• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to some science...

A new paper in GRL has indicated that the variation in Arctic sea ice is adequately explained only by the rise in CO2. Part of the reason is that the Arctic is relatively insulated from other factors by being landlocked, whereas the Antarctic is more affected by wind conditions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120502091932.htm
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1208/2012GL051094/2012GL051094.pdf

No surprise that the Arctic and Antarctic work very differently, of course. One is a landmass surrounded by ocean, the other is an ocean almost surrounded by landmass.

Averaged they clearly make a good measure of the global state, which presumably is why deniers like to add Antarctic winter-ice to Arctic summer-ice - they're averaging summer and winter as well by that, so let's call it the annual ice-extent measure, why not.

I crack myself up sometimes.
 
Real peer-review comes after publication when all of one's professional peers read through your paper and start writing letters to the journals and to you requesting clarification, justification and support for your findings.

Peer-review that will dog you for the rest of your career. It's a jungle out there, so be cautious and well-armed before you venture in.

Of course, most deniers' scientific careers are behind them and they'll put anything out for a bit of attention and maybe some extra scratch as a consultant.

Many papers that are written each year in most science fields are either challenging, or finding additional support for, previously published papers. This is how science works in an organic fashion, with ideas and evidences building upon themselves in an attempt to model and understand the universe we perceive around us. Mainstream science is the evolving composite of that process.

Absolutely. This is what makes the "house-of-cards" fallacy so laughable. Well, that and lots of other stuff.
 
Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change...

New Study completed:

"Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature"

abstract -
Global warming due to human-made gases, mainly CO2, is already 0.8°C and deleterious climate impacts are growing worldwide. More warming is 'in the pipeline' because Earth is out of energy balance, with absorbed solar energy exceeding planetary heat radiation. Maintaining a climate that resembles the Holocene, the world of stable shorelines in which civilization developed, requires rapidly reducing fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Such a scenario is economically sensible and has multiple benefits for humanity and other species. Yet fossil fuel extraction is expanding, including highly carbon-intensive sources that can push the climate system beyond tipping points such that amplifying feedbacks drive further climate change that is practically out of humanity's control. This situation raises profound moral issues as young people, future generations, and nature, with no possibility of protecting their future well-being, will bear the principal consequences of actions and inactions of today's adults.

full paper at - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha08510t.html

direct link to full paper download - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

half a trillion dollars per year in government subsidies!
 
Max to the Max!

The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology:

Victor Brovkin comes across as a reserved and patient interviewee, but on one subject he expresses himself in blunt and adamant terms: “According to all we know, man is responsible for the fact that Earth’s climate has been changing faster than ever before in recent decades. Human activity has pumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.” The level of carbon dioxide alone has increased by 40 percent since the advent of industrialization, to 0.35 per mil. This gas is generated by the burning of fossil fuels, and its concentration in the atmosphere rose very markedly during the last century. This is reflected more and more clearly by a rise in average global temperatures...

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/...time_through_climate_history_MPG_text_eng.pdf

Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) and the German Climate Computing Centre (DKRZ) have carried out new climate simulations using MPI-M's new climate model. The results indicate that the two-degree target could still be achieved if carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced significantly. Within an international model intercomparison project researchers were able to simulate the complex carbon cycle as well as vegetation dynamics in climate projections for the 21st century. In case of an increase in CO2 emissions the simulations suggest not only an increase in temperature but also a rapid progression of ocean acidification. Oceanic calcifying organisms will be particularly affected...

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/Forschung_aktuell/PDFs/1202_CMIP5_eng.pdf

... Why to simulate climate of the last millennium? “The last millennium is the best‐documented period of climate change in a multi‐century time frame. During the so‐called Medieval Climate Optimum (in Europe ca. 900 ‐1250AD) Norwegian settlers populated the West coast of Greenland. The Little Ice Age (ca. 1400‐1850 AD) was recorded by Dutch painters on paintings of frozen town canals showing ice‐skating people,” project coordinator Dr. Johann Jungclaus explains. Since reconstructions of the past climate beyond the instrumental record have to rely on relatively sparse data sources, the working group concentrates on the last millennium to better understand the processes and interaction mechanisms...

