Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Alarming Rates Of Climate Change Caused Alarming Change in Salamanders

 

Salamanders can be a proxyindicator for climate change. Changes in salamanders have been linked to climate changes during ancient times, and in a very recent study, salamanders in the US Appalachians seem to have changed in relation to anthropogenic global warming. In fact, the changes observed in these Appalachian salamanders is quite large, very rapid, and thus, alarming. I’m going to describe this study in some detail, and as a bonus for sticking with me on this, I’ll throw in some entertaining Climate Science Denialism near the end. As an additional bonus prize, you’ll get a nice new shiny Internet Meme to print out and attach to your refrigerator.

[Gray-Wolf]

"Nationally, it was the 34th coldest winter, as unusually warm weather west of the Rocky Mountains offset the cold temperatures in the Midwest and the East. For the lower 48 states (the U.S. minus Alaska and Hawaii), it was the coldest winter since 2009-10, and colder than most of the winters of the past 20 years — and not, as one prominent media outlet stated, the coldest winter of the past 100 years."

 

http://mashable.com/2014/03/14/winter-cold-2014-perspective/

 

Nowhere near coldest anything????? Where do they get their data from Dev?

 

We see that;

 

"Not a single state set a record for its coldest winter on record, although seven states in the Midwest did make it into their top 10 coldest. In contrast, one state, California, had its warmest winter on record,"

 

so why do they post such untruths that the countries national weather stats, available to all, instantly prove to be lies? Do they wish to lie, deceive and mislead or are they just poor sods that have been lied to, mislead and deceived?

 

EDIT: Hi Pete! What does that little table even mean? I can make no sense from it at all? No link , no introduction ,no nuffin'???

Edited March 28, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

"Nationally, it was the 34th coldest winter, as unusually warm weather west of the Rocky Mountains offset the cold temperatures in the Midwest and the East. For the lower 48 states (the U.S. minus Alaska and Hawaii), it was the coldest winter since 2009-10, and colder than most of the winters of the past 20 years — and not, as one prominent media outlet stated, the coldest winter of the past 100 years."

 

http://mashable.com/2014/03/14/winter-cold-2014-perspective/

 

Nowhere near coldest anything????? Where do they get their data from Dev?

 

By using six months data, equinox to equinox, by calling that 'winter' and by using the raw data not QCing it...If you do that 'winter' in the US was the coldest for 100 years plus.

 

In future, if we listen to Goddard and Monckton, we will have just two seasons, winter and summer.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sadly Dev it looks like we are headed for a two season year... Summer and autumnspring........

 

It also appears to me that our resident deniers show all the hallmarks of poor upbringing with 'instant gratification' being one of their major character flaws? Whenever they read anything concerning AGW impacts if it hasn't happened before the next tea time they are frothing at the mouth about its non-appearance???

 

So what's that about????

Edited March 28, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

BFTV posted a good article on the beneficial effects of the public smoking ban in another thread. By coincidence a snippet from the BMJ.

 

Climate change and human survival

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2351

[Gray-Wolf]

More info on that Kelvin wave currently pushing toward the Americas. It's core temps are now over 6c for most of its length and its length is about as long as Europe. That is one heck of a splurge of warm water about to be interacting with the atmosphere above! The forecast tropical storm is still on the cards for April 4th and this will speed further warm waters toward the Americas. Really is looking like a very big Nino is about to pop up in early April? 

[knocker]

The noise-hockey stick business has popped up again. Explanation here.

 

andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/debunking-the-hockey-stick/#comment-1725 â€¦

 

And on the subject of Steve McIntyre

 

Unbalanced Antagonism: The UWA Vice-Chancellor stands up to a "vexatious" blogger

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/unbalanced-antagonism-uwa-vice.html

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-59#entry2951596

 

Keith, why would the author of the graph you reproduce (without source - again!....)  describe the period 21st September - 21st March as ''Winter''? Answer: the graph you post is designed to mislead or it's stupid (or perhaps both).

 

And, why don't you think data need the slightest quality control before it's graphed? Same answer I rekon...

[knocker]

I assume you know Dev but others might not but the author is of course the Potty Peer. And I suspect that's not the mean temp either although I can't be bothered to check. If you look at the October- Feb. data.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/26/coldest-u-s-winter-in-a-century/

Edited March 29, 2014 by knocker

[Devonian]

I assume you know Dev but others might not but the author is of course the Potty Peer. And I suspect that's not the mean temp either although I can't be bothered to check. If you look at the October- Feb. data.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/26/coldest-u-s-winter-in-a-century/

 

Yup, it's Monckton* (who uses the 'raw' data) and I really think either he's stupid or he's trying to mislead people. I mean, who seriously thinks October to March can be described as 'Winter'? I'm absolutely sure Keith doesn't!

 

*and Goddard - take that as read

Edited March 29, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

I'm afraid it's just trolling Dev.

[knocker]

The Two Numbers Climate Economists Can’t Stand to See Together

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-28/the-two-numbers-climate-economists-can-t-stand-to-see-together.html

 

The right’s new climate change lie: It’s all the scientists’ fault

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/29/the_rights_new_climate_change_lie_its_all_the_scientists_fault/

Edited March 30, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

"gorgeously shot...isn’t a fluff piece" #YearsProject http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/03/28/years_of_living_dangerously_showtime_climate_change_documentary.html?wpisrc=burger_bar â€¦ #climate

[knocker]

IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

 

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/

 

IPCC report warns of future climate change risks, but is spun by contrarians

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2477

 

 

(For reference, the WG1 report was released in Sept 2013, but only in final published form in Jan 2014) - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/ipcc-wg2-report-now-out/#sthash.VT7UdLPB.dpuf

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Maize yields fell 20% in France during 2003 heatwave: example of impact of higher temps | http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12069/abstract â€¦ | pic.twitter.com/YVoLG307mR

Edited March 31, 2014 by knocker

[Polar Maritime]

The report, titled “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ details the impacts of climate change to date, the future risks and opportunities for effective action.

As with previous reports, the authors reiterate that human interference with the climate IS occurring and that climate change poses serious risks for both human and natural systems. The report builds on previous IPCC forecasts that global temperatures will rise 0.3-4.8 degrees Celsius this century, on top of roughly 0.7 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. In terms of sea level rise, the report forecasts an increase in levels by 26-82cm by 2100.

What is new to this report is a shift in focus from the problems to the solutions. For the first time, the IPCC looks at the effects of climate change as a series of risks; the aim being to support decision and policy making in the context of climate change.

Among the risks, the panel lists:

Floods: Rising greenhouse gas emissions will significantly boost flood risk, with Europe and Asia particularly exposed.

Water Stress: Surface and groundwater in arid countries will be significantly reduced and hence competition for resources will intensify.

Rising Seas: The risk of coastal flooding and land loss will increase significantly over the coming decades. Small island states and low-lying countries are expected to face ‘high impacts’.

Health: Risks to human health include the spread of vector borne diseases as well as waterborne disease. Death due to heat waves and poor nutrition will also increase.

Hunger: All aspects of food security are at risk and may be hit from climate change. Tropical and sub-tropical regions will be affected the most.

Economy: Estimated range of between 0.2 and 2 per cent of global income loss due to a temperature rise of about 2 degrees C.

The report also delves into the risks associated with a temperature increase above 4 degrees Celsius; a very unattractive picture. The report forecasts that a large fraction of both terrestrial and marine creatures risk extinction, with the Arctic and coral reef ecosystems at high risk with even a 2 degree rise in temperature. Loss of land from rising seas is predicted as well as conflicts arising from poverty and people displacement.

The report, which was written by 436 authors (with 2,000 experts contributing) and edited by 309 lead authors and review editors, has stated that in many cases we are not prepared for the climate related risks we already face; although many of the adaptive measures are easy and cheap.

Some measures included were:

-Reduce water waste and encourage recycling

-Preventing settlement in areas prone to flooding where feasible.

-Conservation of wetlands to act as a flood buffer and preservation of mangroves to shield coasts from storms.

-Introduce climate resilient crops and encourage water efficient irrigation.

-Incorporate green design into cities to reduce the Urban Heat Island effect.

- Increase awareness in governments, administration and among the public.

But, of course the elephant in the room is still greenhouse gas emissions. Only by reducing emissions greatly and as quickly as possible do the risks of climate change lessen.

The IPCC panel have said that the effects of climate change are already occurring on all continents; this is a shared problem and there must be a shared solution. Global cooperation is paramount to maximise the opportunities to respond to the risks that face us.

The debate against the existence of climate change is over scientifically. As stated by Vicente Barros, Co-Chair of the IPCC working group, “We live in an era of man-made climate changeâ€. We now have to create man-made solutions and adaptations to mitigate the damage we have done.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf

[HighPressure]

This wouldn't by any chance be the same IPCC that warns on the process of 'Fracking' and reports that methane is far more potent a greenhouse gas than we had previously realised.?

 

If so then clearly they don't know what they are talking about as our government has already told us ???

[knocker]

 

 

If so then clearly they don't know what they are talking about as our government has already told us ???

 

They being the 12,000 scientific papers on which the report was based I assume? And the many scientist who produced the report of course.

 

I think any comments regarding methane and fracking could be related to this but then I'm probably teaching granny to suck eggs.

 

New Study Finds Higher Methane Emissions from Fracking

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-Study-Finds-Higher-Methane-Emissions-from-Fracking.html

[knocker]

I rather like the bear analogy.

 

MIT Climate Scientist Responds on Disaster Costs And Climate Change

Edited March 31, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

This wouldn't by any chance be the same IPCC that warns on the process of 'Fracking' and reports that methane is far more potent a greenhouse gas than we had previously realised.?If so then clearly they don't know what they are talking about as our government has already told us ???

When it comes to the physical sciences, the IPCC report is essentially a summary of the current state of our scientific understanding of the global climate and how it's changing, based on analysis of many thousands of peer reviewed papers.The recent report hasn't found methane to be a more potent GHG, that's something that's been known for a very long time. What it may have suggested is that methane could play a more important role in future climate change than previously estimated. This seems reasonable given the large changes seen in the Arctic and the large methane reservoirs that can be destabilised there.I'm not sure what the report has said about fracking, if you could supply a link, then I'd be happy to comment on it.But I can tell you one thing, the scientists involved in the IPCC reports are global experts and certainly do know what there talking about! Edited March 31, 2014 by BornFromTheVoid

[Devonian]

This wouldn't by any chance be the same IPCC that warns on the process of 'Fracking' and reports that methane is far more potent a greenhouse gas than we had previously realised.?

 

If so then clearly they don't know what they are talking about as our government has already told us ???

 

AIUI, If you burn methane you get a lot of energy and lesser emissions than with more complex hydrocarbons. But methane - the gas -  is a potent greenhouse gas so releasing it unburnt is unwise.

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-59#entry2952546

 

Not some, one. Like the lead author said, everyone has opinions but the role of the IPCC is to distill and express the science not give vent to individual opinion. Tol is having his five minutes of fame.

[knocker]

I have an idea it's not this summary but this, Could be wrong of course.

 

More Bad News For Fracking: IPCC Warns Methane Traps Much More Heat Than We Thought

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that methane (CH4) is far more potent a greenhouse gas than we had previously realized.

 

This matters to the fracking debate because methane leaks throughout the lifecycle of unconventional gas. Natural gas is, after all, mostly methane (CH4). 

 

We learned last month that the best fracked wells appear to have low emissions of methane, but that study likely missed the high-emitting wells that result in the vast majority of methane leakage. Back in August, a NOAA-led study measured a stunning 6% to 12% methane leakage over one of the country’s largest gas fields — which would gut the climate benefits of switching from coal to gas.

 

We’ve known for a long time that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), which is released when any hydrocarbon, like natural gas, is burned.

 

But the IPCC’s latest report, released Monday (big PDF here), reports that methane is 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale, so its global-warming potential (GWP) is 34. That is a nearly 40% increase from the IPCC’s previous estimate of 25.

Edited March 31, 2014 by knocker

[HighPressure]

The IPCC said this:

 

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says methane is 86 times more damaging than CO2 over a 20-year period, and risks triggering a dangerous “feedback loop†for global warming."

 

In the short term the process of 'Fracking' has much higher methane omissions than other forms of fossil fuels. I believe the IPCC were saying that although in the longer term CH4 omissions would drop significantly, the initial rise could trigger a runaway effect. I am sure there is a report somewhere on that?

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-59#entry2952548

 

Yet, Stew, that graph WAS sold to Americans as 'winter' by 'Lord' Monckton - even though it was for the period 21Septemeber - 21st March some people bought the idea that it was for 'winter'.  Do you?

 

Oh, and btw, who disputes the data? I don't dispute it's data. I do dispute it's for 'winter' and i do like my raw data to be QCed before use. Hell, who doesn't check data before using it???

Edited March 31, 2014 by Devonian