How can less than one degree in 100 years be considered a sudden and uncontrollable increase?

Question

Or should we not warm up after an ice age?

Answer 1

The damages caused by this less that one degree is what people are more worried about. Even though it may not seem like a lot the damages are so extreme that imagine 5 degrees. That is the major problem not the size of the temperature change, but the effects of the change that are scaring environmentalists.

Answer 2

Because Al Gore and his research grant-sucking cronies say so.

Answer 3

G'day Cindeeee.........your definitely echoing the Auzziegob sentiments about all the global warming, climate change...........FREAK OUT......WHADDA WE GUNNA DO........WHO WE GUNNA CALL...........scaremongering crappiola GARBAGE !!!

AL GORE has made millions of bucks out of this rubbish, and what has that pig really done except be an environmental hypocrite regarding his own CO2 EMISSIONS !

HAVE A GO AT THE PIGS OWN LIFE STYLE !

And all this carbin offset caper is nearly as big a hoax as is the godgobber jesus malarky !.............,

.....arhhh !, thassbedda, Auzziegob alwayz feels good arfta a spray !

Answer 4

I thought the same thing when I started studying climatology and weather change, but it doesn't take much of a change in the temperature to do incredible things to the planet.

And yes we should warm up after an ice age, and that is what has been happening since the end of the last ice age approx. 10,000 years ago.

Answer 5

I know that doesn't sound a lot but that's an average and over the entire earth.

in some areas temps have risen by far more than that.

a single degree has the ability to significantly  change ecosystem structure, for example recede the snow line by several hundred meters.

regardless of what some yanks on yahoo answers say, global warming is happening. in fact almost every argument in any thread about global warming i can disprove in a sentence, they are just so uneducated and bias.

Answer 6

Well, I'm wasting my time answering this, because I know it's not a sincere question, but what the h**l.  Maybe a true skeptic with an open mind will read this and learn something.

First of all, the argument that the planet is magically warming because it's coming out of an ice age is silly.  Even if we were just 'rebounding' from an ice age, there are concrete physical effects which cause the subsequent warming.  Namely either solar irradiance increases or the planet's orbital cycles reach a point which causes the planet to warm, and greenhouse gases increase to amplify the warming.  As has been pointed out many times, solar output has not increased over the past 30 years as global temperatures have increased by over a half degree Celsius, and we're in a stable portion of the Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles.  I won't bother to provide my usual links proving this, because you've seen them before and probably don't care about the scientific evidence anyway.

That being said, we're not rebounding from an ice age.  The last ice age ended 10-12,000 years ago, and the planet hasn't warmed significantly over the past 8,000 years.

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:H...

After an ice age there's not a warming followed by an 8,000 year stable period followed by another warming.

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:I...

So the 'rebound' theory doesn't make any sense.  Not only is there no physical cause for it, but we're not even in a situation where you would expect there to be one.

To answer your question, a 1 deg C warming over 100 years and 0.5 deg C warming over 30 years is extremely rapid.  Just look at the end of the last ice age - the planet warmed about 8 deg C over 8,000 years:

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:I...

That's 1 deg C per 1,000 years.  We've warmed 1 deg C over the past 100 years.   The warming over the past 30 years is 20 times faster than when the planet is naturally coming out of an ice age - and we certainly don't want to be experiencing a warming as rapid as when the planet is going from an ice age to a warm period when we're already in the warm period, let alone a warming 20 times faster!

Answer 7

Booooo global warming and Al Gore

HOORAY BEER

Answer 8

I agree with Ingela, if your pet belief were right, there wouldn't be any frozen water on the entire planet. You might want to sit down and think this through so you can avoid further questions like this.

Answer 9

Well 4 degrees is more than enough to wipe out all higher forms of life.  The last time that happened it took about 8000 years.  The rise over the last century's mischief is impressive enough to me.  What would it take to impress you, Cindy?  5-10 degrees in two weeks?

Answer 10

Your questions are getting more and sillier as the days go by. I think that you already know the answer to this question. However…

Please remember that we are not just talking about 1°C here. Due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average global temperature is expected to rise by another 1.1 to 6.4°C by 2100.[1] The most likely increase will be between 1.7 and 4.4°C.

If humanity decides to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, then the expected temperature change will be on the smaller side; but, if the amounts of these emissions increase, then the expected temperature rise will also increase.

Most climatologists remain optimistic because if humanity acts soon, then the most harmful of possible effects may be avoided.

Your question, “Should we not warm up after an ice age?” show that you have a completely lack of understanding of the time scales that we are talking about. You might as well say something like, “Shouldn’t we allow the dust to settle after that meteor stuck Earth and swiped out all of the dinosaurs?”

Answer 11

The temperature increases we are seeing is well within natural variability when we are coming out of an ice age.

But the damage is not suppose to come by how much the earth has warmed, but by how much computer models say the planet might warm.  

A new satellite implemented by NASA puts those predictions in doubt.  The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

Answer 12

The deniers of natural science want to blame everything on humans and animals.

It's just natural.  How can they keep denying the science?

The ice core samples prove that the increases in CO2 follow the warming cycles by as much as 800 years.  How anyone concluded that CO2 causes warming is beyond me.  I guess scientists can fudge data like anyone else can.

They must have an agenda in order to make such outrageous lies.  Some are scientists who rely on grants and so perpetuate the AGW hoax.

And doing the "maths" as someone said, just proves that there are cycles in our climate.  If the planet warms 1 degree very 100 years it would eventually burn up, but it doesn't.  It's already gone down that 1 degree in just one year.

More proof that all the scientific theories in the world can't explain it all so easily.  

I wish these deniers of natural climate changes would study some science instead of always being in lock-step with the Al Gore nuts.

Remember, it was the fascists who wanted everyone to rely on scientists and politicians to make all the decision for the people.  That's what this AGW thing is; a fascist power grab.

Answer 13

My sentiments exactly!

Thanks Eric C

Well done! I couldn't put it any better myself.

Sorry I can't give you a thumbs up yet since I'm only a newbie.

I just wish there were more people in this world like you who can obviously still think for themselves, and not just accept the garbage and hype we are being fed, and takes the time to do the research.

I would like to point out however that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and everybody still seems to be 'barking up the wrong tree'.

Cheers

Answer 14

Let's do some simple maths:

Let's say we're "warming up" after an ice age. To keep the figures low, let's say it's earth's "normal" speed to warm up 0.5 C every 100 years. If the last Ice age was 10 000 years ago that means 100 x 0.5 C equals 50 degrees Celsius!

Hmmm.... No sorry, I don't buy that!

What's more important is that our emissions of CO2 is steadily increasing, whilst nature will probably be able to take care of less of it. That means our future warming is expected to be more, possibly much more, than the past 100 years warming. In a geological timescale, it definitely sounds uncontrollable.