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/Forschung_aktuell/PDFs/jungclaus_DEC_2010_2.pdf

I've really got to make it a more regular practice to stay up on the Max site, they frequently bring a slightly different, if largely comparable, perspective to the considerations of climate science.
 
Good op-ed about Microsoft “supporting” Heartland. If you recall Microsoft was included in the list on companies making donations to Heartland but it turned out to be their program that gives steeply discounted software to non-profits.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/microsoft/

I’m not a fan of either Microsoft or Heartland but IMO forcing them to pick and choose which non-profits to support would be subject to far more abuse than the current system where an occasional questionable non-profit like Heartland gets some free software.
 
The whole myth among Republicans that they are better for the economy is a fact-free belief system on par with their creationism and climate science denial.
 
The Heartland Institute is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments:

We're definitely in the final throes of the First Global Warming Discussion (will it happen and what will it look like?) when deniers rely on arguments like this, or Virginia court-cases, for comfort.

The second discussion will, presumably, be about what should be done; the denier position then will naturally be "Nothing". Whether the HI survives to take part is yet to be seen, but I doubt it or at best it'll be a shadow of its current self.
 
The whole myth among Republicans that they are better for the economy is a fact-free belief system on par with their creationism and climate science denial.

Denying the liars is a tough job, but someone's got to do it. I guess that it's an easy job to defend and protect and find ways to make a buck off the liars. Is that what you think is better, to embrace the liars, become part of thm, and profit from them?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/

The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.

The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt

The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.
​

<<Note: ANOTHER path to not go down when spinning the narrative that Repubs are All-bad All-evil. Suggestion in the alternative: Babble about Big Oil, use the word "Exxon a lot">>



:)
 
Last edited:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176635&page=125

They identified a problem with the satellite temperature record put together by the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Researchers there were the first to release such a record, in 1989, and it has often been cited by climate change skeptics to cast doubt on models that show the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.

...
When they applied their correction to the Alabama-Huntsville climate record for a UW-derived tropospheric temperature measurement, it effectively eliminated differences with the other studies.
Scientists already had noticed that there were issues with the way the Alabama researchers handled data from NOAA-9, one satellite that collected temperature data for a short time in the mid-1980s. But Po-Chedley and Fu are the first to offer a calculation related to the NOAA-9 data for adjusting the Alabama findings, said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
"It should therefore make for a better record, as long as UAH accepts it," he said.
 
...http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/

The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.​


SRGJAN KERIM is a Macedonian diplomat with a doctorates in economics, I'm not sure of his qualifications to make such a statement, much less the support he uses for that assertion, but I'm sure we can look into who he is referring to when he states that "...it had been estimated..."

The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.

The statement of areas impacted by climate change is global, saying that some low lying areas will be especially hard hit, does not mean that they will be the only areas impacted or even the only areas hit hard. This seems to be a shifting of goal posts from the generalities being actually spoken about to a conflation of some of the mentioned areas with the totality of migration.

The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available...

Looks to me like Dr Kerim was not limiting his considerations or statements to the effects upon any single Caribbean island (which stands to reason given that no Carribean island has a population of 50 Million, much less 200 Million people).

What Scientific Support Actually Looks Like:

"An Ill Wind? Climate Change, Migration, and Health" - http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1104375

Conclusion
If climate change continues on its current trajectory, then an increase in the numbers of displaced people over the coming decades is likely. Although the range and extent of health risks associated with future climate-related population movements cannot be clearly foreseen, the evidence of health outcomes of analogous movements of people indicates that health risks will predominate over health benefits. This, then, is an issue of considerable geopolitical, ethical, and economic importance...

...Climate change mitigation, through reduction of greenhouse gas concentrations, is the primary aim for governments and communities. A fuller understanding of the range of risks posed by climate change to human well-being and health, including the health of those involved in climate-related migration, could strengthen the resolve of the international community to take effective mitigation action to abate climate change. Yet, because climate change is already occurring and at least some future temperature changes are already “locked in,” adaptive strategies are also required to protect against increasing risks to human health and the adverse effects of climate-related migration and displacement. Through deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions, together with comprehensive socioecological adaptation strategies, adverse climate-related migration and health outcomes could be greatly reduced.

"Climate Change, Crop Yields, and Internal Migration in the United States" - http://www.nber.org/papers/w17734

We investigate the link between agricultural productivity and net migration in the United States using a county-level panel for the most recent period of 1970-2009. In rural counties of the Corn Belt, we find a statistically significant relationship between changes in net outmigration and climate-driven changes in crop yields, with an estimated semi-elasticity of about -0.17, i.e., a 1% decrease in yields leads to a 0.17% net reduction of the population through migration. This effect is primarily driven by young adults. We do not detect a response for senior citizens, nor for the general population in eastern counties outside the Corn Belt. Applying this semi-elasticity to predicted yield changes under the B2 scenario of the Hadley III model, we project that, holding other factors constant, climate change would on average induce 3.7% of the adult population (ages 15-59) to leave rural counties of the Corn Belt in the medium term (2020-2049) compared to the 1960-1989 baseline, with the possibility of a much larger migration response in the long term (2077-2099). Since there is uncertainty about future warming, we also present projections for a range of uniform climate change scenarios in temperature or precipitation.

"Weather-Related Disasters and International Migration" - http://umdcipe.org/conferences/Maastricht/conf_papers/Papers/Effects of Natural Disasters.pdf

Introduction
Since the 1930s, weather-related disasters have led to substantial periods of internal migration in many countries. The drought and dust bowl conditions of the 1930s led to the migration of nearly three million people from the Great Plains of the US and Canada. Many migrated within and from Florida due to Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the hurricanes of 2004. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita displaced nearly two million people in and from Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, many of whom have not returned to their homes. Millions migrated within Bangladesh and the Philippines, and nearly ten million have migrated in Africa’s Sahel region alone. While these cases and a number of others are stark and well documented, the implications for international migration remain largely unstudied. Studies have observed some cases in which weather-related disasters played a role in cross-border migration, but it is unclear whether the disasters play a general or anecdotal role in international migration....

many more available, we can discuss in properly nuanced terms about the tens of millions of climate migrants there have already been as people with money and means have over the last several decades begun an exodus from the areas already severely degraded by climate change issues, or we can twist and distort facts until they are meaningless and hurl rhetorical misdirections at each other while Rome burns, I've little interest in the latter and will leave that for those with that penchant. I am more than interested, however in discussing the actual problems we face and the public policy steps we can take to address those problems.​
 
Denying the liars is a tough job, but someone's got to do it. I guess that it's an easy job to defend and protect and find ways to make a buck off the liars. Is that what you think is better, to embrace the liars, become part of thm, and profit from them?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/

As one would expect from WattsUpMyButt, they don't tell an accurate story.

This is what the UN document says :

"SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010."
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10725.doc.htm

The question becomes, then : are there 50+ million cllimate refugees in the world?

Watts prefers to pretend that it applies only to certain areas, and gives us this :

The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.

The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available.

No consideration given to internal displacement, but that would be a tad deep for Watts. In his world there were no climate migrants during the Dustbowl years because the US population continued to grow.

Bangladesh's population has continued to grow, but not all of Bangladesh is in the delta and there has been internal displacement towards higher ground. (Some displaced have spilled into India built they've got a fence up now; they have problems of their own). That'll be in the millions.

There are millions in Africa. Millions in the Americas due to drought. Millions more in China, and then there's the rest of Asia. Fifty-plus million doesn't sound outrageous at all.


Watts gets traditionally phobic about the UN :

"Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt

The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

Follow the link and you'll find this is just one US American rightwinger pressing the UN button they all seem to share. (The same kind of Brits have a Europe button, and they're just as peculiar.)

<<Note: ANOTHER path to not go down when spinning the narrative that Repubs are All-bad All-evil. Suggestion in the alternative: Babble about Big Oil, use the word "Exxon a lot">>

It must be a grave disappointment to you that we don't do that, and aren't likely to start now. There are RINO's amongst us for all you know.

