Yes, the concept of "tipping points" validate the report I linked and refute the original post that all climate effects before have been slow and gradual.
It doesn't in itself mean that anyone is screwed though - it just means that humans throughout the Holocene have already lived through major changes due to such perturbations of the climate.
There's also plenty of written records of this - a collection can be found here: http://www.breadandbutterscien...
No, the events described aren't just cooling events. Please re-read the report.
All effects from global warming are regional, and different in different places. Please see the IPCC reports for more information, they go through this in great detail.
Your comment has nothing to do with the original claim, that rapid changes does not happen. They do - and the cause is completely irrelevant when it comes to how those changes affect vegetation, animal life or humans. Neither is the paper limited to volcanic cooling events, which you claim, which makes me wonder if you've read it. If you didn't read it - then what is the point in writing a reply?
Additionally, if you claim that there's newer research the last 20 years which disproves the paper then please cite that research.
The current temperate change is between 0.01 and 0.02 degrees/year, two orders of magnitude greater than when the ice age ended. The problem isn't so much that temperature is changing but that it's changing so fast. The greater the rate of temperature change the harder adaption will be for both human and natural systems.
I've never been able to figure out the original of those claims - do you know? I can't find any scientific sources for it - on the contrary:
Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise)
Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.
http://www.mercurynews.com/sci...
(The source seems to be E.R Cook et.al, Earth-Science reviews)
Extreme weather in documented history over the last 2000 years:
http://www.breadandbutterscien...
We're not even close to seeing larger deviations than before in recorded history.
Thought experiment: Everyone beats inflation. That causes inflation.
Sounds reasonable. No one who's understood the message in either Taleb's "Black Swan" or Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" would support the scam that is the financial markets.
Yes. My point is that for someone to beat inflation someone else mustn't.
It's that simple.
I can assure you that pretty much everyone* has access to investment vehicles with a larger return than 2%.
By definition it's not possible for everyone to be able to beat inflation.
Having worked in finance
Understandable. Daniel Kahneman has some amusing anecdotes who people who work in finance really don't seem to figure out what it is they're really doing.
With regards to the Wikipedia article claiming a historical 0.0-0.2mm range over the last 2000 years that probably needs to be updated with more recent research.
Thewell-preserved biological remains on the sh tank wall allow us to estimate anRSL rise of 40 ±10 cm at Frejus since Roman times
400 / 2000 = 0.2mm average per year over the last 2000 years. (And as documented in this paper there are other papers that claim higher numbers)
http://www.academia.edu/344003...éjus_France
(Slashdot seems to make a mess out of the hyphen in the link - the paper can be found as doi 10.1002/gea.21444 )
It's trivial to secretly record someone using a mobile phone - I can hold it in my hand, down by my waist, at an angle.
It's extremely difficult recording someone secretly using a head mount camera. I must look directly at them the whole time.
The warming data clearly indicates that rate of temperature of last 50 years is far higher than any other period in history
Why do you believe that? It's not even true for the last 150 years - even less so if we include the rest of the Holocene.
Q: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
A: So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
- Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/851...
Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise)
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projec...
(This post does not question AGW. It does question strange statements regarding our current climate that have no scientific basis)
This is nowhere near the worst drought in California's recorded history.
Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.
Unless, of course, those proxies are unreliable.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman
