Exactly how is this current bout of global warming anthropogenic, or unprecedented?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Over the past 12,000 years, the global mean average has done nothing but fluctuate. And never mind the fact that we are coming out of a little ice age. Is it not right for the global average to increase?
Yes yes, increasing sea levels, I've heard it before. Do you truly believe that there is enough land ice to increase the sea levels by 50 meters? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png Over the past 100 years, sea levels have risen....20 cm. wow

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=687&filename=.txt
Here is Overpeck and Briffa discussing how the the climate flipped from one meta stable state to another in less than a century. So much for unprecedented...

Comments, rebuttals?

Answer 1

It's anthropogenic because it's caused by anthropogenic activities. That was an easy question to answer.

http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/global-warming-and-climate-change-causes



It's unprecedented for one thing because there's never been a significant anthropogenic global warming before. That's why geologists are naming the current era the 'anthropocene'.



It's possible - even probable - that previous natural warming periods have matched the current one in terms of magnitude and rate. Particularly during transitions between interglacials and glacials. But we're not in a major transition period right now. Those previous natural climate changes had physical causes, whether they be orbital or solar forcings, amplified by CO2, water vapor, etc. This current warming doesn't have a natural cause, it has an anthropogenic cause.



If you want to argue it's not unprecedented, then go for it. But not being unprecedented doesn't mean it's not anthropogenic, or that it's not extremely dangerous. Don't forget, some large past climate changes have caused mass extinction events.

Answer 2

Climatology has become far too politicized in the last 20 years. The end result is that NO "scientific" study can be believed because the results are usually skewed to further the cause of the organization funding the study, whether the findings prove or disprove Global Warming. People always ask the wrong questions in regards to Global Warming. Instead of asking "is it happening?" (which can be answered equally correctly either "yes" or "no"), the questions should be: 1) What may be done to alleviate the stated effects of Global Warming? 2) Why is Global Warming always believed to be The End of The World As We Know It? Won't people adapt, even in a worst-case scenario?

Answer 3

We are not coming out of an ice age at this late date -- that ended in the mid-1800s.



What is unprecedented is that this is the highest concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since before humans evolved. So humans have never lived on this earth with this much CO2 in the atmosphere, and we know the CO2 comes from greenhouse gas emissions, and we know it drives temperatures up. That is basic climate science and well-established. It's true the earth has been warmer than what the temps are now, but not when humans were on it. It is not likely that humans can survive a climate that is hotter than before we were here, and it just keeps getting hotter and hotter because we keep burning more oil.



The reason this is such a danger is simple -- lack of food and water, and wild, deadly weather. Sea level rise won't kill people who have advance warning, but where are those billions of people in giant coastal cities going to move to?



Heat waves also kill people and we are already experiencing that this year. We are also experiencing flash floods, like in Brazil, where 1,000 people are missing. These are probably caused by more heat in the atmosphere caused by global warming.



It's not relevant how the climate flipped millions of years ago. Humans were not on earth then. The question is our survival this time around, and if we can stop it, we better try.

Answer 4

For an explanation on why it is accepted that current global warming is anthropogenic, please see my response to this question and the various links I posted:

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100623134709AAWln29&show=7#profile-info-fEyuafVNaa



Second, global temperatures were decreasing until about 1930.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley2000/crowley_fig1.pdf



What's more, since the derivative of the graphs is negative approaching the mid twentieth century, the Earth was cooling at an increasing rate. Is it right for temperatures to increase, you ask? Apparently, no.



As to the sea level rises, it is possible that sea levels could rise by about 70 meters. However, this is not predicted. Conservative models, such as those put forth by the IPCC in the Third Assessment Report, put sea level rises at about 60 cm.



http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/



Given that we are seeing quite high temperature anomaly trends, and how thermal expansion will take effect more and more as temperatures rise, 60 cm over the next 100 years actually seems to correlate well with the past 20 cm rise.



To address the "unprecedented" part, you can just look at your first graph for an idea. In 2004, temperature anomaly measurements were already higher than the mean produced for the rest of the Holocene. That was 6 years ago, too.



Edit:



I did read the footnotes, and saw where it mentioned that the 2004 measurement was from a single year and that more data is needed. However, if only to start that 150 year period, I think it is worth noting that the past 6 years have all seen higher temperature anomalies than the climatic optimum mean shown in your graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif



What I wonder is why you accuse me of not reading the footnotes, when you yourself say that temperatures have fluctuated, yet the summary given below the graph says otherwise:



"During the Holocene itself, there is general scientific agreement that temperatures on the average have been quite stable compared to fluctuations during the preceding glacial period. The above average curve supports this belief."



And, frankly, I'm not a scientist, nor a so-called one. I'm 17 and going into my senior year in high school.

Answer 5

Paul's Alias

"They fastest rises over the past million years prior to the current rise has been order of magnitude .1 dgrees C per century."



Can you give a link for this? Last time you only gave the vague reference to NAS. I'd like the specific paper, if one actually exists, because no reconstruction I know of has anywhere near the resolution to make any sort of statement like that. As I said before, they can't even say the same for the Holocene.



I have read studies showing that Europe, Greenland and parts of NA and Asia saw drops of more than 10 degrees C during the Younger Dryas event, and the drop occurred in a year or two (at most a decade). The 8.2 kiloyear event saw severe drops in temperature over a similar time period (though perhaps half the magnitude of YD), and the same can be said for other D-O events.