Sometimes we get people here babbling about Virginia court-cases or the UN or the lamentable data-security of the Heatland Institute. Some of them may be Republicans, but I doubt they're all evil.

maxpower used "Republican" where I'd use "US loony-right", but there's no very obvious distinction these days. That's a victory for the denialist project : to have actually captured one of the two US political parties just as denialism becomes a leper's bell.
 
Does A Clean Energy Standard Have Any Chance In Congress?

"Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard" - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1527.html

In 2010 and 2011, Republicans and Democrats proposed mandating clean power generation in the electricity sector1, 2, 3. To evaluate public support for a national clean energy standard (NCES), we conducted a nationally representative survey that included randomized treatments on the sources of eligible power generation and programme costs. We find that the average US citizen is willing to pay US$162 per year in higher electricity bills (95% confidence interval: US$128–260), representing a 13% increase4, in support of a NCES that requires 80% clean energy by 2035. Support for a NCES is lower among non-whites, older individuals and Republicans. We also employ our statistical model, along with census data for each state and Congressional district5, to simulate voting behaviour on a NCES by Members of Congress assuming they vote consistently with the preferences of their median voter. We estimate that Senate passage of a NCES would require an average household cost below US$59 per year, and House passage would require costs below US$48 per year. The results imply that an ‘80% by 2035’ NCES could pass both chambers of Congress if it increases electricity rates less than 5% on average...

(copy of full report available from Dr. Kotchen's university homepage - http://environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/NCES.pdf )
 
Environmental Challenge

Our environmental challenge
Posted on May 15, 2012 by Southeast Alaska Catholic newspaper
By BISHOP EDWARD J. BURNS

...A working group of internationally renowned glaciologists, climate scientists, meteorologists, hydrologists, physicists, chemists and other scientists came together at the Vatican for two days in April 2011 to present scientific papers on the worldwide phenomenon of melting mountain glaciers and to make recommendations regarding the risks and threats of climate change.

The report noted that the widespread loss of glaciers, ice and snow on the mountains is taking place on a global scale at a rapid rate which provides some of the clearest evidence available for a change in the climate system. The major causes appear to be rising temperatures because of greenhouse gases combined with large-scale emissions of dark soot particles and dust that cover glaciers and icefields which then absorb rather than reflect sunlight.

The Vatican working group made the following recommendations:

• Immediately reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide by employing renewal energy resources, addressing deforestation and increasing reforestation and employing technologies that “draw down excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

• Cut heat-absorbing pollutants like soot, methane and hydroflourocarbons by 50 percent.

• Adopt international policies to help countries to assess and adapt to the environmental and social impacts that climate change will bring...
 
North America Will Be 4.5 Degrees Warmer by 2070, Study Suggests
by LiveScience StaffDate:
15 May 2012 Time: 12:13 PM ET

...That Canadian Hudson Bay region is likely to experience the biggest change over the winter, with temperatures estimated to rise an average of about 10.7 F (6 C), possibly because ice reflects less energy away from the Earth’s surface as it melts. Hudson Bay summers, on the other hand, are estimated to experience only an increase of about 2.1 F (1.2 C), meaning larger swings each year.

The Midwest and Great Lakes regions will experience a rise in temperature of about 5 F (2.8 C), regardless of season. The Rocky Mountains region shows greater projected increases in the summer — 6.3 F (3.5 C) — than in the winter — 4.1 F (2.3 C).

See these maps of their results to see how your region’s temperature will likely change by 2070.

http://www.livescience.com/20321-north-america-4-5-degrees-warmer-2070.html

http://www.stat.osu.edu/~sses/collab_warming.html
 
skeptical experts outnumberd by the opposite extreme?

At a small political meeting I intend to begin a speech:

“fewer than three percent of the top climatologists think the IPCC report was too “alarmist.” Their voices, though few, are widely heard. But at least x per cent of top climatologists think that the IPCC report was too conservative. Although global catastrophe is not imminent, according to these scientists , the decisions that may avert global catastrophe have to be taken very soon........”


