Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[buctootim]

But not the warmest ever.

 

Indeed. Temperatures were around 7 degrees centigrade higher on average when atmospheric carbon was much higher in the Mesozoic era. Lets not go there again

[Whitey Grandad]

Indeed. Temperatures were around 7 degrees centigrade higher on average when atmospheric carbon was much higher in the Mesozoic era. Lets not go there again

 

Indeed, too many dinosaurs or things. Which came first, the CO2 or the temperatures?

[Polaroid Saint]

Don't Panic - The Truth About Population. Starting now on BBC2.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Saint Paul C]

Do you consider CNS an unbiased news source?

 

Prof. Easterbrook is at Western Washington University, not Washington State (University). A big difference.

 

The "right on the money" is a quote from whom? Prof. Easterbrook, the CNS reporter?

 

"author of 150 scientific journal articles". Scopus has him down for 35. Web of Science lists 37. His web site seems to consider having an abstract at a conference as a publication, but its incorrect for CNS to call it a "journal publication." It's not.

 

"And so in 2000, I published a paper with the Geological Society of America..." I can't find a 2000 paper that addresses this. Perhaps its this 2001 work? Easterbrook, D.J. and Kovanen, D.J., 2001. The next 25 years: global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America, vol. 33, 253. It's not really a paper, its an "abstracts with program."

 

I'm really not having a go at Prof. Easterbrook, but if the article relies on "appeal to authority", I think one can factually refute the specifics of said appeal. Further, in 5 minutes and google I found 3 factual errors in the story. (The "right on the money" and a reporter asking, "How does it feel to have been right?” without actually checking to see if he was right, are choices I'd criticise as well.)

 

The article's focus on Al Gore, I consider to be a warning that the story is politically biased. (The photo of Gore is special, too.) Al Gore is not a scientist, or researcher in climate science. To call the IPCC models "Gore and the IPCC’s computer models" is an wholly inaccurate label, meant to appeal to the fact that Al Gore is basically a plank. (Logically, just because a plank believes it, doesn't prove a claim is false. Right?)

 

Anyhow, saving up the big criticism, is the graph you've included. I notice its stripped off the confidence intervals. When judging the accuracy of the predictions of the IPCC models, that's huge. Its more inconsistent when the text accurately text claims IPCC models predict up to 1 degree C per decade. Up to is the largest estimate. Look at the graph, and IPCC predicts (the red line) a increase of 1 degree over 40-50 years. That's the median. What't the lowest value? Can we agree that this article is political spin?

 

Further, the graph dates to 2000 (2001?). We have a decade plus of data. Can we compare the Easterbrook prediction to the 2000 IPCC predictions? That would be a chance to make a case! I actually want to see it!

 

BTW, I fully acknowledge that we could be going into a cooling due to a number of periodic mechanisms. But that needs to be shown, not speculated.

 

All fair points.

 

Following on from that, I found this reposte to Easterbrooks article which you may like

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/on-don-easterbrooks-updated-projection/

 

[aintforever]

Indeed, too many dinosaurs or things. Which came first, the CO2 or the temperatures?

 

Dunno for sure, lets pump 36,000,000,000 tons of it out into the atmosphere every year and find out what happens. What could possibly go wrong?

[Whitey Grandad]

Dunno for sure, lets pump 36,000,000,000 tons of it out into the atmosphere every year and find out what happens. What could possibly go wrong?

 

And how much of that is re-absorbed? Without CO2 there would be no plants. Without plants there would be no animals. Drop CO2 back to pre-industrial levels and see what happens to crop yields and then see how many people starve. It's not all one-way negative.

[Polaroid Saint]

And how much of that is re-absorbed? Without CO2 there would be no plants. Without plants there would be no animals. Drop CO2 back to pre-industrial levels and see what happens to crop yields and then see how many people starve. It's not all one-way negative.

 

https://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/cycles6.htm

 

http://www.kidsgeo.com/geography-for-kids/0159-the-carbon-cycle.php

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Whitey Grandad]

https://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/cycles6.htm

 

http://www.kidsgeo.com/geography-for-kids/0159-the-carbon-cycle.php

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

These are very simplistic and don't tell us anything that we didn't know already. It's the difference between the carbon sources and sinks that's important and these have only been estimates for some time now, particularly the sinks.

