2 ms·
is it that the change is on such an epic and sudden scale that the temperatures of the past 20,000 years will all seem temperate...? Yes. That's what the scien
by mechanical_fish 18y ago
is it that the change is on such an epic and sudden scale that the temperatures of the past 20,000 years will all seem temperate...?
Yes. That's what the scientists seem to be saying.
I'm no climate scientist -- I just downloaded the first paper I've ever looked at on the subject. It's James Hansen's most recent preprint, which is conveniently available as a PDF here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
It's a preprint, so it's still under review, some bits of it are more hypothetical than other bits, maybe the grad student dropped a decimal place, blah blah blah, caveats caveats. But presumably ice core temp data is pretty well documented in the literature by now, so if we stick to those figures we should be okay.
Figure 2 is what we're looking for -- specifically, the red and the purple curves. The red curve is an estimate of global temperature going back 400k years, based on ice core data. The purple curve is measured global temperature since the late 1800s.
My back-of-the-envelope summary here:
-- Just by squinting at the purple curve, we see that the Earth has warmed something like 0.5C since 1900.
-- The Earth, on average, is now about as warm as it has ever been since the end of the last glacial period, 10k years ago. Although, obviously, temperatures vary across the surface of the earth and over time by a lot more than 0.5C, and these curves are fuzzy estimates based on data at one or two points, so don't expect it to apply to your backyard, or to any specific winter's day.
-- If the Earth warms another 1deg C, we'll have a global average temperature comparable to the highest seen in the last half million years. When will that happen? Considering (naively) only the slope of the purple curve in Figure 2, which is based on contemporary measurements by humans with thermometers, it might be a couple hundred years or less.
-- Homo sapiens, according to genetic studies, is about 200,000 years old. So, yeah, the earth has been warmer than it is today "while humans were around", but your grandchildren might not be able to say that anymore.
-- If you want to compare the current (global average) temps with the (global average) temperatures when your French walls were built, check out the inset graph at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature...
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I can squint at this data and see the legendary Medieval Warm Period (peaking about 1000 years ago; that's when England had those nice vineyards) followed by the legendary Little Ice Age (the last 1000 years, up to about 150 years ago). And the current global temp is on there, too, on the left edge. If you can't see it at first glance: Look higher on the scale. ;)
-- Yes, global temperatures have risen very quickly before. Check out the start of the Holocene interglacial, or the Eemian interglacial. But nobody was around to write about that -- it was before history was invented. So I think you can safely call this an "epic" event, since every recorded epic ever is newer than the last time this happened.
It's hard to get your mind around. If only some older species than ours had kept records, maybe we'd have a better frame of reference. It's a pity those Homo erectus were such slackers.
- geebee 18y agoThanks for the reply. Honestly, I should have googled for it the way you did. The reason I haven't, by way of lame excuse, is that the overwhelming consensus among scientists (not shrill environmental extremists, but scientists) is that 1) global warming is substantially caused by human activity, and 2) if we don't do something, the shit's going to hit the fan. That was enough to convince me personally. It isn't enough to argue with a certain type of personality, though. Some people become extremely well informed, and can always argue one level of detail lower that I'll ever be able to do. At some point, I just have to listen to the experts. It does seem very clear to me that the most reliable, objective experts on this field are supporting very grim predictions.
- mechanical_fish 18y agoYou're welcome. Thanks for asking interesting questions -- they provided the excuse to dig into this paper that I downloaded last week but hadn't taken the time to skim yet. Some people become extremely well informed, and can always argue one level of detail lower that I'll ever be able to do. The trick is to learn to tell the difference between "an argument at a lower level of detail" and "a big cloud of chaff". It's an art. Descending into the data and looking at it for yourself is part of the answer, but it's not always enough -- some people will try to circle around and around, up and down, through a forest of details as part of a strategy to bewilder and exhaust you.
- anamax 18y agoThe "everything will be flooded" predictions and the like don't depend on whether humans are around to watch. Either the predicted bad things happened the last time temps hit the predicted levels or they didn't. If they didn't, why is this time different? And no, "humans weren't around" isn't an answer. We know of times when the temperatures were higher than the projections. We also know what was happening on earth at that time. If those things don't match the predictions for the effects of global warming.... We also know of times when the CO2 levels were much higher than today and the temperatures then. If the algebra applied to current/projected CO2 levels and current/projected temps doesn't tell us the temps when the CO2 levels were higher....