The models agree that one of the statistical implications of even small average global temp boosts is a dramatic - non-linear - increase in the region by region probabilities of severity in heat waves - both max temp and duration. The basic reason, intuitive picture, is that as the mean of the heat-wave probability curve moves a bit on the mean temp graph, the probability of a severe one moves from the infinitesimal tail to a fatter part of the curve. It multiplies by three or four or ten. You get significantly higher probabilities of heat waves many degrees hotter and much longer than before, from quite small changes in the yearly global mean temp. Thing is, the average doesn't change much from an extreme event being much more extreme than before - but the effects do. And from then on it's a matter of time - how long until your region rolls snake eyes?
Here is a Sept 18, 1997 prediction by Carol M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which is now coming true: * She is speaking of in the US, not globally. **Large areas in several Balkans counties had the worst ever (in human records) floods about a month ago. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! EPA data up dated to May 2014, shows GW clearly.* This graph shows the percentage of the land area of the contiguous 48 states with unusually hot daily high and low temperatures during the months of June, July, and August. The thin lines represent individual years, while the thick lines show a nine-year weighted average. Red lines represent daily highs, while orange lines represent daily lows. The term “unusual” in this case is based on the long-term average conditions at each location. * I suspect the warmest prior time in circ 1935 was the peak of both main solar cycles - Will try to check later.
Please post a link that shows that during previous CO2 excursions (far higher than what we predict) most of the planet saw 35C+ 100% humidity conditions. The effort to deal with/combat climate change has been tarnished by various hyperbolic pronouncements of doom. One big one, of course, was the Time Magazine/Newsweek breathless pronouncements of doom from the aerosol studies in the 1970's. A few studies showing that aerosols could cause cooling were blown way out of proportion by the popular media. Some excerpts: Studies show "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968 . . .The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. What causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery . . . not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." "Scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. . . . . resulting famines could be catastrophic . . .drought and desolation . . .the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded. . . .droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons . . .impossible for starving peoples to migrate." Newsweek later apologized for its misrepresentation of the facts. Those articles are often cited by deniers, who claim "well, scientists are always predicting ridiculous doom and gloom scenarios and they are always wrong." Hyprebole such as yours is just as bad, and just as damaging to the cause of educating the public on the real risks of climate change. "Your great-great grandkids will die from the heat" is, as I mentioned before, a good example of the bullshit that makes the work of real climate science educators a lot harder.
Agreed, your extremes will increase, and you will see more records being broken. That's a very far cry from most of the planet seeing 35C 100% humidity conditions. I'll go on record right here and say "never." I will even bet you a case of Lost Abbey Deliverance that it doesn't happen in my lifetime.
In the past interglacials when it was warmer than during even the warmest part of this holocene interglacial, most of the warming was at the poles. This is commonly known as the equable climate model. For example: During the superinterglacial during mis 11, the arctic was several degrees warmer with virtually no change in the mid latitudes. I've begun to suspect that the IPCC has lost objectivity(assuming that it ever had it).
I can't. It has not happened yet, but almost did. * That is when it is all over for most of humanity. The end point of current trends, which unfortunately seem to be accelerating with the interaction of many positive feed backs several of which do not have any foreseeable limit, seem to indicate GW will grow worse with no known limit prior to much of earth's population being exposed to 35C with 100% humidity more than an hour each year. The melting of Artic ocean ice feed back has a limit when the ocean is all ice free. (albedo of 0.9 instead of ice's 0.1) Thus the solar energy directly absorbed there can only increase 900% but wind driven waves can add energy to the water as long as the winds grow stronger. There does not seem to any well established upper limit on wind speed as earth warms up, but I would guess it goes as the square root of the absolute temperature, as average molecule speeds do. I. e. Average temperatures are rising and average humidity (and the associate flood and storm's destructiveness) are rising. Do you see some natural limit on this? I certainly hope it is BS, and not just an accurate projection of the data, showing GW is growing ever more serious threat. - Again, have you any reason (other than conventional thought habits) to see why not? Some evidence that at least shows average temperature and humidity will not continue to increase? I don't think we will run out of ocean water to evaporate or have less GHG trapping of IR from solar heating, mainly as man's release of thermal energy is small in comparison. The burden of proof should be on those who say: "It has not happed yet so cannot. Ergo the current trends must reverse." * Prior to this work most blamed the Siberian Traps eruptions. ** ALL that bold part is happening now - For example "clouds" of methane bubble, some more than a mile in diameter are rising in Siberian coastal waters so dense that sub sonars don't work - too much scattering - where they workd perfectly in WWII. See for your self the dense methane clouds bubbling up (at 7:30 & 9:45 into the video) at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsP...etCgROMKkNmCCA Actually watch all the less than 20 minute video as four internationally known experts talk and present facts you seem not to know (or do and just deny).
