Confirmation of Climate change - observable by human senses ?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@am77494

Yes you are right. I was misremembering it. The point I was making was that historically earth’s atmosphere always has seen changes - sometimes drastic and fast.

On any human time scale, a few million years is not fast.

[am77494]

@Exapno_Mapcase

On any human time scale, a few million years is not fast.

I was replying to a comment about fossil fuels being the result of 100s of millions of years of biological activity /accumulation. And I replied, not just fossil fuels but Oxygen also accumulated and changes in the earth’s atmosphere due to the same reasons. Here’s a chart that shows historical oxygen levels - Geological history of oxygen - Wikipedia There are some peaks that are abrupt in the Chart

Where do you see Human time scales, even if there is such a thing in my post ?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

And my point is that anything taking place over geologic time scales is irrelevant to the discussion. We cannot read any such process to a precision of 100 years. Modern climate change is that fast and is the only change in this thread that may be characterized that way.

[sbunny8]

Fast and slow are relative terms. We’re looking at Oxygen levels that went up and then back down again in just a few million years, which is relatively fast compared to other points on the graph when it rose or fell very slowly over billions of years. But that’s still extremely slow compared to the normal CO2 cycle that has regulated the climate recently, where CO2 climbs from 190 ppm to 280 ppm in about 10,000 years and then falls back to 190 ppm over the course of 40,000 years. This up-and-down cycle has been repeating itself pretty regularly for the last million years or so. During that time, oxygen levels have hardly budged at all. But neither of those compares to the relatively rapid speed at which CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in less than 200 years.

[watchwolf49]

200 years, and even 100 years, is a long time in human terms … the new-born infant today would see their great-grandchildren having babies in a 100 years easy, and great-great-grandchildren having babies in a 100 years isn’t remarkable … will cheap fossil fuels last that long, and when they run out, will our grandchildren pay for expensive fossil fuels? … what’s left for our great-great-grandchildren? …

Alarmist Dogma “in a 100 years” was laid out in 1990 {Cite YouTube 1’35"} … well, now we only have 72 years for this to all happen, which is more time than it took to go from the first powered flight to walking a man on the Moon … right now global warming over ten years is smaller than instrumentation error …

Running out of fossil fuels will be far and away more catastrophic to humans than any small change in average temperature … as the video above states, there’s lots of great reasons to make these changes other than the climate, and it will be expensive … half the population lives in cities, half the world’s food supply has to be trucked in, or humans will have to stop living in cities … then where are we? …

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Alarmist Dogma “in a 100 years” was laid out in 1990 {Cite YouTube 1’35"} … well, now we only have 72 years for this to all happen, which is more time than it took to go from the first powered flight to walking a man on the Moon … right now global warming over ten years is smaller than instrumentation error …

Wrong on the Alarmist Dogma thing and missing the big picture on “the instrumentation error.”

Climate scientists push back against catastrophic scenarios

One of the challenges of discussing climate change is that it really is that bad. Completely realistic projections of things like sea-level rise, loss of agricultural productivity, and so on can sometimes sound like a disaster movie.

This is a bit of a problem in two ways. The first is that people naturally tend to dismiss possible future outcomes that they don’t want to believe will happen. The second is that, since its predictions are for very negative changes, all of climate science has been branded “alarmist.” In fact, if you do a Web search for “alarmist,” the first results that aren’t basic definitions or the Alarmist Brewery are all about climate change.

This week, however, we were provided with a number of indications that accusations branding all climate science as alarmism simply aren’t true. In response to a couple of articles that were a tad overly pessimistic about our future, climate scientists have stepped in to provide a more realistic perspective about our future.

The premise was stated clearly, so the article was obviously going to have a negative outlook. That said, Wallace-Wells still managed to get a number of things wrong. For example, scientists recognize that the melting permafrost will probably release carbon into the atmosphere. But our knowledge regarding how much is still very uncertain. Even the most pessimistic view, however, doesn’t suggest we’ll liberate all of it, as “The Uninhabitable Earth” suggests: “all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up.”

The article mischaracterizes the result of a recent revision to temperature records as showing warming is happening “more than twice as fast.” (For a more realistic take, see our coverage.) It says the minimum, or best case, we can see for sea-level rise is four feet by the end of the century (that’s above the median of the IPCC’s projections). The article even implies that a warmer climate will somehow foster the sort of genetic changes that have altered the Zika virus’ symptoms (it won’t).

The response by climate scientists has been pretty negative. Michael Mann, a scientist who has been frequently called an alarmist, posted a criticism online in which he noted some of Wallace-Wells’ factual errors.