I would like a definite order of magnitude for x. My authority for the three per cent extreme skeptics is Anderegg, Schneider and Jacobson. It is in line with other studies. Counting and measuring and defining expert opinion must always involve some spurious exactitude, of course, but that is the number thrown up by the most objective study I have been able to locate. My faith in Anderegg s is fortified by the feebleness of the only objections I have been able to locate (Bodenstein, Aarstad, Pielke pere et fils). If Anderegg et al have counted the peer review papers correctly the objection must be that masses of valid papers have been uncounted because unpublished. Such a massive subversion of peer review would surely leave a massive trail of evidence. It such a trail existed it would not have been necessary to create such a mountainous fuss over the molehill known as Climategate

The MIT Joint program and some NASA scientists are among the extreme “alarmists” whose findings I intend to report. Any others?
 
"Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard" - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1527.html

(copy of full report available from Dr. Kotchen's university homepage - http://environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/NCES.pdf )

"We also employ our statistical model, along with census data for each state and Congressional district5, to simulate voting behaviour on a NCES by Members of Congress assuming they vote consistently with the preferences of their median voter.

"All models are wrong but some are useful", the saying goes, and I don't see that model as one of the useful ones, frankly. It's a rare Republican Member who'd vote for a National Clean Energy Standard, and no Republican President would sign off on one in the near future.

If Obama gets a second term, the Democrats recapture the House, and they get a filibuster-proof Senate majority then we may see one in the next few years. Otherwise, fuggedaboudit.
 
At a small political meeting I intend to begin a speech:

“fewer than three percent of the top climatologists think the IPCC report was too “alarmist.” Their voices, though few, are widely heard. But at least x per cent of top climatologists think that the IPCC report was too conservative. Although global catastrophe is not imminent, according to these scientists , the decisions that may avert global catastrophe have to be taken very soon........”


I would like a definite order of magnitude for x.

Can't help you there, I'm afraid. I do know that the effects of AGW have developed more quickly than the "best guesses" of the 2007 IPCC Report - not in surface temperatures (the usual focus of the "dissident" scientific fringe) but in droughts, downpours, ice-loss and ecosphere change (pine-bark beetle infestations and the like).

My authority for the three per cent extreme skeptics is Anderegg, Schneider and Jacobson. It is in line with other studies. Counting and measuring and defining expert opinion must always involve some spurious exactitude, of course, but that is the number thrown up by the most objective study I have been able to locate.

This study is based on published papers, I assume? One problem there is that scientific papers are not where opinions expressed in such terms - "alarmist", "conservative" - are normally found. Peer-review should weed them out.

My faith in Anderegg s is fortified by the feebleness of the only objections I have been able to locate (Bodenstein, Aarstad, Pielke pere et fils).

I make the same inference. The lameness and incoherence of the so-called scientific critique of mainstream science speaks volumes. It's also worth noting that the term "alarmist" (in whatever language) is commonly used by almost all the dissidents in their public utterances.

If Anderegg et al have counted the peer review papers correctly the objection must be that masses of valid papers have been uncounted because unpublished. Such a massive subversion of peer review would surely leave a massive trail of evidence. It such a trail existed it would not have been necessary to create such a mountainous fuss over the molehill known as Climategate

You're never going to buy a conspiracy theory, are you? :)

The MIT Joint program and some NASA scientists are among the extreme “alarmists” whose findings I intend to report. Any others?

You could try the US Military http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf.

"Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to
food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil
authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas. In some nations, the military is the only institution with the capacity to respond to a large-scale natural disaster. Proactive engagement with these countries can help build their capability to respond to such events. Working closely with relevant U.S. departments and agencies, DoD has undertaken environmental security cooperative initiatives with foreign militaries that represent a nonthreatening way of building trust, sharing best practices on installations management and operations, and developing response capacity."

(I do like "nonthreatening way of building trust", as distinct, presumably, from the other kind. The military-bureaucrat's mind is truly a thing of wonder.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom