Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

Not only that, but selective reporting of regional effects (such as the above-mentioned Greenland melting away) where adjacent regions are undergoing the exact opposite...

 

But back to the AAAS and its cheezy statement (mostly due to the papers by and participation of Dr. Parmesan (really, no kidding)) in which all of their references have been refuted by actual observational data and other, more recent peer-reviewed studies viz:

 

Transparency allows the light of day to shine on the real truth.

[PassedOut]

No one denies global warming these days, the evidence is just too strong: WMO Annual Climate Statement Highlights Extreme Events

 

Geneva, 24 March 2014 – The year 2013 once again demonstrated the dramatic impact of droughts, heat waves, floods and tropical cyclones on people and property in all parts of the planet, according to the World Meteorological Organization’s Annual Statement on the Status of the Climate. The report confirmed that 2013 tied with 2007 as the sixth warmest on record, continuing the long-term global warming trend. It provided a snapshot of regional and national temperatures and extreme events as well as details of ice cover, ocean warming, sea level rise and greenhouse gas concentrations – all inter-related and consistent indicators of our changing climate.

 

Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record. The average global land and ocean surface temperature in 2013 was 14.5°C (58.1°F) – 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 1961–1990 average and 0.03°C (0.05°F) higher than the 2001–2010 decadal average. Temperatures in many parts of the southern hemisphere were especially warm, with Australia having its hottest year on record and Argentina its second hottest.

 

“Naturally occurring phenomena such as volcanic eruptions or El Niño and La Niña events have always contributed to frame our climate, influenced temperatures or caused disasters like droughts and floods. But many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change. We saw heavier precipitation, more intense heat, and more damage from storm surges and coastal flooding as a result of sea level rise - as Typhoon Haiyan so tragically demonstrated in the Philippines,” said WMO Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud.

 

“There is no standstill in global warming,” said Mr Jarraud. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans. Levels of these greenhouse gases are at record levels, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable.”

So we can't be too surprised when apologists for the polluters start to claim that global warming is actually a good thing. A list of the key climate events of 2013 puts that claim into perspective:

 

WMO’s statement, which is an internationally recognized authoritative source of information, highlights the key climate events of 2013:

 

• 
   
  
• Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda), one of the strongest storms to ever make landfall, devastated parts of the central Philippines.
  
• Surface air temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were very warm, with widespread heat waves; Australia saw record warmth for the year, and Argentina its second warmest year and New Zealand its third warmest.
  
• Frigid polar air plummeted into parts of Europe and the southeast United States.
  
• Angola, Botswana and Namibia were gripped by severe drought.
  
• Heavy monsoon rains led to severe floods on the India-Nepal border.
  
• Heavy rains and floods impacted northeast China and the eastern Russian Federation.
  
• Heavy rains and floods affected Sudan and Somalia.
  
• Major drought affected southern China.
  
• Northeastern Brazil experienced its worst drought in the past 50 years.
  
• The widest tornado ever observed struck El Reno, Oklahoma in the United States.
  
• Extreme precipitation led to severe floods in Europe’s Alpine region and in Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, and Switzerland.
  
• Israel, Jordan, and Syria were struck by unprecedented snowfall.
  
• Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere reached record highs.
  
• The global oceans reached new record high sea levels.
  
• The Antarctic sea ice extent reached a record daily maximum.
  

While we all have our local weather issues to deal with, it's sobering to see a list of what's happened globally.

[PassedOut]

You forgot don't talk to climate modelers when looking for future temperature prediction.

How else would you go about predicting future temperatures?

[Al_U_Card]

No one denies global warming these days, the evidence is just too strong: WMO Annual Climate Statement Highlights Extreme Events

 

 

So we can't be too surprised when apologists for the polluters start to claim that global warming is actually a good thing. A list of the key climate events of 2013 puts that claim into perspective:

 

 

While we all have our local weather issues to deal with, it's sobering to see a list of what's happened globally.

Yet, every official statement says that there is no link between CO2 and "extreme" weather events. Not only that but that the last few decades, as global temperatures have recently risen slightly, have seen fewer and less severe extremes than in recorded history.

[Daniel1960]

How else would you go about predicting future temperatures?

How about using scientific research and data?

[Daniel1960]

Yet, every official statement says that there is no link between CO2 and "extreme" weather events. Not only that but that the last few decades, as global temperatures have recently risen slightly, have seen fewer and less severe extremes than in recorded history.

 

In the U.S., tornadic activity (particularly the strongest and most severe) has decreased since 1950.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

 

Temperature extremes have also been dropped, as fewer new record lows AND highs have been recorded in the U.S. as the average temperature has increased.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image0042.png

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image008.png

[PassedOut]

How about using scientific research and data?

Sure. But how does one actually use that scientific research and data to predict temperatures in the future, other than by building a model incorporating the data?

[Al_U_Card]

The IPCC itself, initially, stated that the climate system was chaotic and therefore unable to be modeled accurately.

 

Recent peer-reviewed work suggests that significant parts and aspects of the earth's climate depend on TSI (It's the SUN, doh!) as well as orbital considerations and that these fluctuations adequately represent the typical variability in our global climate.

 

[CO2]? not so much (if at all).

 

Predictions are for swamis and as far as expectations go, the farther out you take them the bigger the uncertainty. If [CO2] is our only "control knob" and it has little to no effect then our monies are better spent on adapting to an ever-changing situation.

[blackshoe]

C'mon now. For a bit there you had an idea that you figured would make you "richer than Bill Gates," and you didn't start to back-pedal until I got you thinking about how your "government fiat" would affect your warm showers.

<_<

Tell you what. You have no (*^**^ clue what I was thinking when I made that post. So just stop, right here, trying to tell me what I was thinking.

[blackshoe]

Living on higher ground won't be a guarantee of safety. The people living in low areas are going to move higher no matter who owns the property there.

Yeah, sure. And the people who already live there are just going to sit by quietly while all these usurpers move in.

[PassedOut]

C'mon now. For a bit there you had an idea that you figured would make you "richer than Bill Gates," and you didn't start to back-pedal until I got you thinking about how your "government fiat" would affect your warm showers.

<_<

Tell you what. You have no (*^**^ clue what I was thinking when I made that post. So just stop, right here, trying to tell me what I was thinking.

Ed, lighten up. Didn't you notice the emoticon?

 

I was just trolling for laughs by misrepresenting your posts. You've gotta admit your reaction is pretty funny.

:D

 

Remember what yer momma told ya

[WellSpyder]

No one denies global warming these days, the evidence is just too strong

Fine by me.

 

So we can't be too surprised when apologists for the polluters start to claim that global warming is actually a good thing. A list of the key climate events of 2013 puts that claim into perspective:

But this bothers me a bit. How many of the events listed would you describe as climate events? They pretty much all look like weather events to me, not climate events - though I notice the WME also uses the term climate events, not just you.

 

It is one thing to agree that global warming is happening. It is quite another to say that exceptional weather events are all a result of global warming. I don't regard myself as in any way a global warming sceptic, but I do find myself worrying about a number of doubtful propositions that seem to find their way either explicitly or more often implicitly into statements from people or organisations pushing an active approach to reducing man-made CO2 emissions.

[Al_U_Card]

Yeah, sure. And the people who already live there are just going to sit by quietly while all these usurpers move in.

Not quite :blink: they will all die of old age before we get enough SLR to notice. The quoted study is about a small area that had "unusual" melting. Even if global temps rose 5C in the next decade and stayed there, Greenland would need centuries to shed the ice needed to raise sea level enough to cause a problem.

[Daniel1960]

Yet, every official statement says that there is no link between CO2 and "extreme" weather events. Not only that but that the last few decades, as global temperatures have recently risen slightly, have seen fewer and less severe extremes than in recorded history.

