Climate warming faster than feared

Quote from Ricter:

Re the polar vortex last year...

The Winter the Polar Vortex Collapsed
Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:31 AM PDT

"The polar vortex was persistently weak from November 2012 through March 2013. At the peak of winter, in mid-January, the polar vortex was split in two by a massive sudden stratospheric warming. Instead of a vortex, very high surface pressure built under a dome of sinking over the north pole. Astonishingly, high pressure over the pole extended from the surface to the mid-stratosphere from late November to mid-March.

<img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/24282/large/PolarVortex20Novto_19Mar2013hgt.ao.cdas.gif?1363876369">
The daily geopotential height anomalies at 17 pressure levels are shown for the previous 120 days as indicated, and they are normalized by standard deviation using 1979-2000 base period. The anomalies are calculated by subtracting 1979-2000 daily climatology, and then averaged over the polar cap poleward of 65°N.The blue (red) colors represent a strong (weak) polar vortex. The black solid lines show the zero anomalies.

"High pressure over the pole pushed the weakened jet stream south over Siberia causing brutally cold weather in north-east Asia. Record smashing snow storms formed off the east coast of the U.S. when the blocked jet stream collided Arctic air with Gulf Stream moisture.

"Paradoxically, this bizarre winter may be tied to the loss of Arctic sea ice. Even more paradoxically, the "Global warming Stopped in 1998" claim touted by climate skeptics may be linked to this winter's bizarre weather.

<img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/24537/large/Nuccitelli2012_Fig1.jpg?1363966136">

"To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content."

"The substantial build up of heat in the oceans since 1998 combined with an insubstantial increase in the temperature of the atmosphere has destabilized the atmosphere over the oceans. I think, based on recent research results, that this destabilization has led to the rapid increase in sudden stratospheric warmings over the past 15 years."

More>>

Please show that chart going back several hundred thousand years. You might be on to something.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Please show that chart going back several hundred thousand years. You might be on to something.
Please show a chart going back several hundred thousand years with a CO2 rate of increase comparable to the present.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Please show a chart going back several hundred thousand years with a CO2 rate of increase comparable to the present.

I just did. Aren't you paying attention?

But even if I hadn't, I'm not the one saying there's a global warming problem. The burden of proof isn't on me.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

I just did. Aren't you paying attention?

But even if I hadn't, I'm not the one saying there's a global warming problem. The burden of proof isn't on me.
The burden of proof is not on me, either, that's what we pay professionals for.

That chart's scale is too long to comparatively judge rate of increase of CO2, though the current level is quite "interesting".
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

I just did. Aren't you paying attention?

But even if I hadn't, I'm not the one saying there's a global warming problem. The burden of proof isn't on me.

This isn't about the burden of proof, this isn't a silly debate. This discussion reminds me of the old tobacco industry's arguments about smoking not being harmful. This is serious if it's possible man made CO2 emissions adversely affect the climate then it is imperative we study this and consider the implications and ask what are the risks and what can or should we do about it, something that the religious anti science people don't seem to be able to do or even think about. The lack of serious though from those on the far right is truly puzzling. You have moments of clarity Tao and shouldn't be with them. This isn't a conservative / liberal issue, and if it was the conservative policy would have to be "conservative" in our actions.
 
Never in the past was the CO2 levels raised 40% in two hundred years. That's a blink of an eye. So looking at past climate is of limited value with regards to understanding the current situation and is an irrelevant deflection. Man is releasing 9 billion tons of carbon into the air every year. That has never happened before.

The forcing effect of CO2 is the atmosphere is fairly well established in terms of watts per square meter. We know this factor and what that spike on the right side means.
 
Quote from Ricter:

The burden of proof is not on me, either, that's what we pay professionals for.

That chart's scale is too long to comparatively judge rate of increase of CO2, though the current level is quite "interesting".

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim to be true. You can pretend otherwise, but that's the way it is. If I say "the earth will explode in 2021" I'd better have credible backup to prove why, or I'm just a nut.

As for the interesting spike, I agree. It's certainly interesting. Either temperature will follow suit (if the spike in CO2 is a leading indicator and there is causality) or it won't. If it doesn't, I think we'll safely be able to put the climate change crap to bed.

Regardless, the fluctuations occurring in temperature for the last few decades is irrelevant in the term of the life of the earth.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

This isn't about the burden of proof, this isn't a silly debate. This discussion reminds me of the old tobacco industry's arguments about smoking not being harmful. This is serious if it's possible man made CO2 emissions adversely affect the climate then it is imperative we study this and consider the implications and ask what are the risks and what can or should we do about it, something that the religious anti science people don't seem to be able to do or even think about. The lack of serious though from those on the far right is truly puzzling. You have moments of clarity Tao and shouldn't be with them. This isn't a conservative / liberal issue, and if it was the conservative policy would have to be "conservative" in our actions.

This isn't comparable to smoking. You can easily link cancer and other lung disease to smoking. There's irrefutable proof.

There may one day be irrefutable proof to global warming from man made cause. But thus far, I've not seen it. That being said, it would be foolish to think man has no impact on his environment - climate or otherwise. The question is merely at what point that impact becomes noticed and where it manifests.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim to be true. You can pretend otherwise, but that's the way it is. If I say "the earth will explode in 2021" I'd better have credible backup to prove why, or I'm just a nut.

As for the interesting spike, I agree. It's certainly interesting. Either temperature will follow suit (if the spike in CO2 is a leading indicator and there is causality) or it won't. If it doesn't, I think we'll safely be able to put the climate change crap to bed.

Regardless, the fluctuations occurring in temperature for the last few decades is irrelevant in the term of the life of the earth.
"Climate change crap". Sounds like you have your mind made up. Why, based on what?
 
Quote from Ricter:

"Climate change crap". Sounds like you have your mind made up. Why, based on what?

You're right. I shouldn't have used the word "crap". I apologize. I meant it in terms of "all this stuff about climate change".

I don't have my mind made up, as I lack evidence to prove anything pro-climate change folks are claiming is real (other than their claims). But I recognize that humans have to be having some impact on the planet they live in (logically speaking). There's just no information anyone is showing that is any more than speculation - including what you posted.
 
Back
Top