Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
NOAA's report for May is up: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201505

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for May in the 136-year period of record, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.08°C (0.14°F).
Click to expand...

The first five months of 2015 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.09°C (0.16°F).
Click to expand...
 
Puppycow said:
Number of papers is not the same as number of scientists.
Click to expand...


Yes, but the 97% number frequently mentioned is actually the number of "abstracts expressing a position on AGW" that "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." (source)

The "97%" was never the percentage of climate scientists.

According to The Consensus Project (click "About" at the top of the site), of "the 10,188 scientists" who authored the abstracts looked at in the above study, "98.4% endorse the consensus". People have been low-balling. :)
 
Last edited:
On attribution:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/22/3672526/extreme-weather-climate-change-study/

But a new study, published in Nature Climate Change, argues that shortcomings in the understanding of how climate change and atmospheric circulation interact shouldn’t stop us from asking a different question: did climate change play a part in worsening the weather event, even if it would have occurred without climate change?

“Assume that that weather system would have occurred anyway,” Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist with the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an author of the study, told the Washington Post, “and then ask the question how the change in the environment affected the outcome, in particular through higher temperatures, greater rainfalls, more rapid drying in the case of the drought — and these things are answerable.”

To look at how an extreme weather event might have been influenced by climate change, Trenberth and his colleagues set aside atmospheric circulation dynamics to look at another part of atmospheric science: thermodynamics, which is how moisture and temperature interact. Thermodynamics says that hot temperatures lead to greater evaporation of moisture, and hot air can also hold more moisture. This is why scientists think that with climate change, extreme precipitation events are going to become more common — the atmosphere, as it warms, will simply be able to hold more moisture that can come down as rain or snow.
In understanding how a specific weather event is related to climate change, Trenberth and his colleagues present a few questions researchers might ask, such as:
  • Given a particular weather pattern, how were the temperatures, precipitation, and associated impacts influenced by climate change?
  • Given a drought, how was the drying enhanced by climate change and how did that influence the moisture deficits and dryness of the soils, and the wildfire risk? Did it lead to a more intense and perhaps longer-lasting drought, as is likely?
  • Given a flood, where did the moisture come from? Was it enhanced by high ocean temperatures that might have had a climate change component?
  • Given a heat wave, how was that influenced by drought, changes in precipitation, and extra heat from global warming?
  • Given extreme snow, where did the moisture come from? Was it related to higher than normal surface sea temperatures off the coast or father afield?
  • Given an extreme storm, how was it influenced by anomalous surface sea temperatures and ocean heat content, anomalous moisture transports into the storm, and associated rainfall and latent heating? Was a storm surge worse because of higher sea levels?
Click to expand...

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...PWWv&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

There is a tremendous desire to attribute causes to weather and climate events that is often challenging from a physical standpoint. Headlines attributing an event solely to either human-induced climate change or natural variability can be mis-leading when both are invariably in play. The conventional attribution framework struggles with dynamically driven extremes because of the small signal-to-noise ratios and often uncertain nature of the forced changes. Here, we suggest that a differ-ent framing is desirable, which asks why such extremes unfold the way they do. Specifically, we suggest that it is more use-ful to regard the extreme circulation regime or weather event as being largely unaffected by climate change, and question whether known changes in the climate system’s thermodynamic state affected the impact of the particular event. Some exam-ples briefly illustrated include ‘snowmaggedon’ in February 2010, superstorm Sandy in October 2012 and supertyphoon Haiyan in November 2013,and, in more detail, the Boulder floods of September 2013, all of which were influenced by high sea surface temperatures that had a discernible human component
Click to expand...
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
According to The Consensus Project (click "About" at the top of the site), of "the 10,188 scientists" who authored the abstracts looked at in the above study, "98.4% endorse the consensus". People have been low-balling. :)
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah I linked recently to the newest study which indicates better than a 99.9% IIRC,...

Ah, Here it is

It turns out the climate change deniers were right: There isn’t 97% agreement among climate scientists. The real figure? It’s not lower, but actually higher.

The scientific “consensus” on climate change has gotten stronger, surging past the famous — and controversial — figure of 97% to more than 99.9%,...
Click to expand...

link to study - http://jamespowell.org/Piecharts/Original study/originaltsudy.html

(24+2)/(13950+10885) = .0010 0r roughly 99.9% agreement with mainstream climate science understandings.
 
I hope The Atheist reads this

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...llion-meet-greenhouse-gas-reduction-goals.htm

China is going a bit overboard in realizing an environmental goal that aims to mitigate climate change. Asia's Sleeping Giant is set to carry out certain measures to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals, and the nation is planning on spending about $6.6 trillion for it.

