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

Full story: Newsday 49,174
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#40412 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses No. 5:
<quoted text>
Look for "good news" from science and exaggerate it's importance.
<quoted text>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Your rationalization is kicking in here by you trying to downplay the importance of climate sensitivity. It is actually very important. Catastrophic AGW depends on a high climate sensitivity. The AR5 has lowered the climate sensitivity parameters and now for the first time has given no best estimate of climate sensitivity due to lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

So they are now less confident in climate sensitivity, but are more confident than ever that we will have catastrophic AGW. This is what you are trying to rationalize.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#40413 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses No. 6:
<quoted text>
Always focus on the doubt and stress uncertainty, even when, especially when the scientific assessment is that the evidence of serious risk far outweighs the uncertainties and doubts remaining.
The evidence that the sun or the PDO is responsible for global warming, or that clouds are going to be a negative feed back is just not there.
We are talking about science and you are talking about politics. The uncertainties are massive when we are talking about the climate. If you don't know the effects of clouds, sun, PDO, etc., there is no way you can make a scientific certainty that CO2 is the main driver. Especially since the science has now stated there is no best guess as to what the climate sensitivity is and especially since this 15-year standstill was never predicted by the climate models, as can be seen when you go back to 2007 and all climate models were predicting a rapid rise in temperature over the next 5 years. Something is wrong and the uncertainties matter. Stop trying to rationalize that they don't.
Retired Farmer

Marion, KY

#40414 Oct 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You must revise because it's not realistic.
What are they going to eat?
You must not be from a farm background. My grandparents came from the Appalachian Mountains, where people existed as subsistence farmers for many generations. All it takes is a little plot of level ground in a creek valley or "hollow". I still know most of those subsistence farming skills and I passed it along to my daughter and her husband, who is also from a farming background.

You could do it on the northern Plains too provided that the area does not turn into the Dust Bowl again. I know a college professor who recently bought an old abandoned homestead and 160 acres of basically wasteland (meaning not suited to mechanized agriculture)in South Dakota as insurance against a societal breakdown. He's a city boy and so's his wife, but they are actually learning how to farm, raise livestock (pigs and chickens), and hunt - just in case. Please don't think they (or me) are "Survivalist" types that want to live in a bunker/armory. We're not. But the handwriting appears to be on the wall for some sort of global catastrophe - enviormental, economic, societal - a sort of perfect super storm of everything coming together at once.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40415 Oct 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that there is a ninety-five percent chance that ninety-nine percent of us are contributing one-hundred percent of the extra GHG emissions on this planet.
I'll take that for a dollar!
A dollar is a real amount. When someone posts as evidence a series of percentages based on a bunch of other percentages, I have to ask for the numbers behind the percentages.

Start with this... how many climate scientists are there? Is that for the world, a country or an IPCC report?

A full list would be helpful.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40416 Oct 7, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
What caused the "Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean?"
The answer requires you to know science and mathematics. Without knowledge, you have no idea, yes?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40417 Oct 7, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
You must not be from a farm background. My grandparents came from the Appalachian Mountains, where people existed as subsistence farmers for many generations. All it takes is a little plot of level ground in a creek valley or "hollow". I still know most of those subsistence farming skills and I passed it along to my daughter and her husband, who is also from a farming background.
You could do it on the northern Plains too provided that the area does not turn into the Dust Bowl again. I know a college professor who recently bought an old abandoned homestead and 160 acres of basically wasteland (meaning not suited to mechanized agriculture)in South Dakota as insurance against a societal breakdown. He's a city boy and so's his wife, but they are actually learning how to farm, raise livestock (pigs and chickens), and hunt - just in case. Please don't think they (or me) are "Survivalist" types that want to live in a bunker/armory. We're not. But the handwriting appears to be on the wall for some sort of global catastrophe - enviormental, economic, societal - a sort of perfect super storm of everything coming together at once.
I am not.

Do you think a typical denier is already set for farming?

