Human Caused Global Warming Will Not Happen

[djolds1]

Relatively easy to access. Note the source.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ ... ssil_fuels

I took a quick scan, but 'fraid I don't really buy it. If it were that easy, companies in the business wouldn't be currently spending orders of mag more than they were prepared to do a few decades ago by drilling 3 miles under the sea. They'd go to wherever these 'easy access' points are.

You mean the legislatively forbidden areas - close to shore, ANWR, etc?

[seedload]

But we are currently coming out of an ice age! Of course the polar caps will melt!

What are you talking about?

Sounds like someone hasn't bothered to point that out to you! Fancy that! Not quite the story of global warming the mainstream wants you to hear, is it!

We are at the end of an interglacial, a long one, not in an ice age.

[bcglorf]

What are you talking about?

Sounds like someone hasn't bothered to point that out to you! Fancy that! Not quite the story of global warming the mainstream wants you to hear, is it!

We are at the end of an interglacial, a long one, not in an ice age.

You say potato.

The point was clear and correct, we are still on the warming side of the last 'ice age' as any layman would refer to it, even a climate scientist would slip the usage into casual conversation with anyone not in the field. They surely would immediately after a layman asked for clarification of what an interglacial was. The easiest and shortest explanation to communicate to a layman is "it's like a mini ice age".

[seedload]

Sounds like someone hasn't bothered to point that out to you! Fancy that! Not quite the story of global warming the mainstream wants you to hear, is it!

We are at the end of an interglacial, a long one, not in an ice age.

You say potato.

The point was clear and correct, we are still on the warming side of the last 'ice age' as any layman would refer to it, even a climate scientist would slip the usage into casual conversation with anyone not in the field. They surely would immediately after a layman asked for clarification of what an interglacial was. The easiest and shortest explanation to communicate to a layman is "it's like a mini ice age".

We are IN an ice age.. (at least, the tail end of one)... and at some stage in the future won't be any more!

Sorry, it was not clear. Not potato vs potato. We are not IN an ice age. An interglacial is the opposite of an ice age.

We are in an interglacial - the tail end of one. Yes, I agree that melting and sea level rise will likely continue for the extent of the interglacial, so the premise that we are coming out of an ice age, while poorly expressed, is a valid point But, no, I do not agree that the antarctic cap generally melts completely during an interglacial. We determine the length of the ice ages/interglacials from ice cores for God's sake.

An interglacial is not like a mini ice age. It is the opposite of an ice age.

Sounds like someone hasn't bothered to point that out to you! Fancy that! Not quite the story of global warming the mainstream wants you to hear, is it!

I know a lot about this subject. I am a skeptic.

[seedload]

I think there is worry that the increase in temperature will accelerate the melting of the polar ice caps raising sea levels. A 1-2 degree although small to us is significant overall. There's a lot of concern by coastal towns and low-lying islands or island nations.

For those worried about melting land ice, please reference the following.

viewtopic.php?p=29851&highlight=greenland#29851

viewtopic.php?p=33531&highlight=greenland#33531

If you use Vostok (Antarctic Ice Core) you get similar results.

Regarding the likelyhood of Antartica melting, just go to the wiki. Hint, it is really cold there.

Temperature

The lowest naturally occurring temperature on Earth was −89.2°C (−128.6°F); recorded on Thursday, July 21, 1983 at Vostok Station. For comparison, this is 11 °C colder than subliming dry ice. The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 14.6°C (58.3°F) in two places, Hope Bay and Vanda Station, on January 5, 1974. The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57°C (−70°F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −28°C (−18.4°F) in August to −3°C (26.6°F) in January. At the South Pole, the highest temperature recorded was −14°C (7°F). Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15°C (59°F) have been recorded, though the summer temperature is usually around 2°C (36°F). Severe low temperatures vary with latitude, elevation, and distance from the ocean. East Antarctica is colder than West Antarctica because of its higher elevation. The Antarctic Peninsula has the most moderate climate. Higher temperatures occur in January along the coast and average slightly below freezing.

Ice cover

Nearly all of Antarctica is covered by an ice sheet that is, on average, at least 1.6 kilometres thick. Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice and more than 70% of its fresh water. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt — around 30 million cubic kilometres of ice — the seas would rise by over 60 metres.[2] This is, however, very unlikely within the next few centuries. The Antarctic is so cold that even with increases of a few degrees, temperatures would generally remain below the melting point of ice. Warmer temperatures are expected to lead to more snow, which would increase the amount of ice in Antarctica, offsetting approximately one third of the expected sea level rise from thermal expansion of the oceans.[3] During a recent decade, East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres per year while West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimetres per year (Davis et al., Science 2005) doi:10.1126/science.1110662.

[chrismb]

We are IN an ice age.. (at least, the tail end of one)... and at some stage in the future won't be any more!

Sorry, it was not clear. Not potato vs potato. We are not IN an ice age. An interglacial is the opposite of an ice age.