 

Every event listed in their extremes have occurred repeated throughtout history. The phillippines get hit but typhoons more frequently than any other country. Europe and the U.S. have experienced much colder winters in the past. Indian monsoons occur regularly, and were no worse than previous years. Chinese floods have been much worse in the past. Yes, tornadoes do hit Oklahoma, but at a reduced rate than in the past. It has snowed previosuly in the Middle East. Regarding the maximum sea ice, records only go back to 1979. You could go back to many years in the past and find unusual weather events. Weather is not climate!

[Al_U_Card]

But we might have to get by the medieval sea levels first...

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image004_thumb5.png?w=903&h=683

[Daniel1960]

Sure. But how does one actually use that scientific research and data to predict temperatures in the future, other than by building a model incorporating the data?

 

That would be fine, if the model accurately reflected the incorporated data.

 

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

[PassedOut]

That would be fine, if the model accurately reflected the incorporated data.

In other words, building a model is the only way to predict future temperatures, but doing so accurately is difficult with such extremely complex systems. Would it surprise you to learn that many current projects aim to improve the accuracy of the models essential to making those predictions?

[PassedOut]

How many of the events listed would you describe as climate events? They pretty much all look like weather events to me, not climate events - though I notice the WME also uses the term climate events, not just you.

 

It is one thing to agree that global warming is happening. It is quite another to say that exceptional weather events are all a result of global warming.

Although climate and weather aren't the same thing, I'm sure that you don't intend to suggest that they are unrelated. Even when one cannot specifically tie a particular event to global warming, one certainly expects changes in climate to produce changes in weather. If you don't know what those changes in weather will be, it is irresponsible to assist in changing the climate.

[Daniel1960]

In other words, building a model is the only way to predict future temperatures, but doing so accurately is difficult with such extremely complex systems. Would it surprise you to learn that many current projects aim to improve the accuracy of the models essential to making those predictions?

It would not surprise me that some are aiming to improve accuracy. If someone developed a model that proved accurate, then I would accept it. It is possible that the global climate is far too complex to be modeled more than a few years out. Far too many modelers claim that the models are still correct, but the global temperatures are lagging behind. I find this highly disturbing, along with basing policy on these models.

[WellSpyder]

Although climate and weather aren't the same thing, I'm sure that you don't intend to suggest that they are unrelated. Even when one cannot specifically tie a particular event to global warming, one certainly expects changes in climate to produce changes in weather.

Yes, changes in climate will produce changes in weather. But the weather is always changing, and not all changes are a result of changes in climate.

If you don't know what those changes in weather will be, it is irresponsible to assist in changing the climate.

I agree to a certain extent, but this is a rather one-sided way of looking at things. You could make the same argument about any change. Might it even be irresponsible to spend large amounts of resources that could otherwise be used for reducing poverty/malnutrition/ill-heath or whatever on reducing CO2 emissions when you don't know what the result of those reductions will be?

 

Looking at it another way, if we reduced the UK's CO2 emissions to zero by closing down the economy completely and offsetting all remaining emissions from humans and other animals, two years' growth in China would be enough to outweigh the impact on global CO2. If humanity is heading for a global warming catastrophe at some point in the future, is it really worth the complete destruction of the UK for that to happen two years later than it would otherwise have done? Somewhere there has to be a notion of balancing the costs and benefits of taking different actions on climate change.

[billw55]

... Might it even be irresponsible to spend large amounts of resources that could otherwise be used for reducing poverty/malnutrition/ill-heath or whatever on reducing CO2 emissions when you don't know what the result of those reductions will be?

 

... Somewhere there has to be a notion of balancing the costs and benefits of taking different actions on climate change.

I agree strongly with these thoughts.

[PassedOut]

Looking at it another way, if we reduced the UK's CO2 emissions to zero by closing down the economy completely and offsetting all remaining emissions from humans and other animals, two years' growth in China would be enough to outweigh the impact on global CO2. If humanity is heading for a global warming catastrophe at some point in the future, is it really worth the complete destruction of the UK for that to happen two years later than it would otherwise have done? Somewhere there has to be a notion of balancing the costs and benefits of taking different actions on climate change.