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40418 Oct 7, 2013
There's no way the dense oldkristy could write replies to Fair Game. It must be a denier committe, LOL. Five in a row, wow.

Still wrong, though. Thoroughly WRONG!
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#40419 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
From the IPCC AR5 regarding “extreme” weather:
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.
Very helpful contribution for better understanding the significance of the AR5.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40420 Oct 7, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
And still more (rising seas):
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warmin...
I've pretty much decided that the deniers and "warming is good" crowd and the preachers who think that global warming is a necessary prelude to the famines of the Apocalypse have already won this fight.
I've started looking for a place somewhere in the remote northern Rockies, a little isolated valley with a rock shelter or a cave where I can establish a refuge for my daughter and her family to flee to when the time comes.
Do this, Farmer.

http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx...
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#40421 Oct 7, 2013
Here is a typical view of CC before the AR5:

"Modeling of possible future changes with increased greenhouse gases has also been limited. However, several studies suggest that recent observed trends towards more intense extra-tropical storms (cyclones) in the northern hemisphere may be a part of human induced climate change. For example, from the Canadian Climate-model runs, it was concluded that although the total number of winter cyclones would decrease with increased greenhouse gases there would be an increase in frequency of very intense storms. This suggests that more of the precipitation (snow and rain) would occur in intense bursts, and there would be more frequent wind damages. The U.K. Meteorological Office model suggests a poleward shift and intensification of Northern Hemisphere storm tracks with the most spectacular increase in intensity in eastern Atlantic and western Europe. These results are consistent with observed increase in Northern Hemisphere severe storms and North Atlantic significant wave heights over the past 3 decades." And for a typical reaction to these scientific "facts" just review any number of past posts by Climate Science 'Faithful'.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40422 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about science and you are talking about politics.
LOL.

You've repeatedly proved that you don't know science when somebody whacks you over the head with it.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40423 Oct 7, 2013
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that there is a ninety-five percent chance that ninety-nine percent of us are contributing one-hundred percent of the extra GHG emissions on this planet.

I really like the way that rolls off the page.

And close enough to the truth to satisfy me. With so many lies being posted here by deniers, I don't feel any pressure to be precise. It's a close enough approximation.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40424 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your rationalization is kicking in here by you trying to downplay the importance of climate sensitivity. It is actually very important. Catastrophic AGW depends on a high climate sensitivity. The AR5 has lowered the climate sensitivity parameters and now for the first time has given no best estimate of climate sensitivity due to lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
So they are now less confident in climate sensitivity, but are more confident than ever that we will have catastrophic AGW. This is what you are trying to rationalize.
*Even if* the climate sensitivity is a bit lower, we're still putting enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise temperatures to a dangerous level.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40426 Oct 7, 2013
The report found that global warming was unequivocal, with the atmosphere and ocean warming, the amount of snow and ice diminishing, sea levels rising and the concentrations of greenhouse gases rising.

Each of the previous three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 with the last likely to be the warmest period in 1,400 years in the Northern Hemisphere.

Over the last two decades the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost mass, glaciers have shrunk almost worldwide and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased.

The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th Century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia.

The report found that human influence on the climate system was clear and evident from increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas which will continue to impact on all aspects of the climate system.

Prof Sutton said:“All the evidence makes it clear that leaving the issue of climate change for future generations to deal with is a phenomenally high-risk option.

“The report shows that the evidence of human activities affecting climate is increasingly widespread and stronger than ever.

“It shows there is a very substantial risk of exceeding 2C warming, relative to pre-industrial climate, by the end of the century.

“Only under a very ambitious scenario for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a warming of more than 2C considered to be unlikely.

“This report provides the evidence that governments need to take tough decisions on climate change policy.[U Reading]
Breaking

Los Angeles, CA

#40427 Oct 7, 2013
Turns out some of the thermometers were in the shade (tree growth) back in the early 1900's. All the data has been deemed tainted.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#40428 Oct 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that there is a ninety-five percent chance that ninety-nine percent of us are contributing one-hundred percent of the extra GHG emissions on this planet.
That means that AGW is in the high 90's....... even in the winter!
litesong

Monroe, WA

#40429 Oct 7, 2013
motheaten wrote:
If you really believed in the manure you're spreading......
Manure is natural...... toxic topix AGW denier "manure" comes from oil, energy, business, re-pubic-lick-un upper floor boardroom PEE-R propaganda POOP with no cleansing through science journals, mathematics or upper education, at all.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40430 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea how looking at observations is partisan. I look at past predictions made by AGW scientists and compare them to the observations of today. There is nothing political or partisan about that. I guess it's your way to rationalize my posts so you can dismiss them. Whatever.
But here is a past prediction:
An article written in 2009 stated a new paper coming out that was supposed to “silence the skeptics.” It stated that the world would heat up 150% more than IPCC predictions in the next 5 years. The Met Office also came out in 2007 stating that global warming would come roaring back by 2009 and by 2014 would be 0.3 degrees warmer than 2004. One of the comments in the comments sections said this:
“Contrary to the subheading, rapid warming in the next five years certainly will not silence the sceptics-- it's hard to imagine that anything could. They'll just say that it's solar activity, as they've said all along, and El Niño, nothing to do with us, and not worth lifting a finger to do anything about it.”
So funny how it is you that is now rationalizing. You are the ones coming up with excuses such as the heat is in the deep oceans. The skeptics have been saying that AGW is not catastrophic and that the warming has been largely due to natural variability, which in fact fits better into the climate models than the CO2 driver model.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/j...

And of course, 2010 was a record year.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...

And the next El Nino year will very likely be an even higher record.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40431 Oct 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that there is a ninety-five percent chance that ninety-nine percent of us are contributing one-hundred percent of the extra GHG emissions on this planet.
I really like the way that rolls off the page.
And close enough to the truth to satisfy me. With so many lies being posted here by deniers, I don't feel any pressure to be precise. It's a close enough approximation.
So... no numbers to back up the percentages?

Without some evidence you're statement is faith based, and not science.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40433 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
From the IPCC AR5 regarding “extreme” weather:
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.
Whitehouse: We agree that climate change is happening.

Pielke: Yes

Whitehouse: We agree that we should both mitigate and adapt in response to that change.

Pielke: Yes

Whitehouse: We both find the IPCC reports credible?

Pielke: Yes.

Whitehouse: Can we also agree that a body of credible research projects that extreme weather events could increase in frequency and intensity due to manmade carbon dioxide emission.

Pielke: Yes, that's certainly the case and if you look at the literature you'll find many such projections.

....warmer oceans energise storms. More evaporation leads to more intense precipitation. "Yes, that's absolutely true" was Pielke's response.

On drought: Pielke says: There are trends in some places of increasing drought and in other places of decreasing drought but over the whole world there is no discernible trend.... That is the point, isn't it. That climates in different regions are changing. In those places where there is increasing drought, that's what people are concerned about.

On wildfires: Pielke says it's very plausible that there could be an increase in the number of western wildfires for example.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/roy-spence...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Pompano Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min USAsince1680 1,153,420
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 68,880
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr Brian_G 306,954
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr auntiesemite 70,992
Review: Travel Options Inc (Sep '11) 3 hr Jackie 126
Review: G8 Van Lines 6 hr Fernando Cortez 16
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 10 hr zazz 96,619
Pompano Beach Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Pompano Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Pompano Beach News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pompano Beach

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:50 pm PST

Bleacher Report 8:50PM
What the Buccaneers Can Do to Salvage Rest of 2014 Regular Season
Bleacher Report10:52 PM
Vikings vs. Dolphins: Breaking Down Minnesota's Game Plan
Bleacher Report 1:56 AM
What Are Experts Saying About Miami?
Bleacher Report 6:55 AM
Late-Season 7-Round 2015 Mock Draft
Bleacher Report 9:37 AM
The Pack Has Not Fared Well at Raymond James Stadium