------



"Yes, I can. What happens if I do?"



And with that remarkable deflection, I'm going to go ahead and assume you can't give a link which substantiates your claim. No doubt because no one besides Paul's Alias ever made that claim, and certainly not at NAS.



"Also can you give me a link to your implicit claim that one must have air conditioning unless alaw prohibits you from having air conditioning?"



Yup, that's exactly what I was implying... It wasn't at all meant as a flippant response to your assertion that "no one" in Montecito has AC because you don't "need" it there. People don't need AC in Seattle or Hilo, HI, but plenty of people have it in both.



---------

EDIT2



The fact that you haven't provided a link for the third time means you either refuse to provide the link for whatever bizarre reasons (It seems you would rather parse words and invent implications), or, more likely, that you can't provide a link because one does not exist. To answer your red herring, I would readily admit that I was wrong if you were to post a credible link that actually supported the claim.



And I don't *know* that Gore's house has AC, and I'm sure you *can* live in the Montecito area without it. My point was that your reasoning (no one has AC because you don't need it there) was fallacious. I grew up in Seattle and lived outside Hilo, HI for a while, and in neither place did I have or need AC. But plenty of people did have it. And most houses built or remodeled (especially large houses) within the past 100 years or so, in nearly all corners of the country, have some sort of central air. But all of this is not particularly relevant to whether or not it was hypocritical of Gore to have bought the Montecito house. You need a lot of stuff to fill up a 5600 sqft house, which usually (not always) means more power-drawing technology and appliances than a 1500 sqft house. He's also got a pool, spa, and fountains; and he's providing a market for larger houses, which almost always have a considerably larger footprint in construction than do smaller dwellings. And how do you think he gets from Montecito to Tennessee and back again?

Answer 6

1

Answer 7

This sort of rant is nonsensical. How in the world can you know that the climate changed in the past? You claiming to know that is dishonest -- you weren't there, you don't know. Other, more honest people will say that they know climate changed in the past because they have read of the research by paleoclimatolgists that have scientifically established that climate has been different and have largely isolated the reasons that climate changed. But you are now saying that the paleoclimatolgists are wrong -- they don't know what they are talking about. Keep in mind that every climate researcher believes in AGW. Every one. And you say that they are all wrong. So, if all the climate researchers in the world are dishonest, incompetent or in a vast conspiracy as your rant suggests, then how do you know that climate changed in the past?

Answer 8

Anthropogenic warming refers to warming due to human emissions. There is no warming due to human emissions prior to the industrial revolution because humans did not emit enough greenhouse gases to alter the environment so drastically.Do you have any idea how much ice is in the ice packs of Greenland and Antarctica? Miles. If all that ice melted exactly what do you think would happen to the sea levels? Do you think they would remain unchanged?



No it's not 'unprecedented'. However, in past times when the climate changed so abruptly it was usually associated with a mass extinction event, of which there have been many. The reason being because certain animals do not have the genetic coding to live in that type of environment and the environment changes too quickly for a mutation, if there is one, to extend itself far enough to support the species.

Answer 9

<>



The fact that global temperatures have risen in the past does not mean that they have risen AS FAST in the past as they are rising now. They fastest rises over the past million years prior to the current rise has been order of magnitude .1 dgrees C per century. Currently we are seeing around .17 per DECADE.



I have never heard a Holocaust denier deny the Holocaust by saying "Well, weren't there other time periods when some people died?" As is often the case the argument put forward by a global warming denier is worse than the arguments put forward by Holocaust deniers.



EDIT



bob326<
"They fastest rises over the past million years prior to the current rise has been order of magnitude .1 dgrees C per century."



Can you give a link for this? Last time you only gave the vague reference to NAS>>



Yes, I can. What happens if I do?



Also can you give me a link to your implicit claim that one must have air conditioning unless a law prohibits you from having air conditioning?



bob326 <>



Ironically you are avoiding my question by claiming I avoided yours. I did NOT refuse to post a link. I asked you what you would admit if I did.



<>



It is NOT the case that plenty of people use air conditioning much in Montecito. I used to live near Montecito, and did not have air conditiong, nor did I know anyone who did. And furthermore how exactly do you "know" that Al Gore would be one of the people using air conditioning. If someone wanted to not use it there, it would be quite doable.

Answer 10

Human survival too much greenhouse gas emissions, led to the survival needs, coupled with industrial development too much to the nature of waste emissions

Answer 11

It's anthropogenic because humans exist. It's unprecedented because humans exist.



And to paul, are you denying the younger dryas event all together now?

Answer 12

Anthropogenic - yes. We know how much CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, we know that the temperature has risen, we know that there is no other causal factor capable of producing the rise.



Land ice - The calculation isn't that hard to do, and the total is about 70 meters. I've seen you "wonder" about this elsewhere. Either you don't wonder enough to do the calculation or it is beyond your math.



Unprecedented - yes, since before homo sapiens sapiens showed up. CO2 levels haven't been this high in over 400,000 years. This rapid a rise in CO2 level hasn't been seen in millions of years.

Answer 13

It isn't but then again certain people will refuse to see it and call people names.

Answer 14

http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/holocene_sea_level_present.jpg

shows past, and projected, sea level changes

Answer 15

I have no idea what you are saying... sorry!