[Polaroid Saint]

These are very simplistic and don't tell us anything that we didn't know already. It's the difference between the carbon sources and sinks that's important and these have only been estimates for some time now, particularly the sinks.

 

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/climatechanging/climatescienceinfozone/exploringearthsclimate/1point6/1point6point2.aspx

 

I thought these KS1 materials helped explain quite well that the natural carbon cycle has been broken!?

 

However, if want to know more about short-term carbon stores, such as those lovely big untouched rainforests and our arable crops (!?) here's some slightly more grown up (KS2/3) explanations from one or two others.

 

(Of course; FERN obviously have 'an agenda', as do those pesky 'scientists' at the royal society.)!

 

http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2001/land-carbon-sinks/

 

http://www.fern.org/campaign/carbon-trading/what-are-carbon-sinks

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Edited 7 February, 2014 by Polaroid Saint

[Whitey Grandad]

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/climatechanging/climatescienceinfozone/exploringearthsclimate/1point6/1point6point2.aspx

 

I thought these KS1 materials helped explain quite well that the natural carbon cycle has been broken!?

 

No, it's still turning. In fact the more carbon in the air the more that is soaked up.

 

However, if want to know more about short-term carbon stores, such as those lovely big untouched rainforests and our arable crops (!?) here's some sligjtly more grown up (KS2/3) explanations from one or two others.

 

(Of course; FERN obviously have 'an agenda', as do those pesky 'scientists' at the royal society.)!

 

http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2001/land-carbon-sinks/

 

http://www.fern.org/campaign/carbon-trading/what-are-carbon-sinks

 

The global warming community got quite a shock a decade or so ago when they found that their estimates of the Amazon rainforest canopy were under by more than 10%. Apparently all the leaves had got bigger so although the canopy looked the same size it was in fact absorbing more CO2. Of course they keep chopping it down...

[Hokie]

All fair points.

 

Following on from that, I found this reposte to Easterbrooks article which you may like

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/on-don-easterbrooks-updated-projection/

 

 

Entertaining, especially in the comments section, but not really proper science by either side.

 

What can I say, I'm skeptical about science by blog.

[Polaroid Saint]

No, it's still turning. In fact the more carbon in the air the more that is soaked up.

 

Fair point! I guess I meant the cycle is broken as in 'the chain keeps falling off' and the handlebars are bent. Or something.

 

Basically taking the very obvious and simplistic view that the carbon that *should* be in the ground, is now in the air or sea or short term flora based sinks. And THAT is a change (if not a break) to the carbon cycle.

 

I think we are saying the same things, that we don't know for sure. Just that I am saying we do actually know enough to make a good guess at the shortfall and therefore start to do something about it.

As I have said before on this thread; I am much more about positive action for us as a society/species than 'saving the earth' or crying foul at dodgy statistics: there will always be agendas and the planet can survive without/ despite us. We merely need to ensure we prepare our children well enough for the challenges they may face tomorrow. If that means being a little bit cautious, so be it!

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Edited 7 February, 2014 by Polaroid Saint

[Guided Missile]

Meanwhile, way back in 2012, the Guardian was reporting this:

 

Urging people to save water, Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, said a recent drought summit had highlighted the threat posed by another dry winter and more areas were likely to be affected unless there was significant rainfall in the coming months. "We can all help reduce the effects of drought by being smarter about how we use water," she said. Spelman has said that climate change could mean drought is "the new normal" and has urged water companies to produce long-term plans for saving water.

 

.....climate change could mean drought is "the new normal" .....

[Whitey Grandad]

Weather, innit.

[Guided Missile]

Fast forward to today, the Independent is reporting this:

 

Climate change means we will have to get used to flooding

 

The wacky professor from Reading further states:

 

The message for politicians is clear. Even if deep cuts to emissions of greenhouse gases are successful, we will have to live with more floods in Britain. Once the immediate challenge is over, we need to think deeply about how to manage our flood risk as the climate changes. Professor Nigel Arnell is Director of the Walker Institute for Climate System Research at the University of Reading

 

My message for politicians is to ignore academics like you, mate, who are armed with worthless modelling equations and who obviously played too many computer games in their bedroom, when they were at school...

