Larson Ice Shelf.

I'd say this. New study out recently suggests that the current rate of warning is less than 1C a century. To date, no one has demonstrated that this rate of warming is unnatural in any way. For AGW to be taken seriously, it has to functionally demonstrate what portion of that <1C of warming is being caused by anthropogenic causes. All of it? Most? Some? or none.

I would ask a couple of things here. First, why do you believe consensus in science is a standard we should view to ascribe credibility? There are too many examples that we have that show us that consensus doesn't mean much if it's wrong.

Second, on "speed of crisis", whatever does this actually mean? Id point out that while so many hyperventilate about this topic, those who most actively profess it are still likely to be among the worst offenders by production of emissions. Does that help you understand the velocity then? If this was immediate, wouldn't you expect them to modify their own behavior?

 

Let's stop you there. Reference this study!

 

He's probably talking about Dr. Christy's recent publication. Dr. Christy is the guy who runs the UAH satellite temperature project. His datasets are known for being on the low end of the consensus to begin with, but the study is actually about figuring out the human contribution to the warming which the authors calculate as 62%. Oh, and they actually say the warming is 1.1C using their new TTCR index and that's only the anthroprogenic element. Dr. Christy is often described as a skeptic of AGW.

I don't know why we're talking about this study anyway, because the UAH data is massively "manipulated" and the authors use numerical weather modeling to calibrate ENSO and volcanic climate responses so that the natural component of the warming can be removed. I don't have a problem with either of these techniques, but skeptics like drluggit consider them fraudulent.

 

If you want to see what warmer looks like go downtown of any large city. It's much warmer there than the surrounding countryside. But be careful not to trip over all the bodies on the streets.

 

The sheer number of false assertions here... But thanks for making the conversation less about the science and more about your personal opinion here. Brava. Perhaps you should check the tape here... The study numbers were communicating the raw numbers. But then, you knew that and still purposefully mischaracterized that.

 

No, it isn't. The UAH satellite data must first infer the temperature from microwave and other EM emissions. Then to be useful for climate research the data must be post processed to remove the orbital decay (both horizontal and vertical) biases. Then the authors use a numerical model to calibrate volcanic and ENSO responses so that these natural mechanisms are then removed from the warming trend. The thing is...I actually read the study and numerous others from the UAH group and their counterpart RSS. These topics are opening discussed.

And by the way, that wasn't meant as a personal attack. I'm just pointing out that many skeptics including yourself have pointed out that these techniques qualify as manipulation at best and fraud at worst. So I don't know why it's now being used as evidence against AGW. Speaking of which, the authors acknowledge that the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible for 62% of it. The intent of the study is to show that climate models are overestimating warming which everyone already knows, but the authors still acknowledge that both primary hypothesis of AGW are true.

Again, I have no problem with the study whatsoever and I actually found it to be pretty insightful. But, I acknowledge the usefulness of the techniques being used here. Many skeptics don't. That's what I'm saying.

 

Maybe your little ice age spanned about 500 years of time while current temperature changes and CO2 levels have only been increasing for about 150 years. Who knows what our climate will be in another 300-350 years? Also, your little ice age was more regional in effect and not necessarily global. Lastly, there's a huge difference between the little ice age times and today in which today we have 7+ billion people, hundreds of economies and the world economy, an inability for mass migration, etc. plus knowing the US and many other nations are literally teetering on the brink of disaster so any significant event not only will push us over the edge but the time to regroup will be long. For example, what would be the outcome if gasoline was $5-$8/gallon in the US? The answer to this question shows how fragile we are today compared to 500 years ago...

 

Evidence that consensus isn't science?

 

Plenty of papers that show The Little Ice age was global.

 

And how about considering the difference in our societies/governments/economies today compared to 1000+ years ago. Just because we did not know much 1000+ years ago does not invalidate all that we know today...

 

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/the-little-ice-age-was-very-very-little/

The Little Ice Age is often cited by climate change deniers as proof humans are not causing global warming. The theory goes that Earth is naturally coming out of a period of coolness, and thus the changes in global temperature are merely coincidental.

We’ve known for a while that argument is essentially crap. But now a new study has further cemented its crapness by discovering that the Little Ice Age was almost insignificant, and cannot account for modern temperature increases.

Published in Astronomy and Geophysics, researchers led by the University of Reading examined this supposed period of cooling that’s thought to have taken place intermittently around the world from the 16th to 19th centuries. A decrease in solar activity of the Sun from 1645 to 1715, known as the maunder minimum, is thought to have played a part.

But looking at historical records, including cores of Antarctic ice and paintings from the era, the researchers found little evidence it was that cold at all. This has important implications for the true effect man-made carbon dioxide emissions are having on the climate.

“On the whole, the Little Ice Age was a manageable downturn in climate concentrated in particular regions, even though places like the UK had a larger fraction of cold winters,” said lead author Professor Mike Lockwood in a statement. “Our research suggests that there is no single explanation for this, that warm summers continued much as they do today and that not all winters were cold.”

In particular, they found that the average temperature in the northern hemisphere dropped by just 0.5°C (0.9°F) during the supposed Little Ice Age period. By comparison, the most recent actual ice age 12,000 years ago saw a drop of 8°C (14.4°F).

Frost fairs have also been a key piece of “evidence” supporting the Little Ice Age. In 17th and 18th-century London, the Thames was said to have frozen over on multiple occasions, allowing people to celebrate on the icy river. This stopped in the 19th century, supposedly as the world came out of the Little Ice Age.

But the researchers found the ending of frost fairs had nothing to do with climate change. It was actually the result of an increased river flow, caused by the original London Bridge being demolished in 1825, and the Victoria embankment opening in 1870. Paintings from the era also continued to depict both warm and cool temperatures.

“This study provides little solace for the future, as we face the challenge of global warming,” said Lockwood. “Solar activity appears to be declining at present, but any cooling effect that results will be more than offset by the effect of rising carbon dioxide emissions, and provides us with no excuse for inaction.”

 

The Little Ice Age is often cited by climate change deniers

What a way to torpedo your own post.

Try some science. Lot's more.

The ‘Little Ice Age’ in the Southern Hemisphere in the context of the last 3000 years: Peat-based proxy-climate data from Tierra del Fuego

Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming

 

Honestly, these days, I think the only folks who now qualify as "deniers" are those who insist that climate cannot nor should change. Now that's denial.

 

I'll be happy to, the minute I have reason to.

What we know about the climate 1000 years ago is quite a bit less than what we know about the climate today; and what we know about the climate today is next to nothing.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

For example, 1000 years ago 7-10 million people and businesses did not exist in southern Florida but today they do. As sea level rises, NO MATTER THE REASON, can you possibly see a reason to be alarmed about the future of places like Florida? At some point in the future, on the current trend of sea level rise, Florida and other places become a horrific problem. You obviously cannot fathom the monumental fallout and/or process that will exist to deal with a flooded area like Florida. First, there needs to be a public discussion without choosing sides but to find consensus. Then a long-term plan needs to be in place. Failure to do this is tantamount to sticking our heads up our asses and pretending like everything is okay...

 

Nope.

Yeah, well however limited my perceptual capabilities may be, I'm pretty sure the "fallout" will be trivial next to that produced by the Sun going red giant in the near future - the prospect of which we have, as far as anyone knows, exactly as much ability to negate as we have to arrest this alleged sea level rise.

Well how very handsome. I take this to mean that if the consensus is that it's up to those who live in the affected areas to deal with the "fallout", you'll be happy as a clam. Right?