We're not yet in an interglacial. We HAVE GLACIERS. Sure they are disappearing, but we are still a glacified planet.

An ice age is not when there is ice all over the planet. That's never happened, so if that were the definition then we've never had one!

An ice age is when there is permanent ice somewhere on the planet throughout the year that doesn't all melt during the summer.

OK, I'll bite... what's YOUR definition of an ice age, then?

[bcglorf]

We are IN an ice age.. (at least, the tail end of one)... and at some stage in the future won't be any more!

Sorry, it was not clear. Not potato vs potato. We are not IN an ice age. An interglacial is the opposite of an ice age.

We're not yet in an interglacial. We HAVE GLACIERS. Sure they are disappearing, but we are still a glacified planet.

An ice age is not when there is ice all over the planet. That's never happened, so if that were the definition then we've never had one!

An ice age is when there is permanent ice somewhere on the planet throughout the year that doesn't all melt during the summer.

OK, I'll bite... what's YOUR definition of an ice age, then?

Here's the wiki wisdom:
An ice age or, more precisely, glacial age, is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "Ice Age" ), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in the ice age that began at the start of the Pleistocene (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).

By that everyone is right. We're in an interglacial stage of a larger overall ice age that we are still in.

[chrismb]

The wiki clip makes it clear we are still in an ice age. Where does it say we are in an interglacial?

[bcglorf]

The wiki clip makes it clear we are still in an ice age. Where does it say we are in an interglacial?

It defines a glacial period as increasing glaciation within an ice age, and interglacial as decreasing glaciation. Since we've been in a period of retreating glaciers over the last several hundred years, the definition seems to fit.

[chrismb]

I didn't see that in your text, but I note the article itself which says;

"Within the ice ages (or at least within the current one), more temperate and more severe periods occur. The colder periods are called glacial periods, the warmer periods interglacials"

OK, that's a definition!

...And it says we're in an ice age!!

Not sure what I was picked up on, then, so maybe the comment "What are you talking about?" could be retracted?

[seedload]

Not sure what I was picked up on, then, so maybe the comment "What are you talking about?" could be retracted?

Chris,

Thank you for your answer to my question. You are correct and I am incorrect that we are currently in an "ice age". I was treating what is technically called a "glacial period" as a "ice age" in my comments which is incorrect. This is more than a matter of semantics. Correct technical usage of language is important to this discussion. I was wrong.

I don't see a reason to retract a question so hopefully the above is enough for you. I did really want to understand what you were trying to say.

Regarding your comments, I still do not entirely understand what you were talking about.

You said that the ice caps are melting because we are coming out of an ice age. I believe the ice caps are melting because we are in an interglacial and that there will be additional glacial periods where the ice caps will stop melting. Did you really mean that the ice caps are melting because we are coming out of an ice age? What evidence is there that we are coming out of an ice age?

You said that we are at the end of an ice age. How do you support this? Does this mean that you expect no more glacial periods?

What does the fact that we are in an ice age have to do with AGW, the potential of melting ice caps, and fear over same? Do you concede that the geological time scales that you are referencing have little to do with IPCC predictions of ice cap melting/sea level rise, the more grand alarmist predictions of short term dramatic ice cap melting, and even the 4/5 digit time frames that I was incorrectly attempting to reference?

The fact that the earth has been ice cap free in the past, even the majority of the past, is not really that pertinent to this discussion IMHO.

[bcglorf]

How do you support this? Does this mean that you expect no more glacial periods?

I certainly can't speak for Chris, but I was under the same impression as him.

I think the biggest support is the very climate reconstructions from AGW proponents like Mann et al that lead one to declare we are coming out of an abnormally cold period, but on a sub 2k year timescale. Just scan virtually any temperature reconstruction from proxy data mapping the last 2k years of global temperatures, and the around 1700-1800 looks like a local minimum, and if the overall noisy but visible trend continues a 1-2 hundred year warming trend should be under way.

I also can't mention Mann without spitting out my deep seeded contempt for his work. He STILL defends reconstructing temperature from proxies from 0-1850AD and switching over the instrumental record from 1850 onwards. The proxy data from 1850 till today EXISTS!!! Graph those years too for pitysake and lay the argument down to rest already!!!! Oh, that's right, a look at the raw proxy data reveals there's not a chance in heck that data is going to look any different from 1850 onwards than it did before, proving that the proxy data shows NO abnormal warming starting around 1850.

[seedload]

How do you support this? Does this mean that you expect no more glacial periods?

I certainly can't speak for Chris, but I was under the same impression as him.

I think the biggest support is the very climate reconstructions from AGW proponents like Mann et al that lead one to declare we are coming out of an abnormally cold period, but on a sub 2k year timescale. Just scan virtually any temperature reconstruction from proxy data mapping the last 2k years of global temperatures, and the around 1700-1800 looks like a local minimum, and if the overall noisy but visible trend continues a 1-2 hundred year warming trend should be under way.