[Guided Missile]

In 2012, The Environment Agency carried out a study on the cost of a national water network.It will look at the implications of creating a system to pump water from wetter, western parts of Britain via pipes, canals and rivers to the drier east.

 

The Institution of Civil Engineers says the idea should be taken seriously, as it would offer one answer to summer shortages. Professor Roger Falconer, from the institution, thinks existing reservoirs in North and Mid-Wales could be enhanced as a source of the water.

 

 

Another bunch of nutjobs proposing to spend billions in the name of climate change, this time piping water from Wales to the Bristol and Thames areas, which will be in drought due to climate change.

 

Thank **** they didn't get away with that...

[Minty]

So GM, why do you think they came up with the idea? For a laugh? To see how much public money they could spunk away as part of some kind of dare?

 

And just because we have flooding now, do you think we'll never have potential droughts in the future?

 

Whether man-made or not, the increasingly changing climate is likely to lead to more of these weather extremes IMO, so how do we prepare for that? Or do we do nothing? What's your proposal?

[Whitey Grandad]

In 2012, The Environment Agency carried out a study on the cost of a national water network.It will look at the implications of creating a system to pump water from wetter, western parts of Britain via pipes, canals and rivers to the drier east.

 

The Institution of Civil Engineers says the idea should be taken seriously, as it would offer one answer to summer shortages. Professor Roger Falconer, from the institution, thinks existing reservoirs in North and Mid-Wales could be enhanced as a source of the water.

 

 

Another bunch of nutjobs proposing to spend billions in the name of climate change, this time piping water from Wales to the Bristol and Thames areas, which will be in drought due to climate change.

 

Thank **** they didn't get away with that...

 

Nothing about Somerset on that map.

[aintforever]

I think it's crystal clear that no one has a clue as to how climate change will effect the UK's weather which is one of the most unpredictable on the planet. Anyone with half a brain would see this a reason to be concerned about how man is effecting the climate.

[Guided Missile]

Whether man-made or not, the increasingly changing climate is likely to lead to more of these weather extremes IMO, so how do we prepare for that? Or do we do nothing? What's your proposal?

Actually, the basic premise of your post is totally wrong:

 

Key statements from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.

 

Here are a few:

 

• “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
  
• "There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
  
• “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
  
• “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
  
• “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
  
• “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
  
• “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
  

So, I intend to carry on as usual. It would greatly add to my entertainment if you and the rest of the climate change alarmists would do the same. "The End is Nigh, Unless We Repent" b0ll0x you lot spout is hilarious....

[Halo Stickman]

Nothing about Somerset on that map.

 

That’s because the whole of Somerset has been earmarked as a wetland bird reserve

[Minty]

So, I intend to carry on as usual. It would greatly add to my entertainment if you and the rest of the climate change alarmists would do the same. "The End is Nigh, Unless We Repent" b0ll0x you lot spout is hilarious....

 

Is that the crux of it? That you think my concern for the future sustainability of my own children, is entertaining?

 

If you'd read more closely over my posts, rather than dumping anyone who disagrees with you into the 'alarmist' box, I am all for evidence-based decision making, and would be absolutely ecstatic if many of the things you purport to be true, were proven to be true. But as has also been referenced many times, without clear evidence to the contrary, I believe that a precautionary principle is a sensible approach until we know more (if we will ever know enough).

 

I have always tried to debate this in a reasonable manner, as have many others to differing degrees, whilst you have only ever maintained a derogatory, condescending, arrogant manner.

 

I know I'll get the same response as always to this, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering. But I'll try... and perhaps we could start by going back to my question, even if we change it a little to accommodate your post.

 

What do you think we should be doing to better prepare ourselves for whatever climate changes we might face in the future? How do we help ensure the sustainability of the human race? Should we at all?

[Guided Missile]

What do you think we should be doing to better prepare ourselves for whatever climate changes we might face in the future? How do we help ensure the sustainability of the human race?

Adapt...

[Whitey Grandad]

I think it's crystal clear that no one has a clue as to how climate change will effect the UK's weather which is one of the most unpredictable on the planet. Anyone with half a brain would see this a reason to be concerned about how man is effecting the climate.

 

Isn't there a slight contradiction between those two sentences? We don't know what the weather is going to be but we should be concerned that we are having an effect on it?

