Climate Change

The first article is an analysis of what really happened, and is widely reported to have happened - that was just one source of the same data. The second article cites an expert that states that said ice was on a trend to disappear completely very soon. Not sure how this is "shit". I was trying to just make a point about how even the most short-term predictions can easily be completely wrong because there are so many factors at play.

I'll agree about the "arm-chair scientists" analogy, and I also agree that it's very easy to confuse reporting with commentary or opinion (I think that's the point you were making). The contrast between the two seems to be slowly blurring to an almost indistinguishable grey.

I guess my other point is that this science is highly technical. The data is being collected, crunched and interpreted by guys and gals with PhDs in physics and it is not at all straightforward. I used to be on a different path than I am now and was on my way to a PhD in immunology and so I have an appreciation for how technically demanding and important every tiny detail can be in a theory or hypothesis. There is just no way for people who aren't INTIMATELY involved in climate science to have any real appreciation for it. I saw this in immunology - we all knew the basics but unless you were in my little niche of immunology you just didn't have my understanding of the material and I didn't for yours either.

Now we have every asshole with an opinion commenting and writing articles, manipulating and distorting the data for their own agenda. So what should we do? TRUST those who are experts and those who have come to an overwhelming consensus - which they have done! Why? Because I'm NOT smart enough or familiar enough with the raw data to have an original thought about climate change - but this doesn't stop my father-in-law from opining even though he's a lawyer and doesn't know shit about the topic.

I understand it's always more fun to root for the underdog but enough is enough.
 
The IPCC Report in Pictures – Greg Laden's Blog

Each of these graphs from the IPCC policy summary shows the global surface temperature relative to a 1961-1990 arbitrary baseline. The upper graph shows the annual average, and thus captures a sense of variation reflecting a wide range of causes, but with a general trend from the early 20th century to the preset of increasing temperatures. The second graph shows the same data but using a decadal average. Notice that when you squint your eyes, turn your head sideways, and take some LSD you can see a highly significant decline, hiatus, pause, or even cooling in global temperatures that, if you’ve taken enough drugs, seems to obviate global warming. But if you look at the data by decade, even very strong mushrooms are not going to let you see what isn’t there.
 

Attachments

  • Car_mechanic_agreement.jpg
    Car_mechanic_agreement.jpg
    38.2 KB · Views: 4
What does the 2013 IPCC Summary Say About Water? – Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased.

The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe. In other continents, confidence in changes in heavy precipitation events is at most medium.

It is very likely that regions of high salinity where evaporation dominates have become more saline, while regions of low salinity where precipitation dominates have become fresher since the 1950s. These regional trends in ocean salinity provide indirect evidence that evaporation and precipitation over the oceans have changed (medium confidence).

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence)

The average rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet has very likely substantially increased … over the period 1992–2001 to … over the period 2002–2011.

The average rate of ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet has likely increased … over the period 1992–2001 to … over the period 2002–2011.

There is very high confidence that the extent of Northern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased since the mid-20th century.

It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global-scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and subsurface ocean salinity (very likely).

It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to observed reductions in Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover since 1970.

Extreme precipitation events over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions will very likely become more intense and more frequent by the end of this century, as global mean surface temperature increases.

Globally, it is likely that the area encompassed by monsoon systems will increase over the 21st century. While monsoon winds are likely to weaken, monsoon precipitation is likely to intensify due to the increase in atmospheric moisture. Monsoon onset dates are likely to become earlier or not to change much. Monsoon retreat dates will likely be delayed, resulting in lengthening of the monsoon season in many regions.

By the end of the 21st century, the global glacier volume, excluding glaciers on the periphery of Antarctica, is projected to decrease by 15 to 55% for RCP2.6 [the low emissions scenario], and by 35 to 85% for RCP8.5 [the high emissions scenario](medium confidence).

The area of Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover is projected to decrease by 7% for RCP2.6 and by 25% in RCP8.5 by the end of the 21st century for the model average (medium confidence).

Finally, it is worth noting this IPCC conclusion:

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

[Note: In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. ]

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
 
Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K. The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science. PLoS ONE 2013;8(10):e75637. PLOS ONE: The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

Background - Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”

Methodology/Principal findings - We conducted a propensity weighted internet-panel survey of the U.S. population and show that conservatism and free-market worldview strongly predict rejection of climate science, in contrast to their weaker and opposing effects on acceptance of vaccinations. The two worldview variables do not predict opposition to GM. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, predicts rejection of all three scientific propositions, albeit to greatly varying extents. Greater endorsement of a diverse set of conspiracy theories predicts opposition to GM foods, vaccinations, and climate science.

Conclusions - Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested. We highlight the manifold cognitive reasons why conspiracist ideation would stand in opposition to the scientific method. The involvement of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science has implications for science communicators.
 
On letters from climate-change deniers
On letters from climate-change deniers - latimes.com

A piece this weekend debunking the claim that Congress and the president are exempted from Obamacare has drawn a harsh reaction from some readers and conservative bloggers. But their umbrage wasn't with the piece's explanation of why letters making this claim do not get published.

Rather, they were upset by the statement that letters "[saying] there's no sign humans have caused climate change" do not get printed. Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters blogged about it over the weekend:

"It's one thing for a news outlet to advance the as yet unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming; it's quite another to admit that you won't publish views that oppose it.

"As amazing as it may seem, that's exactly what the Los Angeles Times did Saturday in an article by editorial writer Jon Healey....

"So letters to the editor 'that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change ... do not get printed.'
 
Urgent New Time Frame for Climate Change Revealed by Massive Analysis
Urgent new time frame for climate change revealed by massive analysis

Oct. 9, 2013 — The seesaw variability of global temperatures often engenders debate over how seriously we should take climate change. But within 35 years, even the lowest monthly dips in temperatures will be hotter than we've experienced in the past 150 years, according to a new and massive analysis of all climate models. The tropics will be the first to exceed the limits of historical extremes and experience an unabated heat wave that threatens biodiversity and heavily populated countries with the fewest resources to adapt.


By 2047, Coldest Years May Be Warmer Than Hottest in Past
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/s...ears-will-be-warmer-than-hottest-in-past.html

If greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers said Wednesday.

Scientists from the University of Hawaii at Manoa calculated that by 2047, plus or minus five years, the average temperatures in each year will be hotter across most parts of the planet than they had been at those locations in any year between 1860 and 2005.

To put it another way, for a given geographic area, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past,” said Camilo Mora, the lead scientist on a paper published in the journal Nature.

Unprecedented climates will arrive even sooner in the tropics, Dr. Mora’s group predicts, putting increasing stress on human societies there, on the coral reefs that supply millions of people with fish, and on the world’s greatest forests.

“Go back in your life to think about the hottest, most traumatic event you have experienced,” Dr. Mora said in an interview. “What we’re saying is that very soon, that event is going to become the norm.”


Mora C, Frazier AG, Longman RJ, et al. The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability. Nature 2013;502(7470):183-7. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12540.html

Ecological and societal disruptions by modern climate change are critically determined by the time frame over which climates shift beyond historical analogues. Here we present a new index of the year when the projected mean climate of a given location moves to a state continuously outside the bounds of historical variability under alternative greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Using 1860 to 2005 as the historical period, this index has a global mean of 2069 ([plusmn]18[thinsp]years s.d.) for near-surface air temperature under an emissions stabilization scenario and 2047 ([plusmn]14[thinsp]years s.d.) under a /`business-as-usual/' scenario. Unprecedented climates will occur earliest in the tropics and among low-income countries, highlighting the vulnerability of global biodiversity and the limited governmental capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change. Our findings shed light on the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions if climates potentially harmful to biodiversity and society are to be prevented.
 
When will climate change strike you?

When it comes to climate change, when will Earth hit the point of no return?

According to a new study in the scientific journal Nature, 2047. That's the year the planet will pass "climate departure," the moment when the average coolest temperature year is projected to be warmer than the average temperature of the hottest year between 1960 and 2005.

But the sobering study projects that given current greenhouse gas emissions, many major cities will pass climate departure much earlier.

Mexico City, for example, will hit climate departure in 2031, eight years after Kingston, Jamaica, reaches its global warming tipping point in 2023. For New York and Washington, D.C., the estimated year of climate departure is 2047, a year before Los Angeles. Phoenix and Honolulu are projected to reach climate departure in 2043, the earliest in the United States, while Seattle (2055) and Anchorage (2071) have a bit more time.

But that's light years away compared to Manokwari, Indonesia, which is expected to hit climate departure in 2020, just seven years from now.

"On average, the tropics will experience unprecedented climate change 16 years earlier than the rest of the world," Camilo Mora, one of the authors of the study, said in a briefing with reporters Tuesday.

