The data have clearly shown that there was a steep rise in global temperatures from about 1900-1940, followed by a minor decrease from 1940-1970, and then a resumption of the sharp increase from 1970-present.
Are you using ∆t = 1 year? … generally speaking climatologists use 50 or 100 year averages … and minimally they consider all six basic climatological parameters (see below) …
=====
One thing that hasn’t been brought up in this thread to any degree is the possibility that the large-scale convective circulation pattern may change … currently we have three circulation cells in each hemisphere working together like gears … there’s nothing I can find that says this can’t change and become one single circulation cell per hemisphere …
This would end the Westerly flow in the temperate climates reversing it to Easterlies … Japan and the eastern USA would see double if not triple rainfall rates … Europe and western USA drying up into deserts … ocean surface currents would end … jet streams would cease … maybe not as big a consequence of sea level rise, but then again maybe it would be a bigger consequence … Europe’s rain falling on the Sahara instead … now there’s climate change one can sink their teeth into …
The problem with this scenario is that the mass of the Stratosphere isn’t enough to curtail radiative transfer of energy to outer space to any great degree, most likely not enough for the upper air to remain buoyant as it moves up in latitude … but the possibility remains …
Looking at this graph I see a rise of 0.2° from circa 1900 to the 1960’s, then a rise of 1.0° from 1970 to the present. To see a “steep rise” earlier you need to cherry-pick local extrema.
And that is why it amounts to a strawman argument, AFAIK experts put that in the unlikely column. However, that still does not mean that even before that the effects of global warming will be small or insignificant.
My apologies for posting something helpful to your cause … Heaven forbid that we should agree on anything … I was wicked for providing the counter-argument to the scenario I laid out above …
I never said it would in my post #122 … is that what you mean by “strawman argument”? … I didn’t say anything you could argue against … I’m not sure the logical fallacy in mine in this case …
My point is that prevailing winds are an important component of climate … as demonstrated by that being the primary division using the Köppen climate classification system … Tropical (Easterlies), Divergent (Down), Temperate (Westerlies)(two divisions) and Polar (Easterlies) …
Higher temperatures stop plants from growing? … perhaps those who claim this have never been to the Imperial Valley in California this time of year … the only limiting factor there is available water, of which there would be plenty if 1,550,000 Phoenix residents moved back to where ever they came from …
Human kind gets wiped out and the Meek (animals) inherit the earth!
Oh wait, that’s the best thing that could happen.
The worst thing is that nothing might really happen (despite claims to the contrary, this IS a possibility)… and we just keep destroying everything we touch without consequence. Since we humans love to adapt to change, we might have to wear hazmat suits to work… might need bubble-mobiles for transportation, might not be able to go outside (not that we would want to because everything is dead).
But hey, humans always find a way to survive… that’s what matters, right? And then we’ll have colonized Mars so after we’ve finished destroying the Earth we can destroy Mars too!
It was really unhelpful, after all one common thing deniers out there do is to claim that very unlikely things are being proposed by the experts.
… [snip]
So why bringing it up, if not to destroy it as an argument that is not really proposed? (Yes, that was a straw man in that post)
As your reply and the rest does not deal with anything that was said before to counter your ignorant points then the rest of what you say can be dismissed.
What should worry most is that the likelihood of that (that nothing might happen) is just about the same as for the high end of the temperature increases that we could encounter in the future.
In essence, as seen in the projections of the study linked, there is a 90 percent chance the warming that we will see by the end of the century will fall within 2.0-4.9 C (3.6-8.8 F) And the chances of seeing less than a 1 degree increase or to see even more damaging warming? Just about the same few percentage points.
As noted in the study: “What matters more for future warming is the carbon intensity, the amount of carbon emissions produced for each dollar of economic activity. That value has dropped in recent decades as countries boost efficiency and enact standards to reduce carbon emissions. How quickly that value drops in future decades will be crucial for determining future warming.”
So the ones claiming that we should expect to see insignificant changes are in the same area as the ones expecting almost end of the world temperature increases. Both are ignoring that the most likely scenarios are the ones were, if we do prepare and make changes to avoid the worst scenarios, we will make it with little unrest. Unfortunately, I can see that there are powerful leaders of today who are choosing not to change or not to prepare.