 

(Interesting use of 'effect' instead of 'affect' there. Was that intentional?)

[badgerx16]

Adapt...

 

In your case does that mean fitting a schnorkel to your 4x4 ?

[aintforever]

Isn't there a slight contradiction between those two sentences? We don't know what the weather is going to be but we should be concerned that we are having an effect on it?

 

(Interesting use of 'effect' instead of 'affect' there. Was that intentional?)

 

No contradiction, a warming planet is bound to change weather patterns and the UK already has unpredictable weather due to it's position in relation to the atlantic, the jetstream and the tropical and polar air masses.

 

I'm no expert on weather but it looks like the meandering jetstream that is causing this current extreme weather was also responsible for the extreme cold we had in 2010. IF climate change has made this the norm then it could be very costly for us.

[Saint George]

Meanwhile, way back in 2012, the Guardian was reporting this:

 

 

 

.....climate change could mean drought is "the new normal" .....

 

The Guardian?....Oh wait...this Guardian!

 

Never mind.....carry on lol

 

[Guided Missile]

Latest from the total nutter's involved in climate lobbying.

 

The Greens have called for a purge of senior government advisers and ministers who do not share the party's views on climate change. The Green Party says any senior adviser who refused to accept "the scientific consensus on climate change" should be sacked. Leader Natalie Bennett said: "We also can't have anyone in the cabinet who is denying the realities that we're facing with climate change."

 

Called for a purge???? Let's see if anyone on this thread has the nerve to defend this....

[Minty]

Called for a purge???? Let's see if anyone on this thread has the nerve to defend this....

 

Irrespective of anyones opinion, it's not exactly uncommon for a political party to want it's cabinet members to agree with the party's core policy, whether red, blue, yellow, green or anyone else.

 

The fact their core policy on this also happens to correspond with the scientific consensus is actually not a bad thing, given that most policies aren't based on scientific consensus.

 

I realise you'll now comment on the fact that it's NOT scientific consensus in your opinion, but there's little point in going there seeing as we know we disagree on that, but on the party's actions, I don't see anything that far removed from what most other parties would think about their cabinet members agreeing with their own core policies.

[Guided Missile]

Irrespective of anyones opinion, it's not exactly uncommon for a political party to want it's cabinet members to agree with the party's core policy, whether red, blue, yellow, green or anyone else.

 

The fact their core policy on this also happens to correspond with the scientific consensus is actually not a bad thing, given that most policies aren't based on scientific consensus.

 

I realise you'll now comment on the fact that it's NOT scientific consensus in your opinion, but there's little point in going there seeing as we know we disagree on that, but on the party's actions, I don't see anything that far removed from what most other parties would think about their cabinet members agreeing with their own core policies.

As English is obviously not your first language, it might be worth pointing out that your leaders in the Green Party are actually calling for the removal of democratically elected ministers from the cabinet. The clue was the hippies describing them as "senior government advisers and ministers".

 

[Graffito]

As English is obviously not your first language, it might be worth pointing out that your leaders in the Green Party are actually calling for the removal of democratically elected ministers from the cabinet. The clue was the hippies describing them as "senior government advisers and ministers".

 

 

At risk of appearing pedantic but they weren't democratically elected as Ministers nor were they democratically elected to the Cabinet.

[Guided Missile]

At risk of appearing pedantic but they weren't democratically elected as Ministers nor were they democratically elected to the Cabinet.

How would you describe the method they were placed in a position of power on your planet, then?

[Graffito]

How would you describe the method they were placed in a position of power on your planet, then?

 

I would describe the method as their being democratically elected as MPs to represent their constituents and then being selected as Cabinet Ministers by the Prime Minsiter.

[Guided Missile]

I would describe the method as their being democratically elected as MPs to represent their constituents and then being selected as Cabinet Ministers by the Prime Minsiter.

What a pointless turd of a post...

[Minty]

As English is obviously not your first language, it might be worth pointing out that your leaders in the Green Party are actually calling for the removal of democratically elected ministers from the cabinet. The clue was the hippies describing them as "senior government advisers and ministers".

 

I misread your post, so I will apologise for that.

 

But, once again, why the need to be such an offensive, arrogant, antagonistic arse?

[Graffito]

What a pointless turd of a post...

 

Your comment made me laugh. Sadly I think you may be serious.

