4 ms·

googling "industrial revolution averted iceage" returns a few conservative blogs, smugly pleased with the possibility the only credible commentary i can find i

by exit 13y ago

googling "industrial revolution averted iceage" returns a few conservative blogs, smugly pleased with the possibility the only credible commentary i can find is in a nytimes article: "Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. 'We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,' Dr. Marcott said." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/science/earth/global-temperatures-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/science/earth/global-tempe...

kaybe 13y ago
I cannot cite the exact words, but in discussions professors have indeed expressed the opinion that a next ice age won't be of concern for us. Those charts, especially those going back further, are a good argument for why we will need to control the climate at some point in the future (but please not when we have not figured out how to without significant risk).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- mistercow 13y ago
  By "conservatives" exit means the American kind, who by and large deny the existence of AGW.
  - gwright 13y ago
    The dispute isn't about AGW, it is about CAGW. AGW: human activity increseas CO2 increased CO2 => increases temperature CAGW: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming human activity increases CO2 increased CO2 => increases temperature positive climate feedback mechanisms => magnified warming It is that last item where the controversy lies. Climate models all have a parameter that represents the climate sensitivity which predicts the way the climate responds to changes to input. If you believe that the sensitivity is high, then small changes to the input (via CO2 warming, for example) lead to large changes in the system and catastrophic results. If you believe the sensitivity is low, then small changes to the input do not have catastrophic outcomes. There has been considerable news of late that observations of temperature changes over the last 15-20 years do not match the predictions over the same time period of the models using a high climate sensitivity values. Edit: fixed formatting and spelling
    - anon1385 13y ago
      >The dispute isn't about AGW For most conservatives it is. Even in this thread we have people claiming it's all just a natural cycle. >There has been considerable news of late that observations of temperature changes over the last 15-20 years do not match the predictions over the same time period of the models using a high climate sensitivity values. New papers that suggested slightly lower sensitivity gave figures that were still within the range put forward in the last IPCC report, and still suggested sensitivities high enough to cause serious and damaging climate change unless emissions are reduced. Climate is a noisy system, you can't measure significant change in global surface temperature in only 15 years. You should take the time to go and look at the actual temperature data to get a feel for how noisy it is[1]. Short term cycles like ENSO -- that we currently have no real ability to predict -- have a far greater impact on surface temperatures over those time scales[2]. It just so happens that the last 15 years or so have seen a dominance of la Niña years (which correlate with cooler surface temperatures) for reasons we don't really understand; it could just be random or possibly ENSO could have been affected by climate change. There has been no "pause" at all in other measurements: 2012 was the lowest recorded extent and volume of arctic sea ice and the trend is clear: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/s... Ocean heat has continued to rise: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ The only people talking about a "pause" are conservative pundits and climate change deniers. It shows weaknesses in the models, but nobody was claiming that the models were accurate for short timescales or that we have the complete picture a at all. There are still huge gaps in our understanding, but that is hardly a cause for celebration. [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HadCRUT4vs3.jpg http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HadCRUT4vs3.jpg [2] https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-cow/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-...
    - asgard1024 13y ago
      So it's like if you're not disputing smoking is bad for health, but you're saying it's not "catastrophically" bad? It's like the sooner one stops smoking, the less chance he has for a "catastrophic" lung cancer; it's not like when you smoke 10K cigarettes you sure won't get cancer but if you smoke 20K you sure do. Of course, different people call "catastrophe" different things, but the analogy is quite apt here. There is no "catastrophe" coming, in the sense of a sudden disaster. We can stop any time, and the sooner we stop, the better overall result (and less costly) will be.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  That's due to the little ice age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age), which extended to the mid 19th century, not man-made climate change.
  - tehwalrus 13y ago
    apologies; I thought it was mainstream to believe that the "little ice age" would have continued into a proper one if not for the industrial revolution. This part of my comment remains relevant though: Conservatives have little to be smug about here - it shows that climate change is indeed anthropogenic, contrary to their narrative for the last 20 years - the red line, modern records, show a much faster rate of change than anything in the natural period.
    - kaybe 13y ago
      I think it is mainstream to acknowledge the possiblity of that, but not have a fixed believe. After all, it's climate science and we're only at the beginning, and who knows, there might have been another few thousand years of stable climate.