It's not a far cry from some of the most densely populated parts of the planet seeing occasional, local, stochastic blip heat waves capable of killing a third of the resident humans and their animals, plants, etc. That's more or less right around the corner. So? What's your point?
The point is that averages are misleading. During both mis5e and mis11 the arctic was at least 5(some claim 10+) degrees C warmer than current, while indian ocean was less than 1 degree warmer. So speaking of averages is misleading.
Right. And if you said there would be more occasional local heat blips capable of killing people that would be a pretty reasonable conclusion. (We're seeing that now.) Saying that your grandchildren will never see any grandchildren because of this is not.
Yes - with far, far higher CO2 concentrations than we see now. No one is predicting that we hit those levels (>1000ppm.) Of course; the same natural mechanisms that currently prevent this. Rising temperature results in greater radiation into space. Rising temperature differentials between a warm surface and cold upper atmosphere drive convection, which is effective in moving heat. Increasing convective activity reduces humidity by removing water from rising air. The planet is in general thermally stable. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate." - P Erlich, 1968 (I don't remember that) "The Earth could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age" - Dr. Rasool, Columbia University, 1971 (only 7 years to go until the ice age starts!) And yet the rate of warming is slowing. Even with the massive clathrate releases you describe. Given that every single scientist in the past 200 years who has predicted a near term "end of the world as we know it" has been wrong - the burden of proof is on the latest doomsayer. When your track record is 0% you need some pretty good evidence.
agree "It's the end of the world as we know it" should be left to entertainers: [video=youtube;JsxavPANO8s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsxavPANO8s[/video] And avoided by serious scientists.
True. I have posted that fact many times and explained it is not the LEVEL, but the RATE of CO2 release, dozens of times faster than ever before, that threatens us with extinction. I. e. The RATE of global warning is causing the rate of release CH4 to be faster than the OH- radical can destroy it (and destroy itself, yielding H2O and CO2 reaction products). Only those ignorant of this "different rate fact" take comfort in fact that even double the current CO2 levels, that have been slowly achieved in Earth's history, had little effect on life forms. This time IS different because the RATE of CO2 release is very much greater than ever before as man now burns fossils fuels (stored solar energy) in a day more than was made in 1,000 years long ago. Note also the last time live on earth came close to extinction, it was also (according to the latest understanding of the cause) due to the SUDDEN increase in CH4 release into the air - by a newly evolved micro organism (rapid blooming of archaea called Methanosarcina) that made CH4 from the accumulated organic matter. The half-live of CH4 was a decade ago slightly less than 10 years, now it is 12.4 years. This is due atmospheric concentration of OH- falling with CH4 release faster than natural* production of OH- radical. As I have posted before, the smaller than now amount of CH4 released in 2012, made the larger amount released in 2013, last longer in the atmosphere. This is what is important. Just by its self CH4 is already a positive feed back loop. CH4 is a much stronger GHG than CO2. By how much is a function of over what time period you want to consider. The most commonly quoted one is 100 years. Then even though very little released at "t=0" is still around the average GH effect is 25 times greater than CO2, most of which released at t= 0 will still be around in the atmosphere 100 years later (or if now part of a tree, etc. will have been replaced by a decaying tree, etc.) If one wants to be an "alarmist" one can quote the 10 year average effectiveness of CH4 vs. CO2 molecule for molecule, and that shows CH4 is on the order of 200 times more effective as GHG. But that also in not the standard way to compare as weight by weight is used, not molecule for molecule. As CH4 has atomic weight of 18 and CO2's is 48, that version of the relative 10 year effectiveness is only 76 times more for CH4 (if I remember the data correctly) In any case: This time is different because of the RATE of GW, which currently is mainly driven by CO2 (as CH4's atmospheric concentration is now much smaller but rapidly growing because both the amount annually released is and the atmospheric life time is too.) * I have started to consider how the atmospheric concentration of OH- radical might artificially be economically increased to stabilize CH4 concentration at only ~5 times currently levels. Then CH4 would dominate the CO2 effect on global warming, but man might avoid extinction. I have an idea, but need to do a little more research on it.
Uh - you do realize that methane has ALSO been much higher in the past, right? Life on earth has never come close to extinction. The worst extinction event, ever, the P-T extinction, came in several waves, together causing the extinction of about 60% of all the families of life. It happened over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. So if your claim is over the next million years 60% of families might go extinct, because you think something as bad as the worst extinction ever will occur, that's far-fetched but at least possible. If you claim we are all going to be extinct in 100 years - people will laugh at you, and the end result of your claim will be that climate change deniers are strengthened, because they can hold that prediction up as another example of how scientists should not be taken seriously.
