kelly4
Well-Known Member
When the hurricane season is bad...global warming.
When the hurricane season is good...global warming.
Droughts...global warming.
Flooding...global warming.
.....
Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013
- Thread starter tryingtogrow89
- Start date
When the hurricane season is good...global warming.
Droughts...global warming.
Flooding...global warming.
.....
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Imma say it again, cuz you are apparently not getting it:Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming"The 30 major droughts of the 20th century were likely natural in all respects; and, hence, they are "indicative of what could also happen in the future," as Narisma et al. state in their concluding paragraph. And happen they will. Consequently, the next time a serious drought takes hold of some part of the world and the likes of Al Gore blame it on the "carbon footprints" of you and your family, ask them why just the opposite of what their hypothesis suggests actually occurred over the course of the 20th century, i.e., why, when the earth warmed - and at a rate and to a degree that they claim was unprecedented overthousands of years - the rate-of-occurrence of severe regionaldroughts actually declined." (source: CO2 Science)
What the science says...
There are numerous examples of increased extreme weather frequency already being attributed to humans in the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. For example, Pall et al. (2011):
Select a level... Basic
There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves.
"Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase."Hansen et al. (2012):"we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small."Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center GISS and Scientific Visualization StudioLike Hansen et al., Donat and Alexander (2012) found that global warming has made extreme heat waves more likely to occur."...there is a 40% increase in more recent decades in the number of extreme temperatures defined by the warmest 5% of the 19511980 distribution."Like Coumou & Rahmstorf, Otto et al. (2012) found that global warming contributed to the intensity of the extreme 2010 Russian heat wave, concluding there was"...a three-fold increase in the risk of the 2010 threshold being exceeded, supporting the assertion that the risk of the event occurring was mainly attributable to the external trend."While it is very difficult to attribute individual weather events to global warming, we do know that climate change will 'load the dice' and result in more frequent extreme weather events.The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), also discusses the relationship between human-caused climate change and various types of extreme weather events. For example, the SREX says:"It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is mediumconfidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been ananthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level."and"Extreme weather and climate events, interacting with exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems, can lead to disasters."On drought, the SREX finds:"There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia."The SREX also has important conclusions regarding future drought changes:"There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas, due to reduced precipitation and/or increasedevapotranspiration. This applies to regions including southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa."This conclusion is supported by Dai (2010), for example:"Regions like the United States have avoided prolonged droughts during the last 50 years due to natural climate variations, but might see persistentdroughts in the next 2050 years"Research by Emanuel (2012), Grinsted et al. (2013), and Holland and Bruyère (2013)concluded that global warming has already led to more intense hurricanes. As Grinsted et al. noted,"we have probably crossed the threshold where Katrina magnitude hurricane surges are more likely caused by global warming than not."Extreme Weather Obfuscation and Misdirection
More frequently we are seeing climate contrarians dispute that human-caused climate change is impacting extreme weather events, often through misdirection by focusing on economic losses associated with extreme weather, rather than the frequency of the events themselves.There is a silver lining in this cloud of obfuscation - climate contrarians appear to be retreating more and more away from the "it's not happening" and "it's not us" myths, toward the "it's not bad" fallback position.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm
We are currently in an Interglacial Period, the entire earth has been WARMING for more than 10,000 years, this causes the climate to change (note the glacial retreat over that time period), as a result, there is a Warming Trend, and this trend was not "Caused by Man", but it might be Accellerated by Man, unfortunately thats not what the alarmists are saying.
the most shrill of the alarmist (the ones that get the most press) imply the if we killed off 2/3 of the human population, returned to the trees to live as "natural" primitive hunter/gatherers, and ceased even making cooking fires, the Earth would be "Restored To Balance" and "Sacred Gaia" would stop "sending us messages" in the form of hurricanes, in a region called The Hurricane Track. while you do not seem to be one of those FrootLoop luddites, you are using the same resources, and reductio ad absurduming my statements like they do (see the Anti GMO thread for examples)
overstating the case, making sweeping declarations which look like, sound like and in all probability, ARE wild exaggerations does not make you sound like you got a handle on this shit. it makes you sound like a scared primitive looking for answers from the village shaman. thats what the Froot loops are doing, and it's not helping their case.
you arent helping the Anthropogenic Global Climate Whatever Happens In The Weather This Week case either.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
How did you put it "more assertions without facts"
No one is denying the natural cycles this planet goes thru
The science has gone beyond the "might be man" for current warming trend
Keynes your using Roy Spencer as your evidence and you have the front to compare me to anti gmo?
