Global warming discussion III

[uke2se]

I never said it wasn't warming, I've always said man has nothing to do with it.

I'll make a note of that and remind you the next time you start waffling about it being cold in the winter lol libs.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

This just in ....


Fossil Free Yale, a group pushing the university to divest itself from fossil fuels, told the Yale Daily News that frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.

FFY’s Mitch Barrow said that “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues, including some cancellations from speakers and performance groups” would mean they would not be able to rally on Global Divestment Day — a day where environmental groups urge institutions like Yale to divest from fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil.

Those who were planning to attend will remain at home where they will be kept warm by fossil fuels like coal , natural gas , and oil

Oh the irony !!!

Stay warm everybody

.

 

[Pixel42]

.

Correct ... the decimal is in the wrong place and I cannot edit it

But my point still stands .... the globe has warmed by 0.8 degrees in the past 100 years .... which is not even close to the 8.0 prophecy by Hansen

.

You're confusing the US with the globe, Celsius with Fahrenheit, 1-2 with 2, 3-4 with 6, various different periods of time, and predictions with the past.

 

[macdoc]

AM ...you are in a sunset industry...it will be left in the ground.

 

[Pixel42]

I never said it wasn't warming, I've always said man has nothing to do with it.

Which of these statements do you dispute:

1. Greenhouse gases cause the sun's warmth to be retained at the earth's surface for longer than would otherwise be the case

2. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

3. The amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere has increased by 40% since preindustrial times, largely as a result of the burning of fossil fuel.

Unless you can cast reasonable doubt on at least one of these well established facts the conclusion that human activities have caused average global temperatures to rise is inescapable.

 

[a_unique_person]

Pretty damn close?

Unless it gets cooler and wipes out the small rise he's missed by half. As if warmer temps and more moisture are bad.

I seem to remember the alarmists saying warmer temps would create droughts.

Yes, they do.

The winter rains were good enough to turn the country green. There wasn't the outright sogginess that once made the western plains along the Hamilton Highway gumboot country, but the grey loam soil, for a few weeks at least, was nice and damp.
Members of the Lismore Angling Club hoped that the local fishing spots -- Lake Tooliorook and Deep Lake -- might start to fill again. They didn't. Despite the rain, water in the lakes kept dropping. The talk of water hijacking by farms to the north, however, ramped up.
``None of us is too sure of what's going on," says Craig Skene, farm manager, and a member of the committee that runs the caravan park for tourists at Lake Tooliorook. ``Somewhere, up north, someone has water... and nothing's coming down into the lake. There's a rumour they're pumping it from the springs, but I don't know. It's just strange how the lake seems to run dry. The bloody thing used to fill in the winter."

......


Where things went badly for the lakes this year - and in the last three years - was a lack of rain in the spring that was needed to generate run-off from the soil that had been made wet in the winter. By the end of the 2014 winter, says Mr Eldridge, the soils were saturated and had started running. If 60mls had fallen in August ``we would have filled those lakes and that's from scratch, not from being half full".
That's how it used to work - but not any more. As climate scientists have been predicting, the southern part of Australia is getting drier, not just seasonally or even in terms of chronic drought, but as a trend. ``It takes an event like this for people to realise that climate change is real."
Dr Rebecca Lester is Senior Lecturer in Freshwater Ecology at Deakin University's School of Life & Environmental Sciences. She observes that people might take false comfort from average rainfall figures not being especially dire or different to what they have known - and become confused when the environment isn't behaving as it did previously.
``It's the pattern of the rainfall that's important, not just the amount," she says.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/wher...-are-no-longer-permanent-20150214-13agyl.html

 

[Red Baron Farms]

More moisture would be better wouldn't it?

It seems though we have the cold too, which makes snow. Physics is fun!

More moisture in the air because of less moisture in the soil is most definatively not a good thing. It is a very bad thing indeed. It's a flood drought cycle you are talking about. Increasing that is NOT a good thing.

That's just one more reason to get the CO2 out of the air and back in the soil where it belongs. Not only does the carbon cycle effect changes in climate, it also effects the water cycle, which also effects the climate, nutrient cycle too. They are all interconnected.

 

[Reality Check]

.

This just in ....


Fossil Free Yale, a group pushing the university to divest itself from fossil fuels, told the Yale Daily News that frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.

The fact that weather is not climate even in bold magenta is should be obvious, Arnold Martin !

Oh the implied bold magenta ignorance, Arnold Martin. Global warming causes extreme weather to become more common. That is both droughts and precipitation, including snow storms.