Deniers also claim that what is proposed by amateurs is physically impossible … like hypercanes and hockey sticks … or deserts where no divergent zone exists …
The question at hand is “What is the worst single consequence of global warming?” … my comment about circulation cells was directed towards that … and not to any single person in particular … please explain why you think there’s a logical fallacy … “worst single consequence” -> “reversing weather patterns” …
Please … feel free to not read anything I post … I promise my feelings won’t be hurt …
Last time I pointed at experts that reported that indeed Hypercanes are unlikely, so what are you talking about?
What you point at here is precisely my point, deniers not only like to say that experts are saying what you claim, but that also misunderstanding the ones that tell you what the experts are saying in a message board.
piffle, I already did reply to you about how wrong you were about what one can expect from the circulation cells in a warming world in a previous tread commenting about what Cecil posted about global warming.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20299868&postcount=26
From “How Strong Can a Hurricane Get?” – LiveScience – October 16th, 2012:
Hypercanes are impossible … think viscosity, boundry layers, other cyclones … it’s this magical thing called “friction” that neophytes always like to ignore thinking it is safe to do so …
The article I linked to isn’t long and does touch upon how global warming will increase the upper bound of hurricane strength … it also touches upon the controversy among professional climatologists concerning how much this upper bound increase per degree of temperature … but Typhoon Tip is still as close to the maximum size as to make no difference …
The experts you believe in so wholeheartedly are in violation of the Law of Physics …
This is a good description of your posting habits … you seek and find some bozo who, for a price, will state exactly what you want … and I agree that Denialists of both the First Order and Second Order do the exact same thing … but Alarmists aren’t free of this sin …
It takes work to find citations that are balanced and that fairly present both sides of these controversies … and yes, most claims by either side are still controversial at the highest levels … research continues …
It seems you didn’t understand anything in my post in that other thread … nor does it seem you understand anything in your response linked to above … would you please copy/paste the exact claim you think I made about large scale convective circulation patterns changing … or perhaps you don’t understand the claim I’ve made in this thread either …
I’m a Denialist of the Third Order … which is a philosophical position … science doesn’t define “good” and “evil” … there’s many many “good” reasons to curtail human’s burning of fossil fuels, starting with the pollution problems this behavior causes today … check out what’s happening in Northeast Alberta … ewwww … no amount of climate change with fix that …
:rolleyes:
Do you need to check what “unlikely” means? Scientists do not claim that things like Hypercanes would be impossible in a warmer earth, but that is not the issue here: many times before I did pointed at experts that did report on how **unlikely **things like that would be. So, a double straw man, not only pressing the mistaken point that I exaggerate about hurricanes, but also that the experts I point at are doing so; read your cite again and realize that besides saying that it was ***unlikely ***the experts cited in that article either report that hypercanes are unlikely or disagree on how intense they can get (I get the impression that the popular science reporter here does realize that reporting on how uncertain that is does not make a “good” popular article, you seem to miss that one big point I make elsewhere is that popular press is not the place to look for information about this, read the studies or consult the experts), the scientists I pointed at before are indeed telling us that the hurricanes are unlikely to get that insanely strong.
piffle, you will find that I did not use a weak cite as you used here to point at the experts that report on how unlikely hypercanes are, come to think of it, neither the reporter there tell us about **what **scientists are the ones talking about hypercanes becoming more prevalent; even Kerry Emanuel only talked about the increase in intensity by every increase of one degree, but that increase is not enough to talk about regular hypercanes either so, I have to complain about that article anyhow. So drop your talk about bozos (except the ones in the popular press) and deal with the fact that you did look for a cite that was indeed weakly alarmist and that I did not ever referred to.
…
Your overall point was that the changes therefore would be underwhelming, ergo, we do not need to mind global warming much. The points that you spectacularly missed are that:
-
Indeed someone did reply to you before but you ignored it, meaning that your affirmation in an early post was silly.
-
The main point was that while the area between the polar and the tropic cells are slowing down, other areas are increasing in speed, and then you ignore that as Jennifer Frances reported, the slow down of the meanders in the jet stream does not lead to calmer weather, because the meanders increase and get stuck longer in specific regions that leads to more intense droughts or more intense snow falls, depending on the region. So, so much for the changes being “underwhelming”.
