14 month streak of Record Breaking temperatures

[53x13]

NOAA have reported the month of June 2016 nearly 1C warmer than any previous June in the 20th century, indeed the past 14 months have been the hottest recorded since records began in 1880. Surely there can't be any denyers left out there who can't see Global warming is a very serious issue to face in our lifetimes?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... s-agencies

[freeflow]

I'm happy to accept that our activities are causing climate change but also openminded enough to accept that out baseline for measuring climate change is far too short and that the hypothesised global warming could just be natural variation.

My preference would be for folks to take a step back and get more familiar with the 'tradgedy of the commons' and the realisation that many of the benefits we have in today's society have negative consequences in the long term some of which we can't yet deduce.

[[XAP]Bob]

Including ice core data our baseline goes back a hell of a long way...

[Vorpal]

Estimates based upon glacial records, fossils, sedimentary rocks, etc.

p.s. our planet has only had ice caps during the periods below where there are blue bars at the bottom.

[Mike Sales]

Before the last election I decided that the need to do something about global warming was the issue of overwhelming importance. If we don't manage to avoid the disaster unfolding then no other issue really matters. The conclusions of the planet's scientists are clear and unambiguous.
So, I decided that the issue would determine who I voted for.
None of the established parties took climate change seriously. Only the Greens mentioned it. So I threw my vote away.
I see no reason to hope. I am glad I will be dead before too long.

[kwackers]

If it's any consolation the long term trend for CO2 is downwards.

In around 500 million to a billion years it'll all have been sequestered and there'll be insufficient to sustain life (as we know it).
The current rise is only temporary (as is the human race).

It used to be much higher, but then the sun was much colder...

[Mike Sales]

No consolation at all. As J.M.Keynes said, "in the long term we are all dead."

[Psamathe]

Estimates based upon glacial records, fossils, sedimentary rocks, etc.

Phanerozoic_Temperature.jpg

p.s. our planet has only had ice caps during the periods below where there are blue bars at the bottom.

There are several aspects to the graph:
1. The time when humans evolved to a particular climate and how quickly we can "evolve" to a changed climate (and the impact that would have on our population, society, etc.). Maybe useful to mark on the graph the point where humans evolved (quite recent).

2. Whether the recent changes are natural or man-made (or rather to what degree they are natural and what degree they are man made).

Go back about 4bn years and the surface temperatures were a lot hotter than they are today. Go back about 2bn years and it was a lot colder. for me the question is more about the impact on humans and what we need to do to avoid the catastrophic impacts that current trends are likely to be causing.

My opinion (based on reports, articles, etc.) is that there seems little question that human activity is a major contributing factor to climate change. climate may or may not be getting warmer naturally but we are certainly significant contributors. And a slower, more gradual climate change might allow us to adapt without the catastrophic consequences.

Ian

[kwackers]

I'm fairly wary of the simplistic use of prehistoric data.

It's difficult to figure out why things were the way they were. We had a cool sun, very high CO2 levels, high O levels, even landmass positioning was different and thus energy radiating back into space was difficult to gauge.
Then there's the impact of life. A lot of evidence points to 'snowball earth' about 600m years ago, it's thought this ended because of a rise in CO2 by life deep in the oceans. Life is probably responsible for the fact that we've still got oceans (they should have boiled away, the H2O broken apart by UV) but respiration produced oxygen which made it more difficult for the hydrogen to escape into space and also formed the ozone layer which reduced UV.

It's a complicated thing and we're still trying to model it in a way our models match the data we have.

That said I've no doubt increasing CO2 is a bad thing and that it can make the earth a lot warmer. That we're responsible I think is beyond doubt (except for the manc's of the world).

Will we change? Nah. As always we'll patch stuff up as it goes wrong.
A perfect storm is coming imo. Global warming, homogenised crops and associated vulnerability to disease, falling water tables, increasing population, reduction of essential resources, falling biodiversity, antibiotic resistance.
All made worse by what seems like an increasingly inward looking 'small' mindset and a distrust of experts - the very people that could help. A mindset that will only worsen as things get more difficult.

[Mike Sales]

I'm fairly wary of the simplistic use of prehistoric data........

a distrust of experts - the very people that could help.

It is clear what the experts think. The IPCC has assembled several reports aggregating the evidence, including ice cores. I doubt that they include "simplistic" interpretations.

[kwackers]

It is clear what the experts think. The IPCC has assembled several reports aggregating the evidence, including ice cores. I doubt that they include "simplistic" interpretations.

I'm not doubting experts, quite the opposite. What I'm talking about is people throwing simplistic graphs around without understanding the complex issues behind them.

Don't worry though, I get the impression very little of what I write is taken in the way I intended...

[Mike Sales]

Don't worry though, I get the impression very little of what I write is taken in the way I intended...

If |I may ask this without offence, do you have any ideas about why that is?

[[XAP]Bob]

It is clear what the experts think. The IPCC has assembled several reports aggregating the evidence, including ice cores. I doubt that they include "simplistic" interpretations.

I'm not doubting experts, quite the opposite. What I'm talking about is people throwing simplistic graphs around without understanding the complex issues behind them.

Don't worry though, I get the impression very little of what I write is taken in the way I intended...

The trouble is that we have to simplify things - else no-one would have any idea about anything significant outside of their incredibly narrow field...
The graph needs some accompanying documentation, but it shouldn't take more than on graph annotation...

[kwackers]

If |I may ask this without offence, do you have any ideas about why that is?

I have lots of theories, not all of them self complimentary.

[Vorpal]

I, too am wary of the simplistic use of data, too.

However, not being an expert at the analysis of prehistoric weather data, I have to trust that the scientists who coalate these things have half a clue.

Furthermore, I tend to look at data and analyses from multiple sources.

I think that it is clear that humans are affecting our environment. I'm not sure that it is clear that what we are doing is to our doom. I'm also not sure that it is wholly irreversible.

However, I am afraid that by the time it is clear, we might not be able to do anything about it.

I do think that we urgently need to protect our environment. But this is something that absolutely has to come from legislation, and not just in the UK or Europe, but around the world.

It will hardly matter that I (or we) ride bikes everywhere, if everyone else is driving 4X4s 30000 miles per year.