"The boundary of passing from the climate of the past to the climate of the future really happens surprisingly soon," Christopher Field, director at the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, told the Washington Post.

While scientists say climate departure is inevitable, cutting global carbon dioxide emissions can significantly slow the process. Under one better-case scenario, Earth would hit climate departure in 2069, the journal said.

Map: These are the cities that climate change will hit first

A city hits "climate departure" when the average temperature of its coolest year from then on is projected to be warmer than the average temperature of its hottest year between 1960 and 2005. For example, let's say the climate departure point for D.C. is 2047 (which it is). After 2047, even D.C.'s coldest year will still be hotter than any year from before 2005. Put another way, every single year after 2047 will be hotter than D.C.'s hottest year on record from 1860 to 2005. It's the moment when the old "normal" is really gone.

D.C. climate will shift in 2047, researchers say; tropics will feel unprecedented change first - The Washington Post
 

Attachments

  • 78e09545-f5f4-4136-bc20-b18aae0cf964_ResultsCities.jpg
    78e09545-f5f4-4136-bc20-b18aae0cf964_ResultsCities.jpg
    150.3 KB · Views: 3
Gosh I wonder if the liberal media is also "biased" NOT.
BULLSHIT!

Where is Keith Oberman when we need him most? LOL
When i watch the new entertainment shows I like to do PIP with MSNBC, FOX, PBS, Aljezerra and FSTV all at the same time. Its like they are talking about two different worlds.
How do you feel about FSTV, Thom Hartman and Amie Goodman as biased or fair and accurate?
 
While I liken Keith Oberman to Rush Limbaugh or S Hannity there are a few relatively unbiased commentators out there. However when the subject matter is based on computer models which are predicated on the earths "climate change" over a few thousand years it's important to understand all scientists morph into weather men.

Can we accurately predict today's weather based on yesterday's or last years or from ten years ago, FUCK NO! Unfortunately it's much to do about nothing since the methodology is as flawed as the data collated for analysis yet which is still much more reliable than our (scientists) ability to understand said "discoveries".
Why is that problematic? Personal biases, vested interests, societal and scientific notoriety and or media sensationalism have arbitrarily and capriciously altered the purpose of scientific study for political expediency.

Ergo the whole damn global warming (or is it cooling) issue has become a farce and a means to and ends for many politicians, re-election.

Jimmy
 
Jim...come on...get a grip. You can not honestly equate trying to predict "day to day weather patterns" (which can be HIGHLY variable) based on last year's weather to trying to collecting historical weather data and make predictions about future general weather trends based on that data. While you sound cleaver to the brain dead among us that's just fucking retarded.

I'm not saying weather is black and white but THAT argument is meaningless!
 
NOT, because the contemporary data being used as a "predictor" is based on computer models of weather changes thousands of years ago.

Much of the "data" was "uncovered" from the ice caps at the north and South Pole. Now that's a FACT IDSTER

So you better believe it. The analysis is based on various substances (from ozone to carbon precipitates) form in these ice packs over several thousand years. The change in the conditions over time WEATHER is the data being inserted into computers and used as a baseline to predict future weather patterns as in GLOBAL WARMING.

It's an absolute farce and one of the largest scientific scams (most often to acquire more "NIH" funding, get ones name in print or "earn" that Phd) in the scientific community (I'm NOT saying a cyclical warming pattern is not occurring)

Now I call those folks WEATHER MEN, mate.
 
Jim....I know you are a "renaissance man" in the true sense of the word but unless you completed a DO/PhD and that PhD happens to be in physics or climatology neither you nor I is privy to or qualified to interpret the RAW data.

So if I'm not qualified to interpret the data how do I have a leg to stand on here? Because in these cases I'll go with 97% of the TRAINED and QUALIFIED scientists who have reviewed the data and who have come to a CONSENSUS on this issue.....

I know your intellect knows no bounds but mine does....I'll let the experts be experts and trust the consensus.
 
Last edited:
I'm not interpreting the raw data mate but I am more than qualified (AS ARE YOU) to interpret the methodology which is used to formulate conclusions, and in this instance it's flawed to no end.

Why else have those scientists, (you know those guys whom are supposed to know) have such divergent opinions in this area.

It's the difference in which computer model is chosen to prove THEIR POINT.