And that is really just useless denial then.
And regarding my posting habits, I have the evidence to show that a) you do continue to ignore that I even took the Washington Post to task for exaggerating, even though they did clarify the thing after the alarming headline by reporting later that indeed hypercanes are unlikely.
b) That cite I made was 6 years ago and it seems that you did not learn anything about what most experts do say about the issue.
Early you claimed that I was not paying attention to what others like you posted, the evidence from six years ago shows that you still need to check what others have posted before, before claiming that I have an issue.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19471471&postcount=21
So yes, as I said then: “that unlikely point is then ignored and popular media then does not help by overstating the danger and then climate change deniers jump to claim that the scientists are the fear mongers. There is money indeed being made out of a falsehood by the preachers of fear but it is mostly from the ones that misunderstand or mislead others in what the scientists are actually reporting.”
[Bold added]
What’s the name of the fallacy where you cannot refute the arguments of your more informed opponents, so you pick the most ignorant comment you can find on a Yahoo blog, argue against it, and feel that you’ve contributed to the debate?
Who made the claim I’ve reddened? Nobody in this thread, I think — I’ve never heard the claim made about land plants. Ironically, the other reddened part of your own quote answers your own question. Dire predictions about the Amazon forest are about rainfall, which will be reduced and become more erratic.
Indeed that problem may already be in progress:
Sorry, 1 year ago.
Why … it turns out YOU did:
From which:
[sigh] … hyperbole is supposed to be alarming … but that doesn’t make it true … Iowa will grow the same amount of silage even when the temperatures are 3.2ºC higher, with the same precipitation rates … as GIGO so politely pointed out in his post #124, weather patterns averaged over 50 years are not changing, and Canada will always be colder than the Gulf of Mexico … it will continue raining in Iowa …
Note that Iowa is all but completely deforested … replanting would eliminate beef and swine production … perhaps the cure for climate change is worst than the symptoms …
Nah … warmer temperatures and more rainfall leads to more aggressive plant growth; and abundance of food, clothing and affordable housing … humans are on the cusp of a new Golden Age of social enlightenment, technological advancements and mutual prosperity … global warming is a good thing, the best of all possibilities …
Nope, read it again, I was only pointing out that you were indeed exaggerating. Changes are happening indeed, just not underwhelming as you mistakenly told us in the other thread (still one item that you only shows that you are the one not paying attention) nor they should be catastrophic if we prepare and do change.
The alarming thing should be that powerful leaders do not want to be agents of that change nowadays.
And, just as in your ongoing mistake of thinking that the weather changes will be underwhelming (you could be accurate in some bits about the air cell circulation slowing in some areas, but then you only show that you ignore what the scientists are telling us about the overall picture, indeed: you are cherry picking) You also here do ignore that the deniers that told you about the aggressive plant growth misled you by not telling you what is very likely to happen later if we do not control our emissions:
It seems that everything you ever post on these issues is always wrong, and this is no exception.
The NYmag article overstates a few points with respect to some specific numbers and timeframes, and that fact should be noted for the sake of accuracy, but they’re generally on the right track and you are not. You are in fact totally off the rails spouting utter nonsense.
The effects of temperature rise combined with regional climate changes including precipitation changes and the potential for migration of invasive species and new disease vectors will be region-dependent but the aggregate impacts will be negative and progressively more so toward and beyond the end of this century. Furthermore, they will be felt most strongly in regions that are poorest and most vulnerable, already stressed for food and water and least able to adapt. So in addition to reduced global crop yields we will eventually be facing a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions and corresponding global instability.
From the IPCC AR5 Working Group 2 on Impacts and Adaptation:
For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact aggregate production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10%, and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. After 2050 the risk of more severe yield impacts increases and depends on the level of warming … These projected impacts will occur in the context of rapidly rising crop demand.
And with respect to Africa: risk medium to very high by end of century with 2 to 4° C rise predicted, aggravated by severe stress on water resources: Reduced crop productivity associated with heat and drought stress, with strong adverse effects on regional, national, and household livelihood and food security, also given increased pest and disease damage and flood impacts on food system infrastructure (high confidence)