Are you aware of anyone who has actually suggested the extreme actions you talk about here (or that Blackshoe talked about a couple of pages ago)? If this is not a straw man, I'd like you to provide a reference.

 

As for "the notion of balancing the costs and benefits of taking different actions on climate change," it is clearly the folks who have been denying climate change--or who claim that it is a good thing--who are going to great lengths to avoid discussing the costs and benefits. Indeed, that is the purpose of straw man arguments.

 

Instead of talking about what should not be done (especially when there is no chance of it being done anyway), why not talk about what should be done?

[billw55]

Are you aware of anyone who has actually suggested the extreme actions you talk about here (or that Blackshoe talked about a couple of pages ago)? If this is not a straw man, I'd like you to provide a reference.

 

As for "the notion of balancing the costs and benefits of taking different actions on climate change," it is clearly the folks who have been denying climate change--or who claim that it is a good thing--who are going to great lengths to avoid discussing the costs and benefits. Indeed, that is the purpose of straw man arguments.

 

Instead of talking about what should not be done (especially when there is no chance of it being done anyway), why not talk about what should be done?

Very well. We should continue to transition to non-carbon energy sources where feasible, in a manner that both sustains our energy demands and is not harmful to the economy, including unreasonable increases in energy costs. Toward these goals I support substantially expanded alternative energy generation, including wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, provided they meet the conditions above.

 

Really the key word in the above is "we". Who participates, and who does not, will have a profound effect on the results. Particularly, large and growing emitters such as China and India seem unlikely to reduce any time soon. In such a case, western efforts already underway can be expected to be largely fruitless.

[WellSpyder]

Are you aware of anyone who has actually suggested the extreme actions you talk about here? If this is not a straw man, I'd like you to provide a reference.

I'm not aware of anyone actually suggesting it, and I don't think it is a serious suggestion. In that sense it is indeed a straw man - though I think it does nevertheless serve a useful purpose in illustrating what might or might not be achievable. Although no-one has suggested closing down the UK, we are nevertheless altering significant areas of the countryside by covering them with solar panels or wind turbines, including areas designated as being of "outstanding natural beauty", in the interests of cutting carbon emissions, even though the total impact of all this action might be to delay global warming by less than two hours.

As for "the notion of balancing the costs and benefits of taking different actions on climate change," it is clearly the folks who have been denying climate change--or who claim that it is a good thing--who are going to great lengths to avoid discussing the costs and benefits. Indeed, that is the purpose of straw man arguments.

This is probably the only comment you have made since I joined in this discussion with which I completely disagree, but I'm not sure that is very significant for any other part of the discussion.

Instead of talking about what should not be done (especially when there is no chance of it being done anyway), why not talk about what should be done?

Good question! Perhaps because it is pretty tough to decide what should be done! But I am an economist by training and by profession, and I think if there are wider negative impacts from greenhouse gas emissions then the best way of achieving some sort of proportionality between different actions taken is to find mechanisms for putting a cost on those emissions, ie a carbon tax in some form or other. To be useful, this would have to cover as high a proportion of emissions as possible, otherwise untaxed emissions may simply replace taxed ones. I think it is very hard to know at what level such a tax should be set at the moment, but I am happy with the idea that the balance of evidence suggests a positive cost of emissions and therefore a positive tax should be set. If we discover in 50 years time that non-manmade climate change is actually moving towards the next ice age and the risk is that the world will get too cold rather than too hot we can always switch to a negative carbon tax.....

[Al_U_Card]

I agree strongly with these thoughts.

ESPECIALLY when all of these disastrous scenarios (projections) are derived by, from or referencing the GCMs that so poorly reflect reality. We are a species that flourishes during adaptation yet whenever we head down a dead-end, we get stuck. Illusion is always more frightening than reality, or at least it should be.