Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Devonian]

It's happened before though, nobody weeps for all the dead of the last mass extinctions. 

Just nature doing it's thing.

 

I think it's terribly sad a species like the passenger pigeon has gone for ever. In such cases it's us doing our thing not nature.

 

I don't like the idea of us playing god, deciding (by our actions) which species will survive and which not. If we cause a mass extinction it will be because of our complacency, our carelessness, our stupidity, our greed and nothing to do with nature.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Devonian

[Polar Maritime]

Could this be how nature intended...?

[Devonian]

Could this be how nature intended...?

 

Humm, as I'm here , only if 'nature' (and I'm never sure what 'nature' is?) is a single sentient thing thus capable of intent? I don't see evidence of that.

[knocker]

maybe you can explain why they are sought after for their expertise in all things climate, after all I'm pretty sure their knowledge on this is most comprehensive. Sorry knocker they are nothing but a bunch of ideological misfits with a political axe to grind, no time for them whatsoever. Also this is the sceptical thread and it's amazing how many of you who aren't sceptics keep popping in here trying to wreck a thread, so please reply in your own thread thank you.

 

 

Who exactly seeks their expertise on things climate? I replied in the thread because it was a political motivation question and I just required some clarity. Frankly calling them a bunch of ideological misfits with a political axe to grind sounds very familiar but I'm not thinking of the WWF. The Heartland Institute perhaps..................

Edited September 23, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Anyway a study from 2006 backing uo one from 2004.

 

Global warming capable of sparking mass species extinctions Joint study largely confirms earlier dire predictions of species loss from climate change

 

Washington, D.C. – The Earth could see massive waves of species extinctions around the world if global warming continues unabated, according to a new study published in the scientific journal Conservation Biology.

 

Given its potential to damage areas far away from human habitation, the study finds that global warming represents one of the most pervasive threats to our planet's biodiversity – in some areas rivaling and even surpassing deforestation as the main threat to biodiversity.

 

The study expands on a much-debated 2004 paper published in the journal Nature that suggested a quarter of the world's species would be committed to extinction by 2050 as a result of global warming. This latest study picks up where the Nature paper left off, incorporating critiques and suggestions from other scientists while increasing the global scope of the research to include diverse hotspots around the world. The results reinforce the massive species extinction risks identified in the 2004 study.

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/ci-gwc041006.php

Edited September 23, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Video on what keeps climate scientists up at night http://vimeo.com/75000023

[Devonian]

Here, in this thread I hope I'll be free of the kind of inaccuracies and false accusations being put about in the other thread.

Right, to put the record straight, what Greenpeace do is civil disobedience and protest. It's what people in free countires can, and should, be able to do. Without the ability to protest liberty is at peril.

Btw, to those thinking of replying here with more inaccuracies, remember I have not and will not post to your thread!

[jonboy]

 

Anyway a study from 2006 backing uo one from 2004.

 

Global warming capable of sparking mass species extinctions Joint study largely confirms earlier dire predictions of species loss from climate change

 

Washington, D.C. – The Earth could see massive waves of species extinctions around the world if global warming continues unabated, according to a new study published in the scientific journal Conservation Biology.

 

Given its potential to damage areas far away from human habitation, the study finds that global warming represents one of the most pervasive threats to our planet's biodiversity – in some areas rivaling and even surpassing deforestation as the main threat to biodiversity.

 

The study expands on a much-debated 2004 paper published in the journal Nature that suggested a quarter of the world's species would be committed to extinction by 2050 as a result of global warming. This latest study picks up where the Nature paper left off, incorporating critiques and suggestions from other scientists while increasing the global scope of the research to include diverse hotspots around the world. The results reinforce the massive species extinction risks identified in the 2004 study.

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/ci-gwc041006.php

Fortunately we don't have unabated global warming

Edited September 24, 2013 by jonboy

[Gray-Wolf]

Can we just have it straight here? The energy imbalance from energy in to energy out has not lessened since 98', the data shows that it has grown, so can we stop all of this 'Not happening' non-sense. Change is still occurring but 'where' it is occurring fastest has changed.

 

Focus on yearly global temps will come back to bite folk in the Ar$e once the oceans once again give up their accrued heat. For the folk who work only in 'global temps' I hope you are committed enough to accept the resumption in warming once the current collaboration of cool drivers abates and surface temps become driven the opposite way by both our current energy imbalance and the stored heat we have accrued in our upper oceans.

 

Those folk also need to accept the damage that they have aided by halting any meaningful action toward limiting our emmisions....if not for themselves but for the infants of our planet who will inherit their 'Skeptical' influence on warming.

[Polar Maritime]

Global warming has not stopped - it's just on a 'hiatus' and likely to return with ever more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels - according to a draft report from leading scientists.

The 127-page United Nations report, and a shorter summary for policymakers due for release in Stockholm on September 27, suggests a slowdown in Earth's rising temperature can be explained by volcanic ash and a cyclical dip in energy emitted from the sun.

While likely to attract opposition from sceptics - who say climate change is not man-made - the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is likely to stand by the bold claims as the body attempts to salvage its reputation following the publication of its last report in 2007.

In that report, scientists erroneously claimed the Himalayas would melt by 2035. 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429051/Climate-scientists-insist-global-warming-stopped-just-break-prepare-release-report-intended-salvage-reputation.html#ixzz2fqJ97Qzk 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Edited September 24, 2013 by Polar Maritime

[knocker]

Climate change forecasters ‘failed to see the human costs’

 

The human suffering likely from uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions may have been “grossly underestimated†because of weaknesses in scientific methods predicting the future, according to Lord Stern of Brentford.

 

The author of the influential Stern review on the economics of climate change says in a new report that computer models could be “profoundly misleading†because many fail to include risks of ice sheets melting, rainforests collapsing and vast amounts of methane being released from the seabed.

 

Lord Stern suggests scientists are being too cautious about describing the scale of the risks, which could include “vast movements of population†fleeing land made uninhabitable by climate change.

 

In a report published in the Journal of Economic Literature, he describes how the world might look after only a rise of 3C or 4C in global average temperature: “Much of southern Europe may look like the Sahara desert, much of the snow and ice on the Himalayas gone. The North India monsoon, which shapes the agricultural lives of hundreds of millions, may be radically altered. Rainforests might die.â€

 

Can't reprodiue the full report but this is © The Times.

Edited September 25, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Scientists as certain of climate change as they are that smoking kills

http://commonsensecanadian.ca/scientists-certain-climate-change-cigarettes-kill/

[knocker]

Are human activities driving climate change?

2 hours ago

Scientists are more certain than ever that greenhouse gases from human activities are heating the planet, the head of the UN's climate panel says.

The panel is due to deliver its latest report on the state of the climate later this week in Stockholm, Sweden.

Newsnight's Science editor Susan Watts explains what we are likely to learn.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24259633

[knocker]

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[pottyprof]

I think it's terribly sad a species like the passenger pigeon has gone for ever. In such cases it's us doing our thing not nature.

 

I don't like the idea of us playing god, deciding (by our actions) which species will survive and which not. If we cause a mass extinction it will be because of our complacency, our carelessness, our stupidity, our greed and nothing to do with nature.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this Dev.  It's not all about warming, which you know my opinion on that but we are slowly poisoning the planet and we do need to act.  I think if we forget about the warming (for now as it's on hold) and place pressure on governments and companies who just waste endless amounts of resources then I personally believe we can do something before we do get over the line permanently.  One annoying little speck is the likes of the Coop removing apple pies out of a simple paper bag and putting them into a box with a large plastic window in it and the plastic isn't currently recycled.  I'm starting to ask to see the manager every time I want one to request a reduction in the packaging.  I'm hoping this will catch on and the more we waste their time the more they will listen.  Time will tell.....

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

 

Double Standard

 

Since 1975, global average surface air temperature has increased at a rate of 0.17 deg.C/decade (estimated by linear regression using either the NASA GISS or HadCRUT4 data sets). But the rate of increase hasn’t been perfectly constant over that entire time span.

 

As a matter of fact, there’s a 15-year time span during which the rate is notably different. Fifteen whole years!!! By at least one calculation, the difference is “statistically significant.â€

 

Does this mean that global warming is wrong? That the computer models are utter junk? That this whole climate science thing is just a hoax, a nefarious scheme to cheat us all out of tax dollars in order to support the lifestyle of gaudy luxury that we all know scientists wallow in? (Science: money for nothin’ and your chicks for free…)

 

That 15-year time span covers the years 1992 through 2006, during which the rate of warming was 0.28 deg.C/decade. That’s a lot faster than the warming rate from 1975 to now.

Just a few years ago, when Rahmstorf et al. (2007) compared climate observations to computer model projections, they noticed the faster-than-expected warming leading up to 2006. It was faster than expected and faster than projected by those dreaded “computer models†used by the IPCC. According to the data, global average surface temperature was on a “mad dash†to extreme heat.

 

How did these evil denizens of global warming react? Did they use that result to push world government based on socialism, so that they could destroy our economy by taxing the super-rich out of some of their hardly-earned riches? Did they run screaming through the streets yelling about how we’re all going to suffer spontaneous combustion by the year 2100?

 

No. Instead, they attempted to understand the result.

 

And what explanation, some bunnies may wonder, crossed their minds first? What was their first instinct regarding how this mad dash of global warming might have come about? This:

 

"The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system."

 

Wow. When the data indicated surface warming faster than expected, the first explanation offered by those greedy laminate floors was natural variation.

 

You missed your chance, guys. How ya gonna rob the super-rich of all their billions with that?

 

Since that time, when they failed miserably to capitalize on the opportunity for alarmism, there’s been another 15-year time span when the trend differed noticeably from the trend-since-1975. It covers the years from 1998 through 2012:

The evil cabal of climate scientists are somehow trying to explain this away as simply being “natural variation.â€

 

But the poor, downtrodden “deniers†are on to them. They know the truth. You see, that extra-fast warming period really was just natural variation, but the extra-slow period is all because the computer models are junk, the whole climate science thing is just a hoax (gaudy luxury for scientists to wallow in), and we’re headed for decades of imminent global cooling.

 

After all, isn’t that what Aunt Judy would say? Didn’t she already say that “natural variability†was responsible for more than half of the global warming since the 1970s — but isn’t she now pushing as hard as she can that “the pause†is proof that we don’t really understand what man-made tampering is doing to our climate? Hey — it’s all just a “regime shift†anyway.

 

Isn’t that what Willard Tony would say? Maybe not — maybe he wouldn’t blame the extra-fast warming on natural variability at all, he’d just claim that the temperature record isn’t reliable. If it shows extra-fast warming, that is — when the temperature record shows extra-slow warming it’s scientific proof.

 

It’s kinda like the changes in Arctic sea ice. When it takes a nose-dive like in 2007 and again in 2012, that gets blamed on “weather.†But when it makes an up-tick like 2013 — recovery!!!

 

I think I finally understand the Aunt Judy/Willard Tony approach to science. When data says we have a problem, either it’s just “natural variability,†or the data are either faulty or fraudulent. But whenever data says we don’t have a problem — even if it’s just a single year’s data — voila! Scientific proof.

 

 

 

Link

 

[knocker]

Climate science: Why the world won't listen

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929360.200-climate-science-why-the-world-wont-listen.html#.UkRU039QPdU

[Nights King]

Well now we know we have doomed our world with a 95% degree of confidence its about time we start altering our climate drastically to cool it down!

 

Shouldn't hurt to shave a few degrees of our average I'm certainly all for it.

Edited September 27, 2013 by mullender83

[knocker]

Arctic free icecap by end of summer of 2013 oops now lets try again 2030 or maybe 2040 http://t.co/wq1vXF7sgQ

 

Actually the scientist who said that actually said 2016 plus or minus three years. I wonder why most sceptics latched on to to 1913 and not 1919?  In fact I don't wonder.

[knocker]

I have looked at the temperature trend since 1950"s we had a cooling period from 1951 to 1979 we had a warming period from 1979 to 2001 and from 2001 to 2013 a cooling period, so in total 40 out of 62 yrs there has been a cooling trend.So if you back to 1941 you have got nearly 50yrs of of near negative trends and 22yrs of warming,so which is the norm and which is the rarity?http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1941/to:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1941/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2013/trend

 

So we are all in agreement? Leaving aside AGW are you saynig the world isn't warming?

Edited September 29, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

Actually the scientist who said that actually said 2016 plus or minus three years. I wonder why most sceptics latched on to to 1913 and not 1919?  In fact I don't wonder.

Because they are clearly so far ahead of their time?

[knocker]

Update the the Petermann Glacier has grown 1kilometer since 2010.   Newspaper quotes from1941 showing nothing new in receding and .

growing glaciers.

 

Greenland ice sheet climate before summer 2013: a climate of temperature and precipitation extremes

Key Statements

[*]Greenland air temperatures have climbed sharply since the mid 1990s. The recent decade is probably the warmest since during the Medieval Warm Period, which ended approximately 860 years ago. 

