Very interesting article Dr Scally. We're putting more and more C02 into the atmosphere every year. A trend line shows the steady climb, like the stock market. In a lifetime we see so much damage and pollution to the rivers, forest, Everglades, oceans, etc. I know that what I have seen was not a normal and natural occurrence. Unless of course you factor in the human being as a natural part of evolution. I haven't been keeping up with all this very much, so can someone clue me in as to just what is the opposing opinions.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Climate Change
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
Cheap coal is a lie – stand up to the industry’s cynical fightback
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-isnt-solution-to-energy-poverty-solar-energy
It is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the reality that the days of coal as a source of energy are numbered. In a world where carbon emissions will increasingly have to be constrained, coal, as the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, is the energy asset most vulnerable to becoming “stranded” – the most vulnerable, in other words, to seeing its market value collapse well ahead of its previously anticipated useful life.
This new economic and political reality is already being shaped by the fast-growing global support for the enforcement of a global “carbon budget”. This idea, first proposed six years ago and formally endorsed by the International Energy Agency in 2011, has been gaining traction because of the ever-stronger scientific consensus that carbon emissions from human activity is the principal driver of destructive climate change. The spewing of 110 million tonnes a day of heat-trapping pollution into the atmosphere – as if the atmosphere were an open sewer – is “increasing the likelihood,” says a warning from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/11/climate-change-threatens-irreversible-dangerous-impacts-options-exist-limit-effects/”.
But as the coal industry fights for survival, it has begun to rely on novel and increasingly tenuous arguments. It has embarked on a global campaign to promote coal as the solution to energy poverty. This disingenuous claim is predicated on the notion that coal is the cheapest way of providing electricity to the one-fifth of the world’s population lacking access to an electricity grid.
This exploitation of an urgent humanitarian need to promote more coal-burning in poor countries is extremely misleading. If ever implemented, it would actually significantly worsen the condition of the 1.3 billion people mired in energy poverty.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-isnt-solution-to-energy-poverty-solar-energy
It is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the reality that the days of coal as a source of energy are numbered. In a world where carbon emissions will increasingly have to be constrained, coal, as the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, is the energy asset most vulnerable to becoming “stranded” – the most vulnerable, in other words, to seeing its market value collapse well ahead of its previously anticipated useful life.
This new economic and political reality is already being shaped by the fast-growing global support for the enforcement of a global “carbon budget”. This idea, first proposed six years ago and formally endorsed by the International Energy Agency in 2011, has been gaining traction because of the ever-stronger scientific consensus that carbon emissions from human activity is the principal driver of destructive climate change. The spewing of 110 million tonnes a day of heat-trapping pollution into the atmosphere – as if the atmosphere were an open sewer – is “increasing the likelihood,” says a warning from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/11/climate-change-threatens-irreversible-dangerous-impacts-options-exist-limit-effects/”.
But as the coal industry fights for survival, it has begun to rely on novel and increasingly tenuous arguments. It has embarked on a global campaign to promote coal as the solution to energy poverty. This disingenuous claim is predicated on the notion that coal is the cheapest way of providing electricity to the one-fifth of the world’s population lacking access to an electricity grid.
This exploitation of an urgent humanitarian need to promote more coal-burning in poor countries is extremely misleading. If ever implemented, it would actually significantly worsen the condition of the 1.3 billion people mired in energy poverty.
Ask the real experts about ocean acidification, not climate science deniers
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ean-acidification-not-climate-science-deniers
If you try hard enough – and sometimes you don’t have to try hard at all – you can find all sorts of crazyballs evidence-free misleading gumph out there on the intertubes.
Many of the proponents are so blinded by their own ideology and beliefs that they can perform all manner of logical gymnastics to tell themselves that they’re right and the experts are wrong.
Some are utterly convinced that dude absolutely was abducted by a single-toed space alien, Elvis totally used to work at the local chip shop, humans didn’t evolve but were “designed” and there’s no evidence that extra carbon dioxide causes climate change.
But none of this should mean those views deserve to get a run in a national newspaper.