by exit 13y ago

kaybe 13y ago

I cannot cite the exact words, but in discussions professors have indeed expressed the opinion that a next ice age won't be of concern for us. Those charts, especially those going back further, are a good argument for why we will need to control the climate at some point in the future (but please not when we have not figured out how to without significant risk).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mistercow 13y ago
By "conservatives" exit means the American kind, who by and large deny the existence of AGW.
- gwright 13y ago
  The dispute isn't about AGW, it is about CAGW. AGW: human activity increseas CO2 increased CO2 => increases temperature CAGW: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming human activity increases CO2 increased CO2 => increases temperature positive climate feedback mechanisms => magnified warming It is that last item where the controversy lies. Climate models all have a parameter that represents the climate sensitivity which predicts the way the climate responds to changes to input. If you believe that the sensitivity is high, then small changes to the input (via CO2 warming, for example) lead to large changes in the system and catastrophic results. If you believe the sensitivity is low, then small changes to the input do not have catastrophic outcomes. There has been considerable news of late that observations of temperature changes over the last 15-20 years do not match the predictions over the same time period of the models using a high climate sensitivity values. Edit: fixed formatting and spelling
  - anon1385 13y ago
    >The dispute isn't about AGW For most conservatives it is. Even in this thread we have people claiming it's all just a natural cycle. >There has been considerable news of late that observations of temperature changes over the last 15-20 years do not match the predictions over the same time period of the models using a high climate sensitivity values. New papers that suggested slightly lower sensitivity gave figures that were still within the range put forward in the last IPCC report, and still suggested sensitivities high enough to cause serious and damaging climate change unless emissions are reduced. Climate is a noisy system, you can't measure significant change in global surface temperature in only 15 years. You should take the time to go and look at the actual temperature data to get a feel for how noisy it is[1]. Short term cycles like ENSO -- that we currently have no real ability to predict -- have a far greater impact on surface temperatures over those time scales[2]. It just so happens that the last 15 years or so have seen a dominance of la Niña years (which correlate with cooler surface temperatures) for reasons we don't really understand; it could just be random or possibly ENSO could have been affected by climate change. There has been no "pause" at all in other measurements: 2012 was the lowest recorded extent and volume of arctic sea ice and the trend is clear: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/s... Ocean heat has continued to rise: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ The only people talking about a "pause" are conservative pundits and climate change deniers. It shows weaknesses in the models, but nobody was claiming that the models were accurate for short timescales or that we have the complete picture a at all. There are still huge gaps in our understanding, but that is hardly a cause for celebration. [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HadCRUT4vs3.jpg http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HadCRUT4vs3.jpg [2] https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-cow/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-...
  - asgard1024 13y ago
    So it's like if you're not disputing smoking is bad for health, but you're saying it's not "catastrophically" bad? It's like the sooner one stops smoking, the less chance he has for a "catastrophic" lung cancer; it's not like when you smoke 10K cigarettes you sure won't get cancer but if you smoke 20K you sure do. Of course, different people call "catastrophe" different things, but the analogy is quite apt here. There is no "catastrophe" coming, in the sense of a sudden disaster. We can stop any time, and the sooner we stop, the better overall result (and less costly) will be.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
That's due to the little ice age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age), which extended to the mid 19th century, not man-made climate change.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  apologies; I thought it was mainstream to believe that the "little ice age" would have continued into a proper one if not for the industrial revolution. This part of my comment remains relevant though: Conservatives have little to be smug about here - it shows that climate change is indeed anthropogenic, contrary to their narrative for the last 20 years - the red line, modern records, show a much faster rate of change than anything in the natural period.
  - kaybe 13y ago
    I think it is mainstream to acknowledge the possiblity of that, but not have a fixed believe. After all, it's climate science and we're only at the beginning, and who knows, there might have been another few thousand years of stable climate.