 

[*]There has been a modest (12% to 20%) increase in snowfall rates over Greenland since the 1840s, associated with increasing atmospheric temperatures.

 

[*]A continuous net ice loss from Greenland has been observed since a period of stability and modest growth during the 1970s/1980s. Since the Little Ice Age ended in 1900, observation-based ice sheet reconstructions indicate accelerating ice loss. The largest ice loss rates since 1840 have occurred in the most recent decade.

[*]The contribution to global sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet in the period 2002 to 2010 was more than 6.1 mm. After the thermal expansion of the oceans, this makes Greenland the largest single contributor to observed global sea level rise.

 

[*]In 2012 there was record ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet.

 

[*]Surface air temperatures in spring 2013 were above normal with very little snowfall in all areas except the south east. Simultaneously, it was a cold spring in Northwestern Europe. The well-known opposite temperature pattern between Western Greenland and Northwestern Europe has been strong in both summer and winter since 2007.

 

[*]In 2013, pre-melt season observations and atmospheric modelling indicate a more variable climate than has been usual for Greenland in recent decades, with extremes of snowfall and temperature, making the coming warm season climate difficult to predict. 

 

[*]There is growing evidence that declining Arctic sea ice is influencing the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude and North Atlantic climate, including the Greenland Ice Sheet, leading to persistent warm or cold, wet or dry weather.

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland-ice-shelf/rapporter/report-0/

Edited September 30, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Visualisation of 2 decades of manufacturing doubt about scientific consensus on climate change

 

http://skepticalscience.com/Public-talk-explaining-consensus-paper-answering-critics.html

[Gray-Wolf]

Because they are clearly so far ahead of their time?

 

typo's aside it is odd how this one prediction has been so latched onto by the misleaders? As Knocks points out the chappies prediction is still running and he has until Sept 2016 before he is proven wrong? With the earliest date for the return of a 'perfect melt storm' set for 2017 I'd personally not be so cocky about his 'failures' quite yet?

 

As it is the mainstream science did indeed revise their predictions after the 2007 extreme melt ( from 2070 down to 2040 in some cases). i did not see any further revisions after 2012's extreme melt?

 

Those of us with the luxury of throwing caution to the wind ( unlike the very conservative punts by the mainstream science) do see the demise of the ice before 2030 as a very real possibility.

 

I have made no bones about suggesting that the next 'perfect melt storm' could well prove enough to bring us to that point esp. with the pack so young and thin these days.

[Gray-Wolf]

Greenland ice sheet climate before summer 2013: a climate of temperature and precipitation extremes

Key Statements

[*]Greenland air temperatures have climbed sharply since the mid 1990s. The recent decade is probably the warmest since during the Medieval Warm Period, which ended approximately 860 years ago. 

 

[*]There has been a modest (12% to 20%) increase in snowfall rates over Greenland since the 1840s, associated with increasing atmospheric temperatures.

 

[*]A continuous net ice loss from Greenland has been observed since a period of stability and modest growth during the 1970s/1980s. Since the Little Ice Age ended in 1900, observation-based ice sheet reconstructions indicate accelerating ice loss. The largest ice loss rates since 1840 have occurred in the most recent decade.

[*]The contribution to global sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet in the period 2002 to 2010 was more than 6.1 mm. After the thermal expansion of the oceans, this makes Greenland the largest single contributor to observed global sea level rise.

 

[*]In 2012 there was record ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet.

 

[*]Surface air temperatures in spring 2013 were above normal with very little snowfall in all areas except the south east. Simultaneously, it was a cold spring in Northwestern Europe. The well-known opposite temperature pattern between Western Greenland and Northwestern Europe has been strong in both summer and winter since 2007.

 

[*]In 2013, pre-melt season observations and atmospheric modelling indicate a more variable climate than has been usual for Greenland in recent decades, with extremes of snowfall and temperature, making the coming warm season climate difficult to predict. 

 

[*]There is growing evidence that declining Arctic sea ice is influencing the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude and North Atlantic climate, including the Greenland Ice Sheet, leading to persistent warm or cold, wet or dry weather.

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland-ice-shelf/rapporter/report-0/

 

KL also seems to neglect the fact that the most sceptical of the scientists has said that he would not worry about the retreat of Peterman until it receded further up valley than we have recorded before. The last calve placed it well into virgin territory....... well beyond any of the mid 19th century retreats? 

 

Why , when that evidence is so readily available, has he chosen to push this story? If anything it highlights just how bad things are becoming since the turn of the century?