I also can't mention Mann without spitting out my deep seeded contempt for his work. He STILL defends reconstructing temperature from proxies from 0-1850AD and switching over the instrumental record from 1850 onwards. The proxy data from 1850 till today EXISTS!!! Graph those years too for pitysake and lay the argument down to rest already!!!! Oh, that's right, a look at the raw proxy data reveals there's not a chance in heck that data is going to look any different from 1850 onwards than it did before, proving that the proxy data shows NO abnormal warming starting around 1850.

I think you misunderstand. Chris is talking about time scales in the billions of years. Five major ice ages in the history of earth of which we are in the middle of one right now. Say 3 to 5 million years into it.

Within this ice age we are in, there are smaller periods of glaciation and interglacials (which is what I was originally referring to).

Within the current interglacial, there are periods of warming and cooling such as the little ice age and the medieval warm period.

But, I agree that there is warming since the little ice age.

As to Mann's work and various incarnations of his hockey stick, you are not really getting the point about what he does wrong in his reconstructions. He does not splice on instrumental records in the hockey sticks that he has published. The IPCC stuff is different and maybe that is what you are referring to (or maybe Gore), but in actual published papers his tricks are more subtle and, IMO, more devious.

Reference this post for more information on what I think of his methods.

viewtopic.php?p=29666&highlight=hockey#29666

FYI, his reconstructions also heavily depend on a few particular proxies. Also, he apparently treated one proxy upside down.

[bcglorf]

How do you support this? Does this mean that you expect no more glacial periods?

I certainly can't speak for Chris, but I was under the same impression as him.

I think the biggest support is the very climate reconstructions from AGW proponents like Mann et al that lead one to declare we are coming out of an abnormally cold period, but on a sub 2k year timescale. Just scan virtually any temperature reconstruction from proxy data mapping the last 2k years of global temperatures, and the around 1700-1800 looks like a local minimum, and if the overall noisy but visible trend continues a 1-2 hundred year warming trend should be under way.

I also can't mention Mann without spitting out my deep seeded contempt for his work. He STILL defends reconstructing temperature from proxies from 0-1850AD and switching over the instrumental record from 1850 onwards. The proxy data from 1850 till today EXISTS!!! Graph those years too for pitysake and lay the argument down to rest already!!!! Oh, that's right, a look at the raw proxy data reveals there's not a chance in heck that data is going to look any different from 1850 onwards than it did before, proving that the proxy data shows NO abnormal warming starting around 1850.

I think you misunderstand. Chris is talking about time scales in the billions of years. Five major ice ages in the history of earth of which we are in the middle of one right now. Say 3 to 5 million years into it.

Within this ice age we are in, there are smaller periods of glaciation and interglacials (which is what I was originally referring to).

Within the current interglacial, there are periods of warming and cooling such as the little ice age and the medieval warm period.

But, I agree that there is warming since the little ice age.

As to Mann's work and various incarnations of his hockey stick, you are not really getting the point about what he does wrong in his reconstructions. He does not splice on instrumental records in the hockey sticks that he has published. The IPCC stuff is different and maybe that is what you are referring to (or maybe Gore), but in actual published papers his tricks are more subtle and, IMO, more devious.

Reference this post for more information on what I think of his methods.

viewtopic.php?p=29666&highlight=hockey#29666

FYI, his reconstructions also heavily depend on a few particular proxies. Also, he apparently treated one proxy upside down.

Regarding Mann, I dug into his actual paper and then dug deeper into his supplemental here. It can be clearly seen that in this revision of his work NOWHERE does he plot proxy data past the mid 1800's. More over, as you've noted, only the Tiljander series shows any unusual pattern in the raw data starting around 1850, which is EXACTLY where the Tiljander team notes human activity invalidated the dataset.

[chrismb]

OK, so we've got to agreeing that we are in an ice age.

The thing about being in an interglacial still seems to me to be unknown. It is indeterminable. You'll only know if we were in an interglacial once glaciers come back. If they don't, then we are not [that is, weren't from a future perspective] in an interglacial!

I seem to recall seeing a time-line plot of ice ages in the past, and that where we sit today on that looks like it is, periodically speaking, at the end of the current cycle. [I'll grant you, maybe I am making up memories now.. I'll go see if I can find such a plot.] But this is statistics and maybe it'll go either way. So maybe we are in an interglacial, maybe we aren't. I'll agree we are, because 'at the end of' is like +- 100,000 years, so to all intent and purpose more glaciation in this ice age are probable.

All we can say for sure is that we are in an ice age. It looks like we are heading into a warmer period (that graph on p1 of this thread is convincing on this).

{"What are you talking about?" is not a question and you know it. Just because it has a question mark at the end of it does not legitimise it as a question. It is a condescension and you know it. As a very condescending person, I should know!! }

I think you misunderstand. Chris is talking about time scales in the billions of years. Five major ice ages in the history of earth of which we are in the middle of one right now. Say 3 to 5 million years into it.

Within this ice age we are in, there are smaller periods of glaciation and interglacials (which is what I was originally referring to).

Yes. Thanks for clarifying.