Come on idster, take a look at the methodology involved here. They are being weather men!

Check it out I suspect you might be surprised how right I am my friend.

Many of these fellas are simply trying to make a name for themselves and since "climate change" is in vogue (ever since Al Gore became involved) it's become an expedient means for some.

Hey wait one minute, I KNOW you are MORE qualified than good old AL Gore mate, lol! :)

Jimmy
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/science/earth/something-is-killing-off-the-moose.html?hpw
Moose Die-Off Alarms Scientists

Across North America — in places as far-flung as Montana and British Columbia, New Hampshire and Minnesota — moose populations are in steep decline. And no one is sure why.

Twenty years ago, Minnesota had two geographically separate moose populations. One of them has virtually disappeared since the 1990s, declining to fewer than 100 from 4,000.

The other population, in northeastern Minnesota, is dropping 25 percent a year and is now fewer than 3,000, down from 8,000. (The moose mortality rate used to be 8 percent to 12 percent a year.) As a result, wildlife officials have suspended all moose hunting.

Here in Montana, moose hunting permits fell to 362 last year, from 769 in 1995.

“Something’s changed,” said Nicholas DeCesare, a biologist with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks who is counting moose in this part of the state — one of numerous efforts across the continent to measure and explain the decline. “There’s fewer moose out there, and hunters are working harder to find them.”

What exactly has changed remains a mystery. Several factors are clearly at work. But a common thread in most hypotheses is climate change.

Winters have grown substantially shorter across much of the moose’s range. In New Hampshire, a longer fall with less snow has greatly increased the number of winter ticks, a devastating parasite. “You can get 100,000 ticks on a moose,” said Kristine Rines, a biologist with the state’s Fish and Game Department.

In Minnesota, the leading culprits are brain worms and liver flukes. Both spend part of their life cycles in snails, which thrive in moist environments.

Another theory is heat stress. Moose are made for cold weather, and when the temperature rises above 23 degrees Fahrenheit in winter, as has happened more often in recent years, they expend extra energy to stay cool. That can lead to exhaustion and death.

In the Cariboo Mountains of British Columbia, a recent study pinned the decline of moose on the widespread killing of forest by an epidemic of pine bark beetles, which seem to thrive in warmer weather. The loss of trees left the moose exposed to human and animal predators.

In Smithers, British Columbia, in April, a moose — starving and severely infested with ticks — wandered into the flower section of a Safeway market. It was euthanized.
 
The Annual Rise in CO2 Levels Has Begun
The Annual Rise in CO2 Levels Has Begun | - The Keeling Curve

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere have typically reached their lowest point in late October. After falling below 393 parts per million only on one day this year, levels are headed back up.

The peak month remains May, but Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, geochemist Ralph Keeling said single-day concentrations may exceed 400 parts per million (ppm) as early as January 2014.

The annual rise in CO2 concentrations tends to come in two distinct bursts in fall and spring, said Keeling, while remaining fairly stable from January to March.

“It seems possible we could see a daily values flickering over 400 ppm any time during this winter plateau,” said Keeling. “By April, we will see values over 400 ppm for sure. The peak in May this year could reach over 402 ppm.”

Monthly average readings, the increments in which climate researchers typically record atmospheric CO2 concentrations, will also likely exceed 400 ppm for the first time in April 2014.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAKR-aCTAVk"]The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability - YouTube[/ame]
 
Miller GH, Lehman SJ, Refsnider KA, Southon JR, Zhong Y. Unprecedented recent summer warmth in Arctic Canada. Geophysical Research Letters. Unprecedented recent summer warmth in Arctic Canada - Miller - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Arctic air temperatures have increased in recent decades, along with documented reductions in sea ice, glacier size, and snowcover. However, the extent to which recent Arctic warming has been anomalous with respect to long-term natural climate variability remains uncertain. Here we use 145 radiocarbon dates on rooted tundra plants revealed by receding cold-based ice caps in the Eastern Canadian Arctic to show that 5000?years of regional summertime cooling has been reversed, with average summer temperatures of the last ~100?years now higher than during any century in more than 44,000?years, including peak warmth of the early Holocene when high latitude summer insolation was 9% greater than present. Reconstructed changes in snow line elevation suggest that summers cooled ~2.7?°C over the past 5000?years, approximately twice the response predicted by CMIP5 climate models. Our results indicate that anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases have led to unprecedented regional warmth.
 
Back
Top