There is no irony. There are groups like Fossil Free Yale, urging institutions to not use fossil fuels. That is their focus, not a personal, state or country wide divesting of the use of fossil fuels.

.

 

[Reality Check]

Hansen said (1986) USA temperatures have risen by 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and predicts they will increase by 3 or 4 more degrees by 2020


Was Hansen correct or incorrect ?

This is that Hansen was wrong climate myth that comes up every so often. As if the deniers think that one 27 year old paper being wrong means that all of climate science is wrong !
What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.

This is even worse that that myth has mutated from the science presented in 1988 to a 1986 newspaper report about Hansen's opinion. And what does that article actually say, Arnold Martin?
"Hansen said USA temperatures have risen by 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and predicts they will increase by 3 or 4 more degrees by 2020" which we cannot verify because it is not 2020!
"Hansen predicted that global temperatures would be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years", i.e. 2006. We do not know which emission scenario he was thinking about. All we can say is that the increase was actually more like 0.5 C from 1986 to 2006.

ETA: A recent paper looked at whether climate models overestimate warming: Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows

This is a re-post from Roz Pidcock at Carbon Brief

A new paper takes an in-depth look at the suggestion that climate models routinely overestimate the speed at which Earth's surface is warming - and finds the argument lacking.

A look back over the past century shows that, by and large, what we see in global average temperature is extremely well captured by models, the authors tell Carbon Brief.

The new research, a collaboration between scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany and the University of Leeds, is published today in the journal Nature.

 

[Reality Check]

-- 100 Percent of Scientists now agree that Global Warming has Stopped or Slowed Down

Sorry, Arnold Martin, but you have picked up a lie about climate science from somewhere. 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening making that 100% a lie.
The records show that global warming is actually accelerating. It is surface temperatures that have increased slower over the last couple of decades than the previous decades.


The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust.

The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.

Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

What has global warming done since 1998?

The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.

2014 is either the hottest or second hottest year on record depending on the dataset used: Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?

 

[Hercules56]

Obama had 4 years to save the Earth!!!!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

Seriously, with silly comments like the ones this guy made, why should anyone take the chicken-little predictions about climate change seriously.

When the IPCC predicts North America will get 8 degrees warmer by 2100, when we've only risen .6 degrees since 1880, why should we take the apocolyptic fear seriously?

When the IPCC claims that 2014 was the warmest year on record, knowing that it was only .02 degrees warmer than the previous record year and the margine of error is .1 degree, why should I worry about the end of the world?

 

[Wirelight]

Because if you didn't worry nobody would be making money.

 

[logger]

Unless you can cast reasonable doubt on at least one of these well established facts the conclusion that human activities have caused average global temperatures to rise is inescapable.

Well that settles it then.

 

[logger]

Yes, they do.

Bit pattern are you getting this?

Sorry its so dry in Australia, it seems we got the rain you're supposed to. Thanks.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The tropics is but one place. Warmer means longer growing seasons north, that is where warming will be beneficial...

Global warming will have a handful of benefits in a handful of places, sure. But the negatives will be greater and far more widespread. It'll be net negative for our way of life.

 

[CapelDodger]

Warmer is better than colder, wouldn't agree?

Simple-minded questions demand simple-minded answers so that isn't really my territory.

A warmer Indus Valley wouldn't be an improvement, nor a warmer Amazon, and I can't imagine many Texans being keen on the idea. Australians may be crying out for it, but so far I've not heard any. Brits maybe, but not at the price of more rain, trust me on that. We get more than enough already, thank you.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And it's always about the money when people go denialist.

 

[Reality Check]

...Warmer is better than colder, wouldn't agree?

It depends, logger.
In general warmer is not better because it provides more energy for weather leading to more extreme weather events. For example hurricanes are bad, stronger hurricanes are worse. What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity.

Likewise increasing sea levels are bad.

As far as agriculture is concerned, warming is slightly bad. The growing season changes, droughts and floods are more frequent, unknown pests and diseases can move in. So as todays conditions move north it is expensive for farmers to adjust to the new conditions but hopefully not ruinous.

 

[Hercules56]

And it's always about the money when people go denialist.

I don't think its about the money.

I think its about different things for different people.

Why does anyone consciously or inadvertantly try to make things look worse than they really are?

Politics? Power? Fame? A sense of significance? Feeling like the world is in danger and only they have the answer?

 

[logger]

It'll be net negative for our way of life.

That's interesting, good for some, not for others. Isn't that what we have currently?