NBC News has learned that China is laying out its plans in late June, alongside its plan of taking active part in the United Nations' climate negotiations. China's National Development and Reform Commission representative Xie Zhenhua admitted that the country's bold move is "quite ambitious" given that China is apparently the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...
 
China To Spend $6.6 Trillion To Meet Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals is a bit of science with a lot of politics.
The political part is the timing of the announcement to be just before the United Nations' climate negotiations and the commitment to climate change mitigation that the spending implies.
The science part is how the money is going to be spent to reduce CO2 emissions which has not been detailed yet.

The Atheist: Can you cite the mathematics to back up "mathematically it doesn't stack"?

ETA:
The estimates that I have seen are costs of ~1% reduction of global GNP, e.g.
According to estimates presented by the 2006 Stern Review, climate change could cause a 5 percent reduction in the global GNP, whereas only 1 percent of global GNP would be needed to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions.
The article does not state a timescale for that 6.6 trillion spend but Earlier this month, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang reaffirmed the government's commitment to hit a carbon emissions peak by "around 2030." which is 15 years away or 0.44 trillion dollars a year. In 2013 China's GNP was 16 trillion dollars as far as I can find out.
Thus I get about 3% of China's GNP being spent on CO2 emission reduction - well above that which is thought to be needed.
ETA: I suspect that the timescale goes past 2030 since China should not stop spending money on CO2 reduction as soon as they stabilize. But these numbers suggest that they can do this for the next 75 years and still spend more than enough of their GNP annually to achieve the goal of stabilization.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The Atheist: Can you cite the mathematics to back up "mathematically it doesn't stack"?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I do feel forced to reiterate this point - I've already been yellow carded in this thread and would very much like to avoid a repeat:

The Atheist said:
You'd need to start a different thread in Business to get into that discussion, because it sure ain't science.
Click to expand...

I have no further comment and you are welcome to PM me a link.
 
The Atheist said:
Sure did.

I stated all the way through that China's is making an effort.

However, the bad news is on that particular plan is that, mathematically it doesn't stack up and it's entirely a political document. You'd need to start a different thread in Business to get into that discussion, because it sure ain't science.
Click to expand...

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than building empty cities in the middle of nowhere.
 
bit_pattern said:
You guys are going to LOVE this awesome infographic

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Click to expand...
I do, for one.

Some may like this court ruling

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling


A court in The Hague has ordered the Dutch government to cut its emissions by at least 25% within five years, in a landmark ruling expected to cause ripples around the world.

To cheers and hoots from climate campaigners in court, three judges ruled that government plans to cut emissions by just 14-17% compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were unlawful, given the scale of the threat posed by climate change.
Click to expand...
First the Pope, now this, all leading up to Paris - it's as if some shadowy body was orchestrating events from behind the scenes. As they do. :cool:

ETA : thinking of court rulings, anyone heard anything on Mann v Steyn recently?
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
I do, for one.

Some may like this court ruling

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling


First the Pope, now this, all leading up to Paris - it's as if some shadowy body was orchestrating events from behind the scenes. As they do. :cool:

ETA : thinking of court rulings, anyone heard anything on Mann v Steyn recently?
Click to expand...

And that makes two that have been swooped, I guess someone has already beaten me to the new U.S./China deal on the oceans (focus on new marine preserve in Antarctica) too?

(You guys took the best two! :) )
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/...20150624316349.html?CP.rss=true#axzz3e5h3Yfv7

Today, leaders of maritime agencies from the United States and China met to strengthen their commitments – nationally, bilaterally, and internationally – to a conservation-minded approach to the ocean. The United States and China committed to combatting global climate change, ocean acidification, unsustainable fishing, marine pollution, and marine litter. The bilateral maritime agenda is broad and an increasingly important part of the bilateral relationship. The Pacific Ocean is both an area of differences – on issues like the South China Sea disputes – as well as an area for meaningful efforts to overcome challenges. The United States and China recognized their essential leadership roles in ensuring the long-term sustainability and health of the ocean, which plays a vital role in our nations’ prosperity and that of the world as a whole.

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/...20150624316349.html?CP.rss=true#ixzz3e5hHn5iH
Click to expand...
 
Climate change is almost incidental to the parlous state of our oceans. Industrialised fishing, litter, pollution, agricultural run-off, it's abuse on an epic scale and can only end in an "oh crap" moment to end them all. Literally.
 
bit_pattern said:
Pretty sure something came up in my Twitter feed in the last 24 hours - didn't click through though
Click to expand...
The wheels of the court turn slowly, and it was ever thus apparently. It promises great entertainment if it ever does get a date in the courtroom especially if Steyn is, as reported, intending to represent himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom