Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
35,981 - 36,000 of 45,840 Comments Last updated 30 min ago
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38293
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Joanna Haigh stated the future grand minimum would perhaps cool the planet by 1 C. That’s quite a lot considering we have only warmed 0.8 C over the last 100 years.
Now let’s look at this through the AWG hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is that as CO2 increases temperatures will increase. The climate scientists say that the sun has very little effect on temperatures and CO2 is the driving force. But yet, no climate model predicted a pause or decrease in temperatures for more than two, 10-year periods in a century. Yet now we are hearing these climate scientists say we will see a pause maybe up until 2030. THAT WAS NEVER PREDICTED. Fun Facts has stated that scientists just don’t understand how solar activity impacts the climate and that seems to be true. If you look at the past, we have 30-year cycles of warming periods and cooling periods. If go back to news articles since the late 1880s, every 30 years they wrote of alternating scenarios of warming scares and cooling scares and right on time, we are now hearing about cooling.
In 1977, 36 years ago, scientists saw what they called The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77. We now call what they saw the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO. The PDO was not even named until the 1990s. James Hansen made his presentation to congress in 1988, before the PDO got a name.

What we know today is that all oceans have oscillations and each of those oscillations have specific timescales. The PDO is a significant climate maker because it is a function of the largest ocean. It impacts both the NH and SH, and is the underlying driver of the ENSO, the El Ninos and La Ninas.

What the scientists saw in 1977 was the PDO shift to its positive phase. What the sun did in 1976 was to produce cycle 21 one of the recorded cycles with the highest SSN value, 12.1.

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...

When the sun is in high activity it enhances the positive phases of all ocean oscillations by the fact that the oceans are absorbing more energy from the solar activity. So the positive phase of the PDO was enhanced by the high activity of the sun.

In this state the El Ninos are more frequent and more impactful, the La Ninas are mitigated.

Now the sun is in low activity and the PDO is in a negative phase. La Ninas are more frequent and impactful in this state and El Ninos are mitigated.

The PDO has a 30+/- year cycle.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/images/2008/09...

Here's an overlay of the PDO and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, AMO.

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38294
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Snowball earth, the scientist that first postulated the concept of snowball earth did so because he found evidence of glaciation in Nambia at the equator.

After discovering this he did the hard work of science and looked for similar evidence in other areas of the earth and found it. From his work he determined that earth was once covered in snow and ice.

He missed only one thing. Plate tectonics. In the time period that was showing glaciation all the continents were gathered together in the supercontinent Rodina, surrounding the earth's southpole.

It's not what you know that is more likely to cause problems, it's what you don't know.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38295
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

You DO realize "you are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!"
-Frederick in Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein"

Fun Facts, what 97% of 'real scientists' want you to believe is that every driver you mentioned (PDO, AMO, La Niña, etc) are secondary to 50 molecules of Man made CO2.

Now really, is that really so hard to believe?
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38296
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
Snowball earth, the scientist that first postulated the concept of snowball earth did so because he found evidence of glaciation in Nambia at the equator.
After discovering this he did the hard work of science and looked for similar evidence in other areas of the earth and found it. From his work he determined that earth was once covered in snow and ice.
He missed only one thing. Plate tectonics. In the time period that was showing glaciation all the continents were gathered together in the supercontinent Rodina, surrounding the earth's southpole.
It's not what you know that is more likely to cause problems, it's what you don't know.
Yes, I had my suspicions about the lack of consideration for Plate Tectonics in the Snowball Earth idea.
Thanks for that sidebar Fun Facts

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38297
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fun Facts stated that many solar scientists predict that our temperatures will decrease in the coming decades with a minima at about 2030.
You then state Fun Facts is a liar and wouldn’t be able to name any and then you provide an example as to why Fun Facts is a liar. But yet your proof of Fun Facts lying actually is proof that his/her statement was true. Joanna Haigh stated the future grand minimum would perhaps cool the planet by 1 C.
Wrong.

"The Sun might perhaps cool the planet" is not the same as "Temperatures will decrease" because the sun is not the only factor in global temperatures, as any solar physicist would know and Joanna Haigh obviously does.

Which is why fun farts is unable to produce even one solar physicist to back up his claim of "many".

Which is why he is a liar.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38298
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

B as in B S as in S wrote:
You DO realize "you are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!"
-Frederick in Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein"
Fun Facts, what 97% of 'real scientists' want you to believe is that every driver you mentioned (PDO, AMO, La Niña, etc) are secondary to 50 molecules of Man made CO2.
Now really, is that really so hard to believe?
It's called 'vested interest'.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38299
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
As a "thinking reader" I am not clear as to why Mann's NH proxies are valid evidence of the LACK of a GLOBAL MWP
The paper was reviewed by the NAS and validated as complete and competent work. The techniques of multi-proxy climate studies by Mann, et al, established the basic methodology for MANY other studies that validate and enhance his conclusion. One thing that is clearly shown in stuch studies with a limted latitude range are that there is a change in the DISTRIBUTION of thermal energy in the NH while those of the entire NH show little or no change in the TOTAL SUM of thermal energy.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
but all the studies that represent a GLOBAL MWP based on NH proxies are not valid.
I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.

One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP. Does the temperaure rise 2C? Over 50 years or two? Starting in 1100? or When? The studies so far have LABELLED any warming period of any degree within a few hundred years of the MWP as defined in Western Europe, which is not reasonable science. Every region will have periods of warming and cooling trends. The climate anywhere is NEVER stable. But to label it as the MWP without a clear definition of the MWP is just not convincing.

Secondly, and more importantly, even if they could define the MWP and get an agreement on which cherry picked locations show an anomaly, there is the question of the source of the thermal energy. To warm EVERYWHERE by 2C would take a simply ENORMOUS amount of new energy (introduced from where??) Where does this come from? Where does it go away to? Without a mechanism to show a clear source of heat (which is one of the successes of AGW theory in terms that it can show enough thermal energy accumulating to account for the warming over more than a century) any similarity of a warming period elsewhere is purely 'correlation, not causation'. And so it does not pass the 'smell test' and nobody takes it too seriously.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have already addressed this issue I apologize.
Repeatedly. But you never learn so apology not accepted. I would rather that you actually ADDRESS the points but you just run away. I expect no different now.

Note. The paintings of Leonardo da Vinci are NOT equal to the finger paintings of a kindegarden student. So you cannot expect the studies to be 'equal'. Your question as to why one is taken seriously and the other dismissed is juvenile and silly. One is a masterpiece. The other is a mess. Nuff said.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38300
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I had my suspicions about the lack of consideration for Plate Tectonics in the Snowball Earth idea.
Thanks for that sidebar Fun Facts
Nonsense. The sliding plates were key to the theory in terms that the weather of rock in the equatorial rain belt was dependent on the fact that most of the land surface has moved to the equator at the time.

You really need to leave the discussion to those who can read and think. You never seem to and it is just annoying to have to correct so many simple lies and errors.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38301
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you already said you had no interest in the environment. Back tracking now only makes you look like the bigot who claims to have an interest in race relations.
Interesting take. "no interest in the environment". You guys just can't get anything right, can you?

However, I signed the petition at your urging that I be more socially responsible, so don't go back-tracking on me now.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38302
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called 'vested interest'.
In fossil fuels? Sure. That is why they spend tens of millions in propaganda. But there is no evidence of any significant pressure on climate scientists. They have no vested interet in any result. In fact, their interest is the respect of their colleagues which requires convincing and accurate studies.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38303
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
As a "thinking reader" I am not clear as to why Mann's NH proxies are valid evidence of the LACK of a GLOBAL MWP but all the studies that represent a GLOBAL MWP based on NH proxies are not valid.
If you have already addressed this issue I apologize.
LOL.

Well, "thinking reader", why do you think proxies from one half of the planet would give a valid global figure?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38304
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting take. "no interest in the environment". You guys just can't get anything right, can you?
However, I signed the petition at your urging that I be more socially responsible, so don't go back-tracking on me now.
you said you had no interest in the EPA's stance on renewable fuel standards. You were only interested in the "stationary". How else should I take your position, son?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38305
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1977, 36 years ago, scientists saw what they called The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77. We now call what they saw the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO. The PDO was not even named until the 1990s. James Hansen made his presentation to congress in 1988, before the PDO got a name.
What we know today is that all oceans have oscillations and each of those oscillations have specific timescales. The PDO is a significant climate maker because it is a function of the largest ocean. It impacts both the NH and SH, and is the underlying driver of the ENSO, the El Ninos and La Ninas.
What the scientists saw in 1977 was the PDO shift to its positive phase. What the sun did in 1976 was to produce cycle 21 one of the recorded cycles with the highest SSN value, 12.1.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
When the sun is in high activity it enhances the positive phases of all ocean oscillations by the fact that the oceans are absorbing more energy from the solar activity. So the positive phase of the PDO was enhanced by the high activity of the sun.
In this state the El Ninos are more frequent and more impactful, the La Ninas are mitigated.
Now the sun is in low activity and the PDO is in a negative phase. La Ninas are more frequent and impactful in this state and El Ninos are mitigated.
The PDO has a 30+/- year cycle.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/images/2008/09...
Here's an overlay of the PDO and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, AMO.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
This seems to exactly fit what we have seen in the past and what we are seeing now, as compared to the AGW hypothesis where they are always trying to explain why temperatures aren't rising as expected. It seems the do protest too much when it comes to the sun. They all came out of the woodwork on this one to protest. They get especially nasty. I think they realize that the sun has a larger effect on the climate than they want to admit.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38306
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
"The Sun might perhaps cool the planet" is not the same as "Temperatures will decrease" because the sun is not the only factor in global temperatures, as any solar physicist would know and Joanna Haigh obviously does.
Which is why fun farts is unable to produce even one solar physicist to back up his claim of "many".
Which is why he is a liar.
This is what you posted: "In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C."

What do you mean cooling the planet is not the same as temperatures will decrease.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38307
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>

Secondly, and more importantly, even if they could define the MWP and get an agreement on which cherry picked locations show an anomaly, there is the question of the source of the thermal energy. To warm EVERYWHERE by 2C would take a simply ENORMOUS amount of new energy (introduced from where??) Where does this come from? Where does it go away to? Without a mechanism to show a clear source of heat (which is one of the successes of AGW theory in terms that it can show enough thermal energy accumulating to account for the warming over more than a century) any similarity of a warming period elsewhere is purely 'correlation, not causation'. And so it does not pass the 'smell test' and nobody takes it too seriously.
<quoted text>
Repeatedly. But you never learn so apology not accepted. I would rather that you actually ADDRESS the points but you just run away. I expect no different now.
Note. The paintings of Leonardo da Vinci are NOT equal to the finger paintings of a kindegarden student. So you cannot expect the studies to be 'equal'. Your question as to why one is taken seriously and the other dismissed is juvenile and silly. One is a masterpiece. The other is a mess. Nuff said.
But we have been told that AGW does not cause warming everywhere. We are told some places will be hot, some cold, some wet, some dry. We were even told this by Kevin Trenberth:

We can confidently say that the risk of drought and heat waves has gone up and the odds of a hot spot somewhere on the planet have increased but the hotspot moves around and the location is not very predictable. This year perhaps it is East Asia: China, or earlier Siberia? It has been much wetter and cooler in the US (except for SW), whereas last year the hot spot was the US. Earlier this year it was Australia (Tasmania etc) in January (southern summer). We can name spots for all summers going back quite a few years: Australia in 2009, the Russian heat wave in 2010, Texas in 2011, etc. Similarly with risk of high rains and floods: They are occurring but the location moves.”

So what is the difference between now and the MWP?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38308
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you posted: "In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C."
What do you mean cooling the planet is not the same as temperatures will decrease.
Here's what I posted:

"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C.

"Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100.

"So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario.

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

The sun may cool the planet a bit, but temperatures won't decrease.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38309
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called 'vested interest'.
Do ever notice that whenever you see papers that are written that find SURPRISING results, such as the water vapor leading to cooling or sensitivity being lowered or 30% less glacier melt than expected or even what Fair Game posted about the solar scientist stating we could have 1 C cooling, they always put in the statement that these results do not change the science of AGW. I always think to myself, how can that be? How can you find out new information about a complex system and say it has no effect on future warming?

Judith Curry wrote this great post the other day on vested interest of the scientists and the "consensus police." She went into great detail about this, but one of her examples stood out to me:

Judith Curry: As an example, several years ago at a conference, one of the speakers was quite critical of one piece of the conventional IPCC wisdom, but prefaced the talk with the statement something like this:’While my talk contains some evidence that challenges some of the findings of the IPCC, I want to state up front that I support the IPCC consensus on climate change.’ After the talk, I asked this scientist why he felt the need to preface his talk with a statement of IPCC allegiance, when his research was rather devastating to part of the IPCC’s argument. He stated ‘I don’t want to have to put up with what you have had to, so I make it very clear that I support the IPCC consensus.’

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scientists-...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38310
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you still knocking heads with these global warming proselytizers?

Their faith is "science".

Oxymorons...

LOL

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38311
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This seems to exactly fit what we have seen in the past and what we are seeing now, as compared to the AGW hypothesis where they are always trying to explain why temperatures aren't rising as expected. It seems the do protest too much when it comes to the sun. They all came out of the woodwork on this one to protest. They get especially nasty. I think they realize that the sun has a larger effect on the climate than they want to admit.
I see that you do not understand the difference between atmospheric temperatures and global heat. Melting ice does not increase in temperature but absorbs much heat. Vaporizing water absorbs even more. The ocean temperature may only rise by a few hundredths but it has absorbed much more heat that when the atmosphere raises a whole degree. The ocean is a great heat sink.

The Earth is gaining heat. CO2 is a factor. Burning fossil fuels raises the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Therefore mankinds activities are causing global warming.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38312
Aug 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
In fossil fuels? Sure. That is why they spend tens of millions in propaganda. But there is no evidence of any significant pressure on climate scientists. They have no vested interet in any result. In fact, their interest is the respect of their colleagues which requires convincing and accurate studies.
Institutional loyalties
Judith Curry
Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.

Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.

Especially in the renascent subfields such as ecology and public health, these publications and the media attention help steer money in the direction of these scientists, which buys them loyalty from their institutions, who appreciate the publicity and the dollars.

Further, the institutions that support science use the publicity to argue for more funding to support climate research and its impacts. And the broader scientific community inadvertently becomes complicit in all this. While the IPCC proponents loudly cry out against the heretical skeptical scientists and the dark influences of big oil and right wing ideology that are anti-science, we all join in bemoaning these dark forces that are fighting a war against science, and support the IPCC against its critics.

So do I think IPCC scientists are policy advocates? They seem mainly concerned with preserving the importance of the IPCC, which has become central to their professional success, funding, and influence. Most don’t understand the policy process or the policy specifics; they view the policy as part an parcel of the IPCC dogma that must be protected and preserved at all cost, else their success, funding and influence will be in jeopardy.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scientists-...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

56 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Yeah 1,082,296
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min wojar 174,942
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr OnlyPatchWork 68,051
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 2 hr Hatti_Hollerand 473
Amy 7-28 3 hr Sublime1 16
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 hr Eric 68,396
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 hr Terry rigsby 48,944
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 9 hr Mister Tonka 97,562
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 28 at 2:52PM CDT

•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••