Occasionally though, they do.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ean-acidification-not-climate-science-deniers
If you try hard enough – and sometimes you don’t have to try hard at all – you can find all sorts of crazyballs evidence-free misleading gumph out there on the intertubes.
Many of the proponents are so blinded by their own ideology and beliefs that they can perform all manner of logical gymnastics to tell themselves that they’re right and the experts are wrong.
Some are utterly convinced that dude absolutely was abducted by a single-toed space alien, Elvis totally used to work at the local chip shop, humans didn’t evolve but were “designed” and there’s no evidence that extra carbon dioxide causes climate change.
But none of this should mean those views deserve to get a run in a national newspaper.
Occasionally though, they do.
THIS IS THE LOMBORG-ERRORS WEB SITE
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Bjørn Lomborg is a well-known personality in the environmental debate. He is the author of several books which, due to their copious lists of notes and references, appear very technical and scientific and therefore trustworthy. Unfortunately, those reading his books or listening to his lectures or seeing his film are rarely aware that the facts and statements presented by Lomborg are often not reliable.
When experts in the fields covered by Lomborg check his texts, they most often find that the evidence has been distorted. Danish biologist Kåre Fog has systematically over many years checked Lomborg´s texts against his sources and references and against other scientific literature. His conclusion is that Lomborg´s texts are systematically manipulated to fit a certain agenda.
The web site Lomborg-errors has been established to document this claim. It gathers and publishes errors found in Bjørn Lomborg´s books, especially "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (2001) and Cool it! (2007).
In addition, it gives information on cases and activities related to Bjørn Lomborg, attempts to describe his methods, and points out cases where the claims about Lomborg´s dishonesty seem to hold true.
From January 2008, the page also comments on errors made by Al Gore, to allow a comparison where the two persons are judged by the same standards.
The web site is set up by, written by and hosted by Kåre Fog.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Bjørn Lomborg is a well-known personality in the environmental debate. He is the author of several books which, due to their copious lists of notes and references, appear very technical and scientific and therefore trustworthy. Unfortunately, those reading his books or listening to his lectures or seeing his film are rarely aware that the facts and statements presented by Lomborg are often not reliable.
When experts in the fields covered by Lomborg check his texts, they most often find that the evidence has been distorted. Danish biologist Kåre Fog has systematically over many years checked Lomborg´s texts against his sources and references and against other scientific literature. His conclusion is that Lomborg´s texts are systematically manipulated to fit a certain agenda.
The web site Lomborg-errors has been established to document this claim. It gathers and publishes errors found in Bjørn Lomborg´s books, especially "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (2001) and Cool it! (2007).
In addition, it gives information on cases and activities related to Bjørn Lomborg, attempts to describe his methods, and points out cases where the claims about Lomborg´s dishonesty seem to hold true.
From January 2008, the page also comments on errors made by Al Gore, to allow a comparison where the two persons are judged by the same standards.
The web site is set up by, written by and hosted by Kåre Fog.
Carbon Emissions, Climate Change, & The Various Effects — Great New Infographic
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/19/carbon-emissions-climate-change-various-effects-great-new-infographic/
An interesting new infographic from “InformationisBeautiful” concerning carbon dioxide emissions and climate change recently came to my attention, and seemed worth sharing. The infographic goes over many, many things, including: the current rate of carbon emissions, the carbon ‘budget’ if we’re going to avoid a dangerous rise in temperature, current fossil fuel reserves, the various predicted effects of various levels of temperature rise, and a couple of other figures.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/19/carbon-emissions-climate-change-various-effects-great-new-infographic/
An interesting new infographic from “InformationisBeautiful” concerning carbon dioxide emissions and climate change recently came to my attention, and seemed worth sharing. The infographic goes over many, many things, including: the current rate of carbon emissions, the carbon ‘budget’ if we’re going to avoid a dangerous rise in temperature, current fossil fuel reserves, the various predicted effects of various levels of temperature rise, and a couple of other figures.
