The Flipping Point (global warming conversion of skeptic Michael Shermer)

I looked through post 350, so I think I covered the beginning of the thread adequately. I agree with the view that we are in a crucial 5-10 year period during which effective changes could be initiated. Since we don't know what could happen in 10 years, we aren't at a point now where I could honestly say that there will be significantly deleterious effects by 2100 based on current trends. But in 10 years I could think a lot differently.

The post I saw was #67, but I've seen the pattern in other threads as well. But now that you have revised your wording to "DAI is at the point of probable" then I guess you are being consistent. The problem with the alarmism conclusion and funfacts approach is it doesn't give any serious debate to any of the outstanding questions, such as the models. The RSS group essentially subtracted out energy they derived from their models, yet claim to be using raw data (obviously with adjustments) to validate modeled AGW. It's the a small twist on the usual AGW methodology (adjust model to fit reality). Instead they are adjusting reality to fit the model. I admit though, that my chart was old and the satellite measurement trend is up since 2000. But a 0.1 or 0.2 change in a decade is well within natural variations.

See ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/contributions_by_author/briffa1998/nhemtemp_data.txt for an example (NHLMT column).

But now that you have revised your wording to "DAI is at the point of probable" then I guess you are being consistent."

Just to clarify: I don't think that DAI is at the point of probable now, but I think 10 years will be sufficient to determine if it will become probable. An accurate statement of my view now would be that given current trends, data, and model predictions, DAI is significantly more than a remote possibility. For quantification, I'd guess there's a 1-in-5 chance of the Earth's climate entering a DAI state.

The post I saw was #67, but I've seen the pattern in other threads as well.

I said this in #67, with the key phrase underlined:

" Fagan's book is one way of noting that civilization as we know it has benefited (indeed, perhaps prospered because of it) from a very stable climate. The Earth's existing ecosystems have become what they are now because of it. Now we have the potential to drastically alter it in decades -- not on the timescales that Milankovitch cycles operate on, 1000s to 10,000s of years."

Saying that human activities have the potential to drastically alter climate over a period of decades is not the same as saying that human activities WILL do so. Since I've already stated my view, I think what I said above (post 67) is consistent with that. I think that true "alarmists" over-emphasize scary scenarios (and this attracts attention, as Gore recently noted). I think a realist acknowledges that the "scary scenarios" are possible, but we don't have enough information yet to accurately assess their probability.

But a 0.1 or 0.2 change in a decade is well within natural variations.

I looked at the site link you provided, and I confess I don't know how to interpret that data. I disagree with your point above, partly because "natural variations" is too vague. If "natural variations" includes the decades of a glacial epoch termination or the 8200 year event, changes of 5-10 C in 10-50 years (as good as the resolution allows) were entirely natural. But in this current interglacial, a 1.0 C rise in average global temperature over a century is unusual, and a 2.0 C rise would be outside the range of natural variation. The problem ensues when looking at 0.2 C in a decade or 0.6 C in three decades, during a period where one particular forcing factor is constantly increasing.

But you know that already.

Look at it again, please. The year is on the left, the third column (NHLMT) is estimated deviation from the 1861-1960 mean temperature. The proxies are tree rings and cover the NH. What it shows is the temperature anomalies lasting from a year (the only available resolution in a tree ring) to a decade (e.g. 1628 to 1637). These anomalies are similar to the ones we are seeing since 2000 when the satellite trend started to increase (0.1 or 0.2 C).

I do agree that the next decade will tell a lot, both in terms of the trend and hopefully (inevitably) a better ability to model weather and climate.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.