"This year could be the first ice free arctic in 100,000 years"

[stopcrazypp]

That all said, I still believe that there are many powerful "natural" forces also affecting this planet in addition to human activity. Research has recently shown that California has had one or two mega-droughts lasting multiple centuries since AD 500. If we go into another mega drought it would be blamed on burning fossil fuel. That may be the case, but it wasn't the cause before. In fact I would say that there have been events in the past that would make a several degrees increase in global temperatures over a couple of centuries a comparative walk in the park. It's all relative.

Yes, there are many possible events that can raise global temperatures, but scientists have determined that anthropogenic GHGs are one of them and the primary one at the moment.

To use an analogy, you can get lung cancer from many different causes, but smoking is the main cause, so we target smoking. Sure, even if people don't smoke, you can still get lung cancer, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to target the main cause.

 

[SDRick]

I am not really disagreeing. I am and we are moving away from oil just as we moved away from wood. That is a good thing. We won't all die before we go to renewable s. Look at it this way:

"Twelve thousand years ago, the great ice sheets retreated at the beginning of the latest interglacial – the Flandrian – allowing humans to return to northern latitudes. This period has been relatively warm, and the climate relatively stable, although it has been slightly colder than the last interglacial, the Eemian, and sea levels are currently at least 3 metres lower – differences that are being closely scrutinised by researchers keen to understand how our climate will develop.

But this respite from the ice is likely to prove short-lived, at least in geological terms. Human effects on the climate notwithstanding, the cycle will continue to turn, the hothouse period will some day come to an end – and the ice sheets will descend again."

If we get lucky we may be counteracting the next ice age! If not the warmer climate will be friendlier to plants in the northern latitudes.

 

[ecarfan]

You really are not grasping the extent of human-driven climate change. It's not a case of some plants being able to grow easier closer to the poles.

It's about human activities pouring mind-bogglingly huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, where it will remain for thousands of years, and dramatically heating up the planet making it radically different from the planet that humans have inhabited over the past million years. It's about sea level rises all around the world inundating coastal cities where hundreds of millions of people live. It's about agriculturally productive areas of the planet becoming unproductive. It's about far less readily available fresh water that hundreds of millions of people depend on.

Seriously, you need to do more reading and thinking on this issue.

 

[Fiver]

We've already lost. The question sadly is when. Thankfully I don't have kids so I won't be condemning them to deal with attempting to clean up our mess and pay off our debts.

 

[ecarfan]

I don't think we have "lost", but a century from now the planet is going to be a very different place. Humans are adaptable, and will survive, but there will be tremendous suffering, dislocation, and deprivation.

 

[eye.surgeon]

It amuses me how many liberals that evoke "science" to shout down anyone who questions man-made global warming themselves believe anti-science nonsense like vaccines cause autism, GMOs will poison you, and/or advocate BS alternative medicine. Just an observation.

 

[Fiver]

It amuses me how many liberals that evoke "science" to shout down anyone who questions man-made global warming themselves believe anti-science nonsense like vaccines cause autism, GMOs will poison you, and/or advocate BS alternative medicine. Just an observation.

That's just an observation. Beyond reading about these people on the internet, I've never met a person who is anti-vax, anti-gmo, and also believes in fairy tale medicine. (/edit, then again, I live in an area where the education level is higher then most)

The problem with your attitude, is if you're wrong and we're right, we're all dead and the next generation is just screwed.
If you're right and were all wrong, then nothing changes and we're still dead, but the next generation is fine.

I'd rather be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Just to be safe, I'm going to act like I'm right and do as much as I can to help solve the problem. (even though I won't have a next of kin to enjoy it).

You can just talk about how I'm wrong and if that's the case in the end, I'll accept it. Problem is really, if you at the end realize you're wrong, you still won't accept the truth. (and your kids will still have to deal with it)

 

[Dutchie]

It amuses me how many liberals that evoke "science" to shout down anyone who questions man-made global warming themselves believe anti-science nonsense like vaccines cause autism, GMOs will poison you, and/or advocate BS alternative medicine. Just an observation.

That is a big generalisation isn't it?

 

[ecarfan]

It amuses me how many liberals that evoke "science" to shout down anyone who questions man-made global warming themselves believe anti-science nonsense like vaccines cause autism, GMOs will poison you, and/or advocate BS alternative medicine. Just an observation.

I believe none of those things. You are stereotyping people, creating labels that have no basis in reality.

Argue your position on the merits, based on facts. Then we can have a conversation.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I am not really disagreeing. I am and we are moving away from oil just as we moved away from wood. That is a good thing. We won't all die before we go to renewable s. Look at it this way:

"Twelve thousand years ago, the great ice sheets retreated at the beginning of the latest interglacial – the Flandrian – allowing humans to return to northern latitudes. This period has been relatively warm, and the climate relatively stable, although it has been slightly colder than the last interglacial, the Eemian, and sea levels are currently at least 3 metres lower – differences that are being closely scrutinised by researchers keen to understand how our climate will develop.

But this respite from the ice is likely to prove short-lived, at least in geological terms. Human effects on the climate notwithstanding, the cycle will continue to turn, the hothouse period will some day come to an end – and the ice sheets will descend again."

If we get lucky we may be counteracting the next ice age! If not the warmer climate will be friendlier to plants in the northern latitudes.