Carbon Dioxide Hits a New Peak this Spring: 404 ppm
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2962
By all evidence, we now have the largest amount of CO2 present in Earth’s atmosphere for at least the last 800,000 years, and probably several million. The most prevalent of the human-produced greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide has been measured regularly by scientists at Mauna Loa since 1958. The gas is also measured at other sites around the world, but the Mauna Loa dataset is the most widely tracked index of global trends because of its uninterrupted 57-year length.
The weekly CO2 readings at Mauna Loa will crest over the next couple of months, making a run at 405 ppm before the annual seasonal decline begins (see below). Eyeballing the multiyear trend shown in Figures 1 and 2, it’s a fair guess that the final time we see a weekly value below 400 ppm will be somewhere toward the end of 2017, perhaps a year sooner or later. From that point on, we’re unlikely to again see a week below 400 ppm for many years—probably centuries, if not millennia—because of the ever-increasing accumulation of atmospheric CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2962
By all evidence, we now have the largest amount of CO2 present in Earth’s atmosphere for at least the last 800,000 years, and probably several million. The most prevalent of the human-produced greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide has been measured regularly by scientists at Mauna Loa since 1958. The gas is also measured at other sites around the world, but the Mauna Loa dataset is the most widely tracked index of global trends because of its uninterrupted 57-year length.
The weekly CO2 readings at Mauna Loa will crest over the next couple of months, making a run at 405 ppm before the annual seasonal decline begins (see below). Eyeballing the multiyear trend shown in Figures 1 and 2, it’s a fair guess that the final time we see a weekly value below 400 ppm will be somewhere toward the end of 2017, perhaps a year sooner or later. From that point on, we’re unlikely to again see a week below 400 ppm for many years—probably centuries, if not millennia—because of the ever-increasing accumulation of atmospheric CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.
Sonny T
Banned
weather has been nuts in nyc lately!
Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...apor-and-clouds-are-amplifying-global-warming
What the present paper shows is that future changes to clouds will cause slightly more warming. Scientists describe clouds as a “positive feedback” on global warming. This finding is consistent with the work of http://atmo.tamu.edu/people/faculty/desslerandrew.html. He had published work here and here showing changes in clouds are making the Earth warm more than otherwise expected.
The results of this study harken back to prior work by one well-known skeptic Richard Lindzen who published http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf on climate feedbacks in 2009, and by another well-known skeptic Roy Spencer who wrote an article in 2011. Those works, among others, reportedly show that the Earth is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases. This new work confirms the opposite; it turns out Dr. Dessler was correct after all.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...apor-and-clouds-are-amplifying-global-warming
What the present paper shows is that future changes to clouds will cause slightly more warming. Scientists describe clouds as a “positive feedback” on global warming. This finding is consistent with the work of http://atmo.tamu.edu/people/faculty/desslerandrew.html. He had published work here and here showing changes in clouds are making the Earth warm more than otherwise expected.
The results of this study harken back to prior work by one well-known skeptic Richard Lindzen who published http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf on climate feedbacks in 2009, and by another well-known skeptic Roy Spencer who wrote an article in 2011. Those works, among others, reportedly show that the Earth is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases. This new work confirms the opposite; it turns out Dr. Dessler was correct after all.
Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study
http://tiny.iavian.net/4zyt
• Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
• It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
• Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
• These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report
| Updated: 18:31 EST, 23 April 2015
Global warming hasn't happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.
The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.
But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.
Scroll down for video
The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Projected temperature change from 2081-2100 by the IPCC are pictured here. The latest study, however, says this climate model may be wrong
'Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,' said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. 'But this could change.'
The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.
They claim these 'wiggles' can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and exaggerate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.
If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.
Summary of projected changes in crop yields in a previous IPCC report. Because 'climate wiggles' were not accounted for, the Duke University researchers say the report may have been an over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends
The research, uses observed data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.
'At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,' said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.
The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming.
To test these, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.
'By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said.
'Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.'
'Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,' Brown said.
'Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.'
Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.
'That matches up well with what we're seeing.'
There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed.
'Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.'
The IPCC has previously warmed that global warming is impacting 'all continents and across the oceans'. This map details some of the predicted affects of climate change in different continents. However the latest study claims that the worst-case scenario is unlikely to take place
How will climate change impact us by the year 2050? (related)
http://tiny.iavian.net/4zyt
• Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
• It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
• Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
• These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report
| Updated: 18:31 EST, 23 April 2015
Global warming hasn't happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.
The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.
But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.
Scroll down for video
The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Projected temperature change from 2081-2100 by the IPCC are pictured here. The latest study, however, says this climate model may be wrong
'Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,' said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. 'But this could change.'
The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.
They claim these 'wiggles' can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and exaggerate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.
If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.
Summary of projected changes in crop yields in a previous IPCC report. Because 'climate wiggles' were not accounted for, the Duke University researchers say the report may have been an over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends
The research, uses observed data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.
'At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,' said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.
The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming.
To test these, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.
'By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said.
'Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.'
'Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,' Brown said.
'Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.'
Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.
'That matches up well with what we're seeing.'
There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed.
'Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.'
The IPCC has previously warmed that global warming is impacting 'all continents and across the oceans'. This map details some of the predicted affects of climate change in different continents. However the latest study claims that the worst-case scenario is unlikely to take place
How will climate change impact us by the year 2050? (related)
Whenever an article does NOT include the cite, you can bet they are not being truthful on its use. And, that is very true here. Also, as anyone that knows me it is best to search for the original research, not slanted biased "news" reports. Better try next time. But, thanks for the laugh.
We also find that recently observed GMT values, as well as trends, are near the lower bounds of the EUN for a forced signal corresponding to the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario but that observations are not inconsistent with a forced signal corresponding to the RCP 6.0 emissions scenario.
Brown PT, Li W, Cordero EC, Mauget SA. Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise. Sci Rep. 2015;5. http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150421/srep09957/full/srep09957.html
The comparison of observed global mean surface air temperature (GMT) change to the mean change simulated by climate models has received much public and scientific attention. For a given global warming signal produced by a climate model ensemble, there exists an envelope of GMT values representing the range of possible unforced states of the climate system (the Envelope of Unforced Noise; EUN).
Typically, the EUN is derived from climate models themselves, but climate models might not accurately simulate the correct characteristics of unforced GMT variability. Here, we simulate a new, empirical, EUN that is based on instrumental and reconstructed surface temperature records.
We compare the forced GMT signal produced by climate models to observations while noting the range of GMT values provided by the empirical EUN. We find that the empirical EUN is wide enough so that the interdecadal variability in the rate of global warming over the 20th century does not necessarily require corresponding variability in the rate-of-increase of the forced signal.
The empirical EUN also indicates that the reduced GMT warming over the past decade or so is still consistent with a middle emission scenario’s forced signal, but is likely inconsistent with the steepest emission scenario’s forced signal.
Last edited:
Conservative thinktank seeks to change Pope Francis's mind on climate change
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rancis-lobbying-climate-change-global-warming
A US activist group that has received funding from energy companies and the foundation controlled by conservative activist Charles Koch is trying to persuade the Vatican that “there is no global warming crisis” ahead of an environmental statement by Pope Francis this summer that is expected to call for strong action to combat climate change.
The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based conservative thinktank that seeks to discredit established science on climate change, said it was sending a team of climate scientists to Rome “to inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science”.
“Though Pope Francis’s heart is surely in the right place, he would do his flock and the world a disservice by putting his moral authority behind the United Nations’ unscientific agenda on the climate,” Joseph Bast, Heartland’s president, said in a statement.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rancis-lobbying-climate-change-global-warming
A US activist group that has received funding from energy companies and the foundation controlled by conservative activist Charles Koch is trying to persuade the Vatican that “there is no global warming crisis” ahead of an environmental statement by Pope Francis this summer that is expected to call for strong action to combat climate change.
The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based conservative thinktank that seeks to discredit established science on climate change, said it was sending a team of climate scientists to Rome “to inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science”.
“Though Pope Francis’s heart is surely in the right place, he would do his flock and the world a disservice by putting his moral authority behind the United Nations’ unscientific agenda on the climate,” Joseph Bast, Heartland’s president, said in a statement.
Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VB0SGuc0phG
Starts April 28th, 2015
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VB0SGuc0phG
Starts April 28th, 2015
An Old Story, but Useful Lessons by James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130926_PTRSpaperDiscussion.pdf
Paleoclimate, changes of climate over Earth's history, provide valuable insights about the effects of human perturbations to climate, even though there is no close paleoclimate analog of the strong, rapid forcing that humans are applying to the climate system. International discussions of human-made climate change (e.g., IPCC) rely heavily on global climate models, with less emphasis on inferences from the paleo record. A proper thing to say is that paleoclimate data and global modeling need to go hand in hand to develop best understanding -- almost everyone will agree with that. However, it seems to me that paleo is still getting short-shrifted and underutilized. In contrast, there is a tendency in the literature to treat an ensemble of model runs as if its distribution function is a distribution function for the truth, i.e., for the real world. Wow. What a terrible misunderstanding. Today's models have many assumptions and likely many flaws in common, so varying the parameters in them does not give a probability distribution for the real world, yet that is often implicitly assumed to be the case. But enough introduction.
…
One implication is that if we should "succeed" in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some time in the year having wet bulb temperature exceeding 35°C. At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive, because even under ideal conditions of rest and ventilation, it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100 W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at restix. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive. Temperatures even several degrees below this extreme limit would be sufficient to make a region practically uninhabitable for living and working.
The picture that emerges for Earth sometime in the distant future, if we should dig up and burn every fossil fuel, is thus consistent with that depicted in "Storms" -- an ice-free Antarctica and a desolate planet without human inhabitants. Although temperatures in the Himalayas may have become seductive, it is doubtful that the many would allow the wealthy few to appropriate this territory to themselves or that humans would survive with the extermination of most other species on the planet. At least one sentence in "Storms" will need to be corrected in the next edition: even with burning of all fossil fuels the tropical ocean does not "boil". But it is not an exaggeration to suggest, based on best available scientific evidence, that burning all fossil fuels could result in the planet being not only ice-free but human-free.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130926_PTRSpaperDiscussion.pdf
Paleoclimate, changes of climate over Earth's history, provide valuable insights about the effects of human perturbations to climate, even though there is no close paleoclimate analog of the strong, rapid forcing that humans are applying to the climate system. International discussions of human-made climate change (e.g., IPCC) rely heavily on global climate models, with less emphasis on inferences from the paleo record. A proper thing to say is that paleoclimate data and global modeling need to go hand in hand to develop best understanding -- almost everyone will agree with that. However, it seems to me that paleo is still getting short-shrifted and underutilized. In contrast, there is a tendency in the literature to treat an ensemble of model runs as if its distribution function is a distribution function for the truth, i.e., for the real world. Wow. What a terrible misunderstanding. Today's models have many assumptions and likely many flaws in common, so varying the parameters in them does not give a probability distribution for the real world, yet that is often implicitly assumed to be the case. But enough introduction.
…
One implication is that if we should "succeed" in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some time in the year having wet bulb temperature exceeding 35°C. At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive, because even under ideal conditions of rest and ventilation, it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100 W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at restix. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive. Temperatures even several degrees below this extreme limit would be sufficient to make a region practically uninhabitable for living and working.
The picture that emerges for Earth sometime in the distant future, if we should dig up and burn every fossil fuel, is thus consistent with that depicted in "Storms" -- an ice-free Antarctica and a desolate planet without human inhabitants. Although temperatures in the Himalayas may have become seductive, it is doubtful that the many would allow the wealthy few to appropriate this territory to themselves or that humans would survive with the extermination of most other species on the planet. At least one sentence in "Storms" will need to be corrected in the next edition: even with burning of all fossil fuels the tropical ocean does not "boil". But it is not an exaggeration to suggest, based on best available scientific evidence, that burning all fossil fuels could result in the planet being not only ice-free but human-free.