Let's see the studies that show recent global warming isn't man made..... I bet what you find is on a par with rat studies
What sweeping declarations would they be?
Cite
Whereas your misinformed assertions without evidence does what?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
no evidence for the Glacial retreat over the last 11,000 years?
my evidence is Canada.
also, the geological evidence for glacial retreat, and warming over that same period
also, the simple fact that for MOST of that time (including the warmest periods in human history, the minoan warm period, the roman warm period, and the medieval warm period) fossil fuel consumption was remarkably low
also, the simple fact that it HAS been significantly warmer, and TREMENDOUSLY colder throughout the geological history of the earth
also, the fact that "Colder Than It Is Now" has been the general trend for the earth, and we didnt cause that either, despite the claims of the same groups, and in some cases the exact same people, in the great ice age scare of the late 70's and early 80's.
also, The Cambrian Explosion took place during a period when the temperature, and CO2 levels were both considerably higher than they are now (CO2 by more than 3 times current levels) and this was before the evolution of the first mammals, not to mention humanity.
the entireity of the Global Warming scare is an exercise in Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, with the Industrial Revolution as the villain du jour.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Lol another post of assertions and not a shred of anything to back up your view of agw
Now Keynes you brought up "anti gmo" let's see you bring something better than the rat study to show your case
Lol cambrian explosion.....
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
is the cambrian explosion a myth too?
seriously.
unless you can refute the theory of Interglacial Period Warming, then im afraid you have reached a dead end, as Interglacial period Warming is established as FACT by EVERY Geologist, Climatologist, Naturalist, Physicist, high school history teacher, various Pop-Up books, quite a few cave paintings, and at least one series of popular animated films
if in fact Ice Ages and their inevitable Less Ice Ages are imaginary, then our entire understanding of the earth is clearly fucked up.
asking me to provide Proof of the existence of Global Climactic Change and it's role in the advance and retreat of Ice Ages is like demanding proof that you exist.
you can indulge in Cartesian Navel Gazing and deny the existence of anything you like, but this does not change the universe as everybody else understands it.
the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Climate Change just doesnt make sense in the context of 4.5 billion years of Global Climate Change before the first primate discovered that the Opposable Thumb was good for masturbating.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
oh, look. the guy who quotes creationists is mouth farting more nonsense onto the forum.
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/348256-2010-hottest-year-ever-despite.html
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
your carrying on with natural variations that no one is denying. I'm sure nobody will notice that dodge....is the cambrian explosion a myth too?
seriously.
unless you can refute the theory of Interglacial Period Warming, then im afraid you have reached a dead end, as Interglacial period Warming is established as FACT by EVERY Geologist, Climatologist, Naturalist, Physicist, high school history teacher, various Pop-Up books, quite a few cave paintings, and at least one series of popular animated films
if in fact Ice Ages and their inevitable Less Ice Ages are imaginary, then our entire understanding of the earth is clearly fucked up.
asking me to provide Proof of the existence of Global Climactic Change and it's role in the advance and retreat of Ice Ages is like demanding proof that you exist.
you can indulge in Cartesian Navel Gazing and deny the existence of anything you like, but this does not change the universe as everybody else understands it.
the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Climate Change just doesnt make sense in the context of 4.5 billion years of Global Climate Change before the first primate discovered that the Opposable Thumb was good for masturbating.
Keynes here's your chance to stand head and above the anti GMO crowd
You just need to show evidence .........
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
OMFG this guy.
yeah, i suppose the acceleration of the warming in lockstep with increased human activity is just mere coincidence.
after all, the guy who rejects evolution in favor of the argument that "baby jeebus did it!" said so, and kkkynes believed it.
unfuckingbelievable how stupid people can be.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
- Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] into the atmosphereevery year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
- When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
- This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide(Manning 2006).
- Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
- So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbsheat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
- If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation(Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).
- If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
- Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upperatmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).
- With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere(the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between thetroposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
- An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Latovi?ka 2006)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html which ones of the above are natural variations Keynes? |
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that wasn't 4.5 billion years of global climate change, it was 4.5 billion years of "sky daddy did it all!" according to the people you cite as experts on the subject.
no wonder you're so confused and it doesn't make any sense to you, you're getting your analysis from bible thumpers.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Hmm having trouble with riu quotes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
Which of those are natural variation?
- Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] into the atmosphereevery year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
- When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
- This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide(Manning 2006).
- Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
- So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbsheat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
- If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation(Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).
- If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
- Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upperatmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).