[Guided Missile]

But, once again, why the need to be such an offensive, arrogant, antagonistic arse?

So English is your first language, but your not very good at reading. Glad that's settled...

[Minty]

So English is your first language, but your not very good at reading. Glad that's settled...

 

Why do you do this? I misread something, and apologised. Are you so perfect that you've never misread or misunderstood anything in your life?

[badgerx16]

What a pointless turd of a post...

 

As you are the creator of so many, I'd expect you to recognise one.

[Sheaf Saint]

So English is your first language, but your not very good at reading. Glad that's settled...

 

Hahahahahahahaha! I'm not normally one for picking up on other people's grammatical mistakes. But when it is in such an ironic context as this I simply have to.

 

[Whitey Grandad]

So English is your first language, but your not very good at reading. Glad that's settled...

 

Oops.

[Guided Missile]

Hahahahahahahaha! I'm not normally one for picking up on other people's grammatical mistakes. But when it is in such an ironic context as this I simply have to.

 

Another pointless turd of a post...

[Halo Stickman]

Another pointless turd of a post...

 

Oh go on, GM, you have to admit there is a certain irony in a guided missile being hoisted by its own petard.

[Guided Missile]

Oh go on, GM, you have to admit there is a certain irony in a guided missile being hoisted by its own petard.

Christ, it must be national diarrhea day...

[Graffito]

Christ, it must be national diarrhea day...

 

Such wit. You sound like you are down to your last marble. Is Global Warming getting to you?

[GAS]

Such wit. You sound like you are down to your last marble. Is Global Warming getting to you?

It's probably all the methane he's been breathing in from the cow turds on his farm. Someone needs to get him some oxygen, he's got it bad.

[Guided Missile]

...the joke organisation that brought you Michael Fish:

 

One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming. Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual. Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’ His statement carries particular significance because he is an internationally acknowledged expert on climate computer models and forecasts, and his university post is jointly funded by the Met Office. Prof Collins is also a senior adviser – a ‘co-ordinating lead author’ – for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

In mid-November, two weeks before the first of the storms, it (Met Office) predicted persistent high pressure for the winter, which was ‘likely to lead to drier-than-normal conditions across the country’. It added that its models showed the probability of the winter being in the driest of five official categories was 25 per cent. The chances of it being in the wettest category was 15 per cent. Infamously, in April 2009, the Met Office promised a ‘barbecue summer’ – which then turned out to be a washout. It forecast the winter of 2010 to 2011 would be mild: it was the coldest for 120 years. In 2007, the Met Office said that globally, the decade 2004-2014 would see warming of 0.3C. In fact, the world has not got any warmer at all in this period. At the beginning of 13 of the past 14 years, the Met Office has predicted the following 12 months would be significantly warmer than they have been. This, says the sceptic think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, indicates ‘systemic’ bias

 

A thread killer, if ever there was one.

Edited 16 February, 2014 by Guided Missile
Clarity

[Sheaf Saint]

...the joke organisation that brought you Michael Fish:

 

 

 

A thread killer, if ever there was one.

 

Go on then, I'll bite... What we have here is a report from the Mail quoting a climate scientist stating that there is no direct evidence that the current stormy weather is a result of climate change. He's right: there isn't.

 

As for the second paragraph - first it claims that the met office predicted persistent high pressure for the winter leading to drier-than-normal conditions across the country, then goes on to say that the model they used indicated only a 25% probability of this being the case. It then goes on to cite the GWPF, founded by none other than Lord Lawson, a man with zero scientific qualifications and strong connections to the fossil fuel industry, to reinforce its criticisms of the met office.

 

So could you please explain to me exactly how that qualifies as a 'thread killer'?

[Sheaf Saint]

Actually, looking at the headline of Mail article this is taken from...

 

No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office's most senior experts

 

There are only two possible explanations for how anybody could draw such an illogical conclusion based on prof. Collins' comments. They are either monumentally stupid, or they have an agenda to peddle. Hmmm, which could it be I wonder.

[Guided Missile]

Go on then, I'll bite...

So could you please explain to me exactly how that qualifies as a 'thread killer'?

Bite on this:

 

Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate ModelDoug M. Smith,* Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy

 

 

Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability.

We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade,

both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

 

Michael Fish lives...