20150424 Anthropogenic Climate Change
http://original.livestream.com/asiasocietyhk/video?clipId=pla_5953269a-7e3c-4195-bd12-951bf981061a
http://original.livestream.com/asiasocietyhk/video?clipId=pla_5953269a-7e3c-4195-bd12-951bf981061a
Tschakert P. 1.5°C or 2°C: a conduit’s view from the science-policy interface at COP20 in Lima, Peru. Climate Change Responses. 2015;2:3. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40665-015-0010-z/fulltext.html
An average global 2°C warming compared to pre-industrial times is commonly understood as the most important target in climate policy negotiations. It is a temperature target indicative of a fiercely debated threshold between what some consider acceptable warming and warming that implies dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and hence to be avoided.
Although this 2°C target has been officially endorsed as scientifically sound and justified in the Copenhagen Report issued by the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2009, the large majority of countries (over two-thirds) that have signed and ratified the UNFCCC strongly object to this target as the core of the long-term goal of keeping temperatures below a certain danger level.
Instead, they promote a 1.5°C target as a more adequate limit for dangerous interference. At COP16 in Cancun, parties to the convention recognized the need to consider strengthening the long-term global goal in the so-called 2013–2015 Review, given improved scientific knowledge, including the possible adoption of the 1.5°C target.
In this perspective piece, I examine the discussions of a structured expert dialogue (SED) between selected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors, myself included, and parties to the convention to assess the adequacy of the long-term goal. I pay particular attention to the uneven geographies and power differentials that lay behind the ongoing political debate regarding an adequate target for protecting ecosystems, food security, and sustainable development.
An average global 2°C warming compared to pre-industrial times is commonly understood as the most important target in climate policy negotiations. It is a temperature target indicative of a fiercely debated threshold between what some consider acceptable warming and warming that implies dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and hence to be avoided.
Although this 2°C target has been officially endorsed as scientifically sound and justified in the Copenhagen Report issued by the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2009, the large majority of countries (over two-thirds) that have signed and ratified the UNFCCC strongly object to this target as the core of the long-term goal of keeping temperatures below a certain danger level.
Instead, they promote a 1.5°C target as a more adequate limit for dangerous interference. At COP16 in Cancun, parties to the convention recognized the need to consider strengthening the long-term global goal in the so-called 2013–2015 Review, given improved scientific knowledge, including the possible adoption of the 1.5°C target.
In this perspective piece, I examine the discussions of a structured expert dialogue (SED) between selected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors, myself included, and parties to the convention to assess the adequacy of the long-term goal. I pay particular attention to the uneven geographies and power differentials that lay behind the ongoing political debate regarding an adequate target for protecting ecosystems, food security, and sustainable development.
New Study Links Weather Extremes to Global Warming
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/science/new-study-links-weather-extremes-to-global-warming.html
Fischer EM, Knutti R. Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nature Clim Change.advance online publication. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2617.html
Climate change includes not only changes in mean climate but also in weather extremes. For a few prominent heatwaves and heavy precipitation events a human contribution to their occurrence has been demonstrated1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here we apply a similar framework but estimate what fraction of all globally occurring heavy precipitation and hot extremes is attributable to warming. We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence6. For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming. The approach introduced here is robust owing to its global perspective, less sensitive to model biases than alternative methods and informative for mitigation policy, and thereby complementary to single-event attribution. Combined with information on vulnerability and exposure, it serves as a scientific basis for assessment of global risk from extreme weather, the discussion of mitigation targets, and liability considerations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/science/new-study-links-weather-extremes-to-global-warming.html
Fischer EM, Knutti R. Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nature Clim Change.advance online publication. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2617.html
Climate change includes not only changes in mean climate but also in weather extremes. For a few prominent heatwaves and heavy precipitation events a human contribution to their occurrence has been demonstrated1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here we apply a similar framework but estimate what fraction of all globally occurring heavy precipitation and hot extremes is attributable to warming. We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence6. For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming. The approach introduced here is robust owing to its global perspective, less sensitive to model biases than alternative methods and informative for mitigation policy, and thereby complementary to single-event attribution. Combined with information on vulnerability and exposure, it serves as a scientific basis for assessment of global risk from extreme weather, the discussion of mitigation targets, and liability considerations.
