Tipping Times

March 28, 2009, 11:31 am
‘Tipping Points’ and the Climate Challenge [click the title for the entire article]
By Andrew C. Revkin

In early assessments of global warming, most curves were smooth. Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases would raise temperatures. Then glaciologists started finding evidence of extraordinarily abrupt jumps in regional temperatures. Other evidence revealed past eras when seas rose precipitously. The possible shutdown of important Atlantic Ocean currents added to the sense of nonlinear and disruptive risk. A certain best seller propelled the phrase “tipping point” deep into popular discourse. Add that all together and what do you get? The prospect that human-driven warming is poised to push Earth past dangerous tipping points is now a cornerstone of many environmental campaigns.

But what tipping points are well established and which ones remain what Stephen W. Pacala of Princeton University has called “the monsters behind the door”? I have a piece in the Week in Review section exploring these concerns. Given the limits on space in print, I thought it worthwhile to add some additional voices here and encourage further discussion. The bottom line? A growing effort to clarify such risks has yielded what amounts to the same message climate experts have been conveying for more than two decades: More emissions of greenhouse gases raise the odds of trouble. The conclusion is similar to that in the “burning embers” diagrams from the third Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and a recent paper.

More alarmism based on computer games. It has yet to be shown that "human-driven warming" is even happening, much less whether there are such things as "tipping points".

One thing's for sure, "global warming" isn't global. And like other “monsters behind the door” mentioned in the article, it doesn't really seem to exist. Does this mean I deny that there has been any warming? Nope. I deny that a human-induced signal is detectable or quantifiable. We can't even quantify the so-called "natural" variables. There are bigger problems we should be dealing with, like inappropriate use of governmental powers.

But the NYT seems to be confused about several things. The blurb at the top of the page of the article "9 billion people, one planet" seems to greatly overestimate the number of people currently alive on the planet.

And I still need someone to explain to me how taking temperature measurements at thousands of different places, taking an average, smoothing, unsmoothing, adjusting, etc. equates to a "global mean temperature". It just doesn't work.