important “forcing”, namely the sun’s insolation – varies by 90 W/m^2 within a year (acc. to Dr. Svalgaard) we have a constantly varying input to the system. So don’t expect it to reach equilibrium any time soon – whether or not we do something or not.
Climate has always changed. Your idea also fails to explain the MWP away.
Mike D. (13:21:02) :
and
DirkH (13:26:47) :
A study published in July 2007 by Eske et al. found evidence that Dye 3 was glaciated during the Eemian, which implies that Greenland could have contributed at most 2 m (6.6 ft) to sea level rise. So where do you get all of Greenland melted in the Eemian?
DirkH (13:21:33) :
It isn’t made up fluff, it’s actually true. Why does it bother you to know that the warming seen today is different than that seen in the MWP or the 1930/1940s? Why not ask yourself why it was different rather than say it doesn’t matter.
George E. Smith (14:43:51) :
It is Shishmaref that I was referring to. Their entire village needs to be moved because it IS falling into the ocean.
George E. Smith (14:53:43) :
I’m not responsible for the debate, I simply heard about it. I think what would be good for everyone on both sides is a real debate between the experts on both sides w/o name calling, putt-downs, etc. A real debate on the facts and let each side question each other’s conclusions from those facts. In fact I haven’t seen anything here yet that shows facts that oppose the GHG theory. I am very interested in those, so please if anyone has any, or links to any, please post them! thanQ
George E. Smith (15:09:44) :
Sorry George, I find it hard to follow your logic here. Why did you get into units? I’m an engineer in my education and we only use the metric system. But more importantly what does that have to do with the issue?
The earth’s orbit has not changed substantially from 1850 to today to cause the observed warming. Where did you read that? These orbital variations take 10,000 to 100,000 to 1,00,000 years to occur, so they are not responsible for the last 150 years.
I’m sure you understand the concept of forcing. But here’s a definition for you:
The Earth’s climate changes when the amount of energy stored by the climate system is varied. The most significant changes occur when the global energy balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth is upset. There are a number of natural mechanisms that can upset this balance, for example fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit, variations in ocean circulation and changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
We do see today that there are changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and would you argue that we haven’t put a bunch of gases into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution? These gases do alter the
Iglobal energy balance, and this mechanism “forces” the climate to change.
DirkH (15:28:26) :
Dirk, 90 W m-2?? Really? That is HUGE! And WAY bigger than the forcing from GHGs. I think you have typo. The total solar input is only 1366 W m-2. Man, 90 W m-2, we would be so screwed if that was the seasonal variation in our sun’s output!
Actually Lief Svalgaard said recently:
I would like that too 🙂
Jack, the issue here is that it is almost dogma that the sun is the cause of the climate swings the last few thousand years [LIA, MWP, etc]. This is so because we don’t know what else could do it [certainly not man-made CO2, if we except that last 100 years]. The problem is that the latest solar data seem to indicate [and this is still controversial] that the sun varies less than what we thought just a few years ago, so if we will maintain that the sun is still the culprit, then we have to crank up significantly the sensitivity of the climate to solar forcing. Most people [like Steve M] think that that is ‘impossible’. I don’t know if it is and actually came originally to this blog to find out, but it seems that few want to discuss this. I think we cannot maintain that we know what is going on if we just gloss over this problem…
(http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/30/svalgaard-3/)
DirkH (15:28:26) :
Dirk, I believe one reason why the MWP period is yet to be explained may have to do with the sparse observational records. It’s not clear how widespread the warming may have been (it may have just been Europe). I’m sure paleoclimatology must be a very difficult and tedious job, but hopefully they will eventually reconstruct temperatures globally so this question can be adequately addressed. It certainly is an important one to understand.