Why Pope Francis is about to make a dramatic wave in the climate debate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...o-make-a-dramatic-wave-in-the-climate-debate/
Climate change skeptics are in Rome this week. The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank that has often questioned the science behind human-caused climate change, announced that it was sending a delegation to Rome to “inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science: There is no global warming crisis!” Marc Morano, who runs the climate-skeptic Web site ClimateDepot, is also in attendance.
“The Pope has picked a contentious scientific issue in which — now going on almost two decades of no global warming, sea ice recovering, sea level rise rates stable to even decelerating, on almost every metric from polar bears on down – the global warming narrative has weakened,” says Morano’s Web site.
The reason behind the rhetoric is a Vatican summit on Tuesday, organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, among others, on the “Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development.” The event, which features U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and academic luminaries like Jeffrey Sachs, is widely seen as a lead-up to the release of a momentous and much anticipated papal encyclical on the environment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...o-make-a-dramatic-wave-in-the-climate-debate/
Climate change skeptics are in Rome this week. The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank that has often questioned the science behind human-caused climate change, announced that it was sending a delegation to Rome to “inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science: There is no global warming crisis!” Marc Morano, who runs the climate-skeptic Web site ClimateDepot, is also in attendance.
“The Pope has picked a contentious scientific issue in which — now going on almost two decades of no global warming, sea ice recovering, sea level rise rates stable to even decelerating, on almost every metric from polar bears on down – the global warming narrative has weakened,” says Morano’s Web site.
The reason behind the rhetoric is a Vatican summit on Tuesday, organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, among others, on the “Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development.” The event, which features U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and academic luminaries like Jeffrey Sachs, is widely seen as a lead-up to the release of a momentous and much anticipated papal encyclical on the environment.
British climate change sceptics who travelled to the Vatican interrupted by 'papal heavies' half-way through making their point
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fway-through-making-their-point-10211087.html
Two prominent British climate change sceptics travelled to the Vatican seeking to convert the Pope to their cause – only to be interrupted by “papal heavies” half-way through making their point.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, and James Delingpole, a right-wing commentator, were in a group that attended a papal climate conference ahead of Pope Francis’s eagerly awaited climate change “encyclical” – a letter to clergy in which he is expected to advocate action against global warming.
They are attending the summit in Rome with scientists from the Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank backed by the US philanthropist Charles Koch.
Climate sceptics and US conservatives are concerned that the Pope’s letter could lend further credibility to the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activity. But Mr Delingpole complained that not everyone was getting a fair hearing.
“Papal heavies shut down an awkward question at a Vatican press conference,” the former Daily Telegraph columnist said of a press conference at the summit, hosted by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon. Mr Delingpole said that Marc Morano, the founder of the sceptical Climate Depot website, tried to ask Mr Ban if he had anything to say about Heartland’s mission.
Before he could finish, the conference hosts interrupted to ask which organisation he worked for, then directed the microphone to a more tame questioner, while a secretary guard came over to mutter in Morano’s ear ‘You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here’,” Mr Delingpole wrote on his blog.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fway-through-making-their-point-10211087.html
Two prominent British climate change sceptics travelled to the Vatican seeking to convert the Pope to their cause – only to be interrupted by “papal heavies” half-way through making their point.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, and James Delingpole, a right-wing commentator, were in a group that attended a papal climate conference ahead of Pope Francis’s eagerly awaited climate change “encyclical” – a letter to clergy in which he is expected to advocate action against global warming.
They are attending the summit in Rome with scientists from the Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank backed by the US philanthropist Charles Koch.
Climate sceptics and US conservatives are concerned that the Pope’s letter could lend further credibility to the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activity. But Mr Delingpole complained that not everyone was getting a fair hearing.
“Papal heavies shut down an awkward question at a Vatican press conference,” the former Daily Telegraph columnist said of a press conference at the summit, hosted by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon. Mr Delingpole said that Marc Morano, the founder of the sceptical Climate Depot website, tried to ask Mr Ban if he had anything to say about Heartland’s mission.
Before he could finish, the conference hosts interrupted to ask which organisation he worked for, then directed the microphone to a more tame questioner, while a secretary guard came over to mutter in Morano’s ear ‘You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here’,” Mr Delingpole wrote on his blog.
Similar threads
