If you look at the pictures and graphs in the article below you will find ample evidence in easily understood form that the carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing, that the temperature of the earth is rising, and that undesirable changes are already occurring in the earth and its ecosystems. And that is with the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere only up 40%, and the temperature increase only about 0.83°C. What will happen when our carbon emissions double and the temperature of the Earth is 3 to 4°C warmer?
I think I would go moderate.
I am currently reading a book, The Last Survivors, about human evolution.
It is actually kind of fascinating reading about how the Neanderthals and moderns (Cro Magnons) traded places as the climates changed every few thousand years. When it warmed, moderns moved in and when it cooled, the environment favored Neanderthals. This really wasn't expected. Paleoanthropologists assumed moderns simply replaced Neanderthals.
It really makes me feel lucky. My Great great great...... grandparents actually had a pretty tough life but they had it easy compared to Neanderthals. Now we have drones being taught to fret over very nice climate conditions. My modern ancestors (and maybe a few of the Neanderthals as well) would no doubt be disappointed.
Note: I just realized I gave an adjective. How about moderating. I forgot my elementary English. After rereading some of the answers, I am wondering if maybe some of those Neanderthals are still with us.
As with you, I find the past 15 to 16 years of temperature data to be misleading.
Deceptive would also come to mind.
The reduced solar activity for the past few decades and the strong La Nina to neutral ENSO conditions have masked the warming that still continues today. The denial industry puppets, such as you, Mike, will see this as an opportunity to fool the less knowing about short term climate variations.
Instead of my seeking bonus points from you, Mike, let me offer you a chance for some bonus points of your own by answering this question:
Do you know of anything, within the Laws of Physics, that would allow for us to put tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere and we not witness a warming of our climate beyond the natural variations within our climate?
A simple, "No" answer will stand on its own merits.
A "Yes" answer would need to be shown with the science that backs the answer.
Jesse - The denial industry puppets are not swayed by science, facts, logic, integrity, knowledge, humility, caring or anything else that would alter their ideologically based pursuit of committing crimes against humanity. I highly suspect that they could easily be bought with ease. Offer them even the scent of money to be made for themselves and they will parrot anything you wish to broadcast.
Added*****
OttawaMike - "A scientific theory with flexible outcomes is a pseudo-scientific theory."
Very true, Mike. I am trying to wean you away from the psuedo-science and enlighten you with real science. .... Do you suggest that natural, short term climate variations will not show up in the temperature data? Such as strong El Nino and strong La Nina cycles?
OttawaMike - "Could strong El Nino to neutral ENSO conditions the previous 16 years (1982-1998) have "masked" the standstill that continues today?
The 1982 to 1998 ENSO was stronger and more enduring El Nino conditions than were the La Nina conditions. Source -http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/bac...
Would that have masked the "standstill" that persists today? What standstill? 1998 was an anonymously warm year. 1998 was the warmest year on record for the 20th century. Could you imagine the temperature state that the world would be in now if the warming had persisted at the same rate as it was during the year 1998? ... Should it had done so, then I suspect that even you would have abandoned the denial industry by now and would be seeking ways to mitigate the additional heat.
You deserve the bonus points by answering my question for you. You could have tried to mislead and to misdirect. yet you gave the honest and intelligent answer. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I credit you for your honest and straightforward answer and I have gained some respect for you, as a person.
Added - Part2******
OttawaMike - "I suggest that the current "masking" (as you call it) is one outcome for the past 16 years. Another is that temperature from the previous years (1982-1998) continuing rising along the same trend. That's the flexible outcome I was talking about."
Yes, short term climate variables is why we do not see a steady rise or fall of temperature with a respective steady rise or fall of CO2. The climate models cannot fully account for these variables nor for their duration and this is why climate models will never be able to tell us that there will be exactly 2 degrees Celsius warming at the same instant we have added another 280 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere. However, the math does tell us that adding another 280 ppm of CO2 will add an additional warming (or, less cooling, if you prefer) that would not otherwise be observed in its absence. And, yes, China and India are also helping to mask the warming with the amount of particulates they emit. Until the effects of CO2 overcomes the effects of the particulates.
OttawaMike - "And you want me to blindly accept that we know that 2, 3, 4C warming is coming?"
I do not want you to blindly accept anything. Look at the science and use the math to come to your own conclusion. We both know that with natural variability set aside that adding CO2 into the atmosphere will warm the climate. Unless you are seeing a catastrophic climate cooling event, then we will continue to warm beyond the natural variations by adding more CO2.
Increasing and rising.
<@John: "The reduced solar activity for the past few decades and the strong La Nina to neutral ENSO conditions have masked the warming that still continues today."
A scientific theory which recognizes that global temperature is a function of several variables reflects reality. From a scientific standpoint, it would be nice if just the Sun or just carbon dioxide or just aerosols effected climate, but that is not the real world. Perhaps we should get Captain Jean Luc Pickard to take NCC-1701-D to perform double blind tests on a bunch of planets. Or pehaps he could leave us some warp plasma, which has enough energy to power the replicators, and we would be able to meet our energy needs without changing the composition of the atmosphere.
= it could be worse than the models say = we should not be messing with atmospheric chemistry because we don't understand it well enough
I better answer this question Ottawa Mike before I pop out to work :( Well we know what Hilliary's expression would be. I hope this answers your question.
Illuminating.
It tells me me that if co2 is responsible for warming, then it's effect is either over-stated, or it's ability to trap more heat has reached it's ceiling.
Thanks GCNP, that made me smile. I'm interested to know something. When you look at the current temperature trend, what do YOU see? Do you see a flattening? Or do you see the trend continuing with a short term deviation?
Edit john.
"We both know that with natural variability set aside that adding CO2 into the atmosphere will warm the climate"
Perhaps you would tell us how much warming will be caused by adding a further 100ppm of co2. If you are able to remove the natural causes as you say, then this should be easy.
I like what Tony Hillerman's editor told him - using adverbs mean you didn't find the right verb.
It's a good question Ottawa Mike, and my answer is: who cares? Hope you find the answer you're looking for Ottawa Mike!
The nominal difference in global average temperature over the most recent available 16 year period, was +0.4 degrees . Extrapolated that is a warming rate of 2.4 degrees per century.
I don't much care about adverbs.
Buck up Mike adverbs end in LY.
I'll start by giving a list of suggestions:
stagnating
flattening
increasing
plateauing
standstill
accelerating
slowing
leveling off
rising
slowly rising
falling
who cares?
Its falling as it always does after the appropriate PDO state change. The next decade the PDO cooling will be amplified by a moderate decrease in solar activity.
alternating
Btw, you can't give bonus pounts besides best answer ;)
Well we know what Hilliary's expression would be.
James Hansen's statement:
http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”
So I think you forgot to insert the word 'cooling'. Maybe falling would fit in there.
Cherry picked.
misleading, deceptive, unscientific, red herring