I have not seen good data on that, but yes prior to evolution of green plants earth's atmosphere was mainly methane. So what? back then there were no mobile life forms on land to kill. One problem, as I understand it with getting accurate data in the last 600,000 years is that methane is poorly confined for long periods in an core. Also, obviously the current low atmospheric concentration of CH4 is not a threat to life on earth. It is its rapid rate of increase that is worrying. If you have link to any valid data showing CH4 concentration were 5 or more times present ones, when warm blooded primates existed, I would like to read them. You said: " The worst extinction event, ever, the P-T extinction, came in several waves, together causing the extinction of about 60% of all the families of life. " Yes that is one way to accurately tell what happen, but "elimination of over 95 percent of marine and 70 percent of terrestrial species" is too and much more reveling of how bad it was, as many of the families of life that became totally extinct went to their end accompanied by many members of other families of life that did not have every last member of their family eliminated. I.e. Some "families of life" had a few of their species members that survived or perhaps only one that did, so are not counted in your "60%." BTW, I'm inclined to believe TPTB are more concerned than publicly admitting as the new emission controls on coal fired power plants are tougher than most expected, and The Financial Times of London, has reported: "Call for world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases {China} to impose an absolute limit comes one day after the US reveals a similar plan"
From what data we do have from ice cores which only take us back through 3 previous interglacials@340,000yrs---(maybe 650,000 yrs from domeC--some confusion about slump) the rate seems normal aside from the last few decades. To the best of my knowledge, we really do not know the rate of increase before then. also: Which is bringing us back in line with previous rate changes. Plants are literally eating that stuff up. (Keep a good thought.) Meanwhile, temperature has risen much faster in the past. Working from Greenland ice cores: James White, an associate professor of geological science at the University of Colorado and an expert on ice core studies, says that the record includes a rapid burst of warming: 5 to 6 degrees C within just five years. Temperatures rose 15 degrees C in about 40 to 50 years. Billy T you seem really concerned about this. Why?
Sculptor, James White seems to say one should worry: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-cores-from-greenland-unlock-ancient-climate-secret/ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v339/n6225/abs/339532a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v362/n6420/abs/362527a0.html The takeaway is that because not all climatic responses are gradual, messing with the climate is inherently risky.
Add in this by: Michael J. O’Leary, Paul J. Hearty, William G. Thompson, Maureen E. Raymo, Jerry X. Mitrovica & Jody M. Webster: And: It is beginning to seem that most past climate responses are anything but gradual. fersure, we are in the midst of a grand experiment-----and, sometimes, it seems much like taking a corner at 110mph on our first day of driving. We're beginning to understand what nature has done in the past. Will that help us to be prepared for the next thrill on the climate roller coaster? Are we really in control? Or, are we just along for the ride?
Last red point, April 2014, of 2nd graph below is 1st ever monthly average > 400ppm (was 401.3ppm). Graphs from: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Imagine straight line between 1st and last black line points of graph above. That shows the atmospheric CO2 concentration is accelerating as it increases. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Two reasons; One is personal as I have four grand children, the oldest now starting to look into colleges he might go to next year. His mom and divorced dad met at Cornell where I did my under graduate work too. It is his choice. I hope some future day he too will being interested in where his grand child will go to college, but unless mankind stops every more rapidly sucking on the fossil fuel tit, it does not seem very probable he will have a college age grand child. Second reason is I would like to learn that mother nature did not make her greatest ever mistake my letting such a high degree of "intelligence" develop in creature that it wiped out all her warm blooded creations. Why does man put up with Big Oil's exploitation? - A no-net CO2 release and cheaper per mile driven* fuel already has a 30+ year history in Brazil? Why is the largest of all farm subsidy programs helping convert 1/3 of a food crop into fuel with marginal net energy gain and is more environmentally damaging than just using gasoline? (Due to the larger dose of nitrogen fertilizer needed to speed grow in Iowa's short season, most of which is converted into very damaging NOx by soil bacteria.) Sugar Cane based alcohol can at least stop the accelerating upward trend seen in the longer period graph in my prior post. Perhaps it can even drive the yearly and then all monthly averages back below 400ppm, with other economical measures like encouraging car pooling** and telecommuting to work having a more immediate but lesser long-term effect on the rate of CO2 release. Sugar cane fuel is "lesser" in 2015 as it would take nearly a decade to get all recent new gasoline cars in scrap yards. The real question being tested is man's claim to being the most intelligent of mother nature's creations true or false? - Mankind may be only the most egotistical one. * That is with no subsidy in contrast to Big Oil's huge tax subsidies, the largest being the "depletion allowance" tax reduction, but there are several others. ** High occupancy traffic lanes and close in, reserved, parking spaces at work, are two easy and cheap ways to encourage car pooling.