We asked Gavin Schmidt about the new paper, as well as the response to the New York article. “When people push back on mistaken assumptions or exaggerated claims, we are just doing our job,” he told Ars. “We have to be objective.”

While that means pushing back against alarmism, it also means pushing back against the people who argue that climate change doesn’t pose a risk. “Claims that there are no problems are just as bad (and perhaps worse) than over-egged claims,” Schmidt said. “To retain credibility, we have to tackle both. There are of course uncertainties in the science, but that neither means we know nothing, nor does it imply that anything goes.”

Given that approach, it’s somewhat ironic that criticizing the people who say there’s little risk in climate change has probably led to him being labeled alarmist himself.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/

The 2016 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2016 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data.

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. However, even taking this into account, NASA estimates 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty.

“2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “We don’t expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear.”

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record — in all three cases, behind records set in 2015.

[scr4]

@watchwolf49

Alarmist Dogma “in a 100 years” was laid out in 1990 {Cite YouTube 1’35"} … well, now we only have 72 years for this to all happen, which is more time than it took to go from the first powered flight to walking a man on the Moon …

He says “deaths of forests, parched croplands, flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees - widespread disasters in the next century.”

There’s nothing “alarmist” about any of these predictions. Desertification is already being caused by global warming. Sea level has already risen about 3 inches since 1990, exacerbating flooding during storms. We already have environmental refugees.

[Chronos]

Right, it’s too late to prevent the catastrophes of global warming, because we’ve already had catastrophes from global warming, and we will have more in the future. Which doesn’t mean that it’s too late to do anything at all: The more and sooner we act, the fewer and less severe the future catastrophes will be.

[watchwolf49]

@scr4

He says “deaths of forests, parched croplands, flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees - widespread disasters in the next century.”

There’s nothing “alarmist” about any of these predictions. Desertification is already being caused by global warming. Sea level has already risen about 3 inches since 1990, exacerbating flooding during storms. We already have environmental refugees.

This is alarmism because it’s all negative, nothing to the positive … it’s dogma because critical analyst isn’t allowed … I live in the forest and chainsaws kill more trees than all other causes combined … a 3ºC temperature increase in 100 years won’t change that …

If we set that aside, then we can look at answering the OP with “no” … an individual with just their 5 senses would not notice any change between the first fifty years of their life and the second fifty years … if they live that long … if not, then they haven’t lived long enough to detect climate change in 50 year chunks … shorter chunks of time introduce dynamics and averages become less meaningful …

This is a slow process in human terms … there are places we can point and see change happening quicker … but the average change is small, and some places climate isn’t changing … thus I contend, humans require scientific equipment to detect climate change, except where we clear-cut the forest first …

@Chronos

Right, it’s too late to prevent the catastrophes of global warming, because we’ve already had catastrophes from global warming, and we will have more in the future. Which doesn’t mean that it’s too late to do anything at all: The more and sooner we act, the fewer and less severe the future catastrophes will be.

Which catastrophe required global warming?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@watchwolf49

I live in the forest and chainsaws kill more trees than all other causes combined

Which part of “global” don’t you understand?

[Kimstu]

@watchwolf49

This is alarmism because it’s all negative, nothing to the positive

I think you may be misunderstanding the word “alarmism”. “Alarmism” doesn’t mean “pessimism” or “gloominess”. An accurate identification of a genuine problem or hazard is not “alarmist”, no matter how full it is of Debbie-Downer negativity. For instance, if your oncologist tells you you have two months to live, that’s not necessarily alarmist, even though it’s admittedly “all negative, nothing to the positive”.

If you refuse to take seriously evidence-based predictions and warnings of undesired consequences just because you feel they’re too “negative” and not sufficiently balanced with “positive” views, then you have only yourself to blame for living in a fool’s paradise.

@watchwolf49

it’s dogma because critical analyst [sic] isn’t allowed

What do you imagine climate science is, if not critical analysis?

@watchwolf49

Which catastrophe required global warming?

Are you trying to ask “Which specific weather-related disaster can be definitively ascribed to global warming as its cause”? AFAIK, none of them, because that’s not how weather works. Long-term patterns of weather, and other phenomena like ice-cap melting and ocean acidification, can be clearly identified effects of global warming, but any given individual storm or hurricane, say, cannot.

When people refer to “the catastrophes of global warming”, they mean the climatic trend towards more numerous and severe disasters, not any one particular disaster.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

This is alarmism because it’s all negative, nothing to the positive … it’s dogma because critical analyst isn’t allowed …

Nope, the reality is that while there can be some positives, on the whole the negatives outnumber the positives, and that was reported many times before.

Positives and negatives of global warming

The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.

It is not dogma, the dogma comes from the ones that propose that we should not worry about the issue after decades have already passed with their critical analysis.

The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

Why the 97% climate consensus is important | Dana Nuccitelli, John Cook,...

And multiple empirical studies, conducted in different countries, have found that informing people of the scientific consensus has a small but significant influence on their own subsequent judgements about the reality of human-caused global warming. While discussion about climate policy is urgently needed, establishing and communicating the scientific consensus about human-caused climate change is not a competitor to policy discussion; it is a complement.

No one argues that the scientific consensus is the one and only message that needs to be communicated - public responses to climate change are often as complex as society itself. But informing the public about the scientific consensus that the problem actually exists can support the discussion on how to best solve the problem. The argument that we have to choose between debunking the climate policy opponent’s disinformation about the scientific consensus or engage in meaningful policy dialogue is a false choice.

Disinformation about the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening has been used to delay serious conversations about climate policy in the United States and a few other countries. Moreover, the argument that communicators should not talk about a scientific consensus when one exists is deeply troubling. In the history of science, it is relatively rare that such strong agreement emerges about basic scientific facts. When it comes to issues such as the future of our planet, recommending that we withhold this information from the public is unethical.
Consensus messaging isn’t responsible for climate policy failures

American policymakers have struggled to implement national climate policies, but not for lack of policy discussion “crowded out” by consensus messaging. Carbon tax and cap and trade bills have been introduced regularly, including by Republicans like Senator John McCain, and in the current session by Democratic Senators Whitehouse and Schatz. One climate bill even passed the House of Representatives in 2009 before failing in the Senate.

Those climate policy proposals failed in large part because they were opposed by most Republican members of Congress, many of whom continue to deny the very existence of human-caused climate change. Denial of the scientific consensus has long been one of the primary arguments used to justify their rejection of climate policy. Likewise, many members of the public don’t yet understand that climate scientists have reached near-unanimous agreement that climate change is real and human-caused, and thus are either uncertain or doubtful about whether this is a real and urgent problem. Consensus messaging is one tool (of many) to help people understand the reality and importance of the issue.

Moreover, what happens if we follow Pearce’s recommendations and stop communicating the fact of the scientific consensus, while opponents of climate policy continue to misinform? Two recent independent experimental studies (by the US and Australian authors of this article) found that when disinformation is not countered, people’s misunderstanding of the consensus increases, while decreasing their acceptance of the reality of human-caused climate change.
A growing body of empirical research across different fields has established that perceived scientific consensus is an important influence on action (or inaction). Opponents of climate action have understood this for decades.

It is unfortunate that Pearce ignores this body of empirical research, thus making recommendations that play into the hands of those who deny climate science and seek to maintain the status quo. To be sure, science includes doubt, healthy skepticism, and disagreement, but that does not mean that efforts to quantify and communicate scientific consensus should have no place in society or policy development. Advocating such a stance is counterproductive and would keep the public uninformed about this important consensus of experts.

[scr4]

<never mind>

[watchwolf49]

@Kimstu

[snip] … Are you trying to ask “Which specific weather-related disaster can be definitively ascribed to global warming as its cause”? AFAIK, none of them, because that’s not how weather works. Long-term patterns of weather, and other phenomena like ice-cap melting and ocean acidification, can be clearly identified effects of global warming, but any given individual storm or hurricane, say, cannot.

When people refer to “the catastrophes of global warming”, they mean the climatic trend towards more numerous and severe disasters, not any one particular disaster.

This is my understanding as well … thus my question about the claim “because we’ve already had catastrophes from global warming” … all climatology can tell us is the probability of some weather event occurring … and we’re projecting how these probabilities will be changing due to global warming …

Was it wrong for me to ask?

The current trend towards more numerous and severe disasters is more often attributed to larger populations, hurricanes do more damage because there’s more to be damaged on the coastlines … ice storms take down more electric cables because there’s more electric cables to take down … catastrophes are going to happen, and global warming will make some worse, others better … but only a little bit … Indiana will have one less damaging blizzard in the next fifty years … one more dry year … where’s the balance here? …

[Chronos]

Sea level rise has already been catastrophic in parts of India. That’s specifically and directly attributable to global warming.

[Slash1972]

@Chronos

Sea level rise has already been catastrophic in parts of India. That’s specifically and directly attributable to global warming.

Do you have any links to the current effects in parts of India? I can only find projections of 2050 or later.