Weather and droughts and floods really don't need to come into the equation. We have fairly reliable atmospheric CO2 concentration data, temperature data and sea level data for the last 200-400k years. All of those measurements have risen and fallen broadly in unison over that period of time. At no point has CO2 concentration been this high(407 ppm as of last week, up from 403 a year ago) and we are clearly creating that concentration. It's really beyond conversation at this point.

 

[rays427]

Weather and droughts and floods really don't need to come into the equation. We have fairly reliable atmospheric CO2 concentration data, temperature data and sea level data for the last 200-400k years. All of those measurements have risen and fallen broadly in unison over that period of time. At no point has CO2 concentration been this high(407 ppm as of last week, up from 403 a year ago) and we are clearly creating that concentration. It's really beyond conversation at this point.

So the CO2 and temperature went up and down together but what was the cause? Since man certainly didn't cause fluctuations in CO2 It is most likely that the CO2 concentrations went up and down in the past due to the natural fluctuation of earth's temperature releasing or absorbing CO2 in the oceans. CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past but it was millions of years before man. The dinosaurs seemed to do OK with much higher concentrations of CO2. I imagine the higher concentrations of CO2 allowed the plants to grow faster which provided the food for such large animals. I agree that we have global warming and some or all may be the result of man increasing the level of CO2 but I don't agree that it will be catastrophic to mankind. Global cooling (ice age) would be the real disaster.

 

[Tony8489]

Quote from the comment section of article referred by the OP
"there is zero chance of ending this year's melt season below one million km^2, and although last winter n this spring have been absurdly warm (relatively speaking) the current weather in the central Arctic is nothing like as good for melting ice as 2012, when the current record low of 3.4 million km^2 was set, so even getting a new record this year is looking fairly unlikely right now. jennifer francis's prediction of ice free by 2030-50 might be a bit conservative, but probably not by much"
It's fantasyland predictions like this (< one million km^2) which don't pan out that undermine climate science and give more traction to deniers/skeptics.

eye.surgeon said: ↑
It amuses me how many liberals that evoke "science" to shout down anyone who questions man-made global warming themselves believe anti-science nonsense like vaccines cause autism, GMOs will poison you, and/or advocate BS alternative medicine. Just an observation.
ecarfan said:
That's just an observation. Beyond reading about these people on the internet, I've never met a person who is anti-vax, anti-gmo, and also believes in fairy tale medicine. (/edit, then again, I live in an area where the education level is higher then most)

It may be an observation but it's correct, at least about anti-vax. The areas where immunizations have dropped below the safe herd immunity level are places like Santa Monica, liberal AND with education level higher than most. Education does not provide immunity against peer pressure or groupthink. This is unfortunately true also for the climate computer modelling. The effect of CO2 upon temperature is settled science but the positive feedback assumptions in the climate models are not. This is why the models failed to predict the nearly flat temperatures from 2000-2013. Even with the sharp rise of the last 2+ years, current temperatures (.14C increase per decade El Nino 1998 to El Nino 2015) are well below what the models predict (.20C increase per decade).

As a new Tesla owner who has had rooftop solar since 2009, I'm obviously in favor a move toward renewables in the long run. But we should be circumspect with regard to specific predictions given the current imprecise state of climate science. If 15 year predictions have been this far off the mark, it's hard to expect precision from 80 year predictions

 

[TheTalkingMule]

So the CO2 and temperature went up and down together but what was the cause? Since man certainly didn't cause fluctuations in CO2 It is most likely that the CO2 concentrations went up and down in the past due to the natural fluctuation of earth's temperature releasing or absorbing CO2 in the oceans. CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past but it was millions of years before man. The dinosaurs seemed to do OK with much higher concentrations of CO2. I imagine the higher concentrations of CO2 allowed the plants to grow faster which provided the food for such large animals. I agree that we have global warming and some or all may be the result of man increasing the level of CO2 but I don't agree that it will be catastrophic to mankind. Global cooling (ice age) would be the real disaster.

Well that's absurd considering the percentage of global population that living at sea level. It's not just about the planet being livable, it's about our ability to maintain human civilization once Singapore, New York, London and several hundred other major metropolitan areas are under water. (see: Dark Ages)

That would be unpleasant.

 

[bxr140]

It may be an observation but it's correct, at least about anti-vax.

No, it's a self-defeating argument...comically at that. Beside the tired use of 'justifying bad behavior with bad behavior', it does little for one's credibility to point toward a fringe group of crazies that refuse to believe in a massive body of scientific evidence (basic medicine) to justify one's own inability to asses a similarly massive body of scientific evidence.

 

[GoTslaGo]

Now for the other side of the world:

Antarctic CO 2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4 Million Years
Scientific American - 15h ago
Carbon dioxide has been steadily rising since the start of the Industrial Revolution, setting a new high year after year. There's a notable new entry to the record books.
Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4 Million Years

 

[neroden]

I agree that we have global warming and some or all may be the result of man increasing the level of CO2 but I don't agree that it will be catastrophic to mankind. .

You're wrong. Google P-Tr Extinction or Great Dying. Then look up "ocean acidification". If we don't reverse the current rising trend in CO2 levels, it will disrupt the ocean food chain and be catastrophic to mankind. This is not in dispute among anyone who is honest and has done even a little research. Unfortunately, there's a large group of dishonest people employed by oil & coal companies to spread disinformation.

 

[SR22pilot]

A huge problem is the rapidity of the change. The dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They didn't survive rapid ecological change. Personally I want to keep the planet in the range of the last million years since that is what the present life forms evolved in. In particular it is what modern man evolved in.