- With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere(the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between thetroposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
- An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
Which of those are natural variation?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
show evidence of what? that human activity ISN'T affecting the environment?
proving a negative is impossible, this however does not prove the counterclaim to be factual.
the simple fact remains, the climate has been warming, (and quite significantly in fact) for far longer than the 1979 "Let's Not Look Any Farther Back" cutoff point, and is expected to continue to warm for some time more before we once again enter a glacial advance.
bucky, and his ilk point to anomalies, and statistical outliers to demonstrate that the sky is falling, while the more reasonable believers throw out mountains of studies which, shockingly enough, do not use a second, identical earth without human activity as a control.
climate modelling has created huge stacks of projections, yet so far none of them have matched observations with the expected outcome
the current long term trend is well established, but insisting this tend is caused by humans, or even significantly accelerated by humans is as yet unproved to my satisfaction.
if i predict that tomorrow morning the sun will rise in the east, and assert that this is proof that the sun is actually Apollo's Chariot, will you join me in his temple to sacrifice a white bullock in praise and thanks for his lifegiving endeavours?
no, because it is entirely predictable, and has been happening for some time, in fact, the same event has been occurring, like clockwork, since long before the assertion that Apollo even exists was first made.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
citation needed.
you listen to creationists, who cares what you think?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
again, i am not arguing that humans have ZERO EFFECT on the environment, i am saying that the trend was already there.
arguing that human activity might be accelerating the change in climate is reasonable, at which point you must ask "How Much", but thats not the thrust of the press, the fearmongers, or particularly, Bucky's assertions.
the message is "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change!!" and any other cause, like the Maunder Cycle, volcanism, or even the well established evidence that we have been in a naturally occurring warming climate for millenia is ignored like it just doesnt exist.
this smacks of propaganda and hucksterism, not science.
also, Climate Gate, "Hide The Decline", fraudulent "Hockeystick Graphs", dumping the data from hundreds of weather monitoring stations when they didnt show the warming predicted, deliberate falsification of data from weather stations in russia and india, etc...
somebody was going to mention it, so i just did.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
show evidence of what? that human activity ISN'T affecting the environment?
proving a negative is impossible, this however does not prove the counterclaim to be factual.You can certainly prove that it's natural variations......
Come on Keynes beat that rat study!!!
You keep repeating this cut off point as if it's held real, how do you put it assertion without fact?
Your ignorance on how climate studies are done does not invalidate AGW
Appeal to the impossible?
We do not need a second earth to make predictions about what's happening
Yet again your ignorance does not invalidate AGW
The models do match
Models are unreliable
"[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere." (Freeman Dyson)
[h=2]What the science says...[/h]There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800's - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created a general circulation model that can explainclimate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
Select a level... While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done withanthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).
[h=3]Predicting/projecting the future[/h]A common argument heard is "scientists can't even predict the weather next week - how can they predict the climate years from now". This betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable, and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. In weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation over the whole region is the same regardless of the route.
There are various difficulties in predicting future climate. The behaviour of the sun is difficult to predict. Short-term disturbances like El Nino or volcanic eruptions are difficult to model. Nevertheless, the major forcings that drive climate are well understood. In 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show good agreement with subsequent observations (Hansen 2006).
Figure 2: Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data (Hansen 2006).
Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and most closely matched the level ofCO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures. Hansen overestimated future CO2 levels by 5 to 10% so if his model were given the correct forcing levels, the match would be even closer. There are deviations from year to year but this is to be expected. The chaotic nature of weather will add noise to the signal but the overall trend is predictable.
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 °C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007). More on predicting the future...
Figure 3: Observed and simulated global temperature change during Pinatubo eruption. Green is observed temperature by weather stations. Blue is land and ocean temperature. Red is mean model output (Hansen 2007).
[h=3]Uncertainties in future projections[/h]A common misconception is that climate models are biased towards exaggerating the effects from CO2. It bears mentioning that uncertainty can go either way. In fact, in a climate systemwith net positive feedback, uncertainty is skewed more towards a stronger climate response(Roe 2007). For this reason, many of the IPCC predictions have subsequently been shown to underestimate the climate response. Satellite and tide-gauge measurements show that sea level rise is accelerating faster than IPCC predictions. The average rate of rise for 1993-2008 as measured from satellite is 3.4 millimetres per year while the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a best estimate of 1.9 millimetres per year for the same period. Observations are tracking along the upper range of IPCC sea level projections(Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).
Figure 4: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).
Similarly, summertime melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations ofclimate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models. The thickness of Arctic sea ice has also been on a steady decline over the last several decades.
Figure 5: Observed (red line) and modeled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km2, the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).>
Try getting your info from better sources than roy Spencer if your serious about evaluating evidence
useless waffle
If it's like clockwork where are the studies/predictions of natural variation ??