Real World Effects Of Climate Change
Two articles today about the changes that can be directly attributed to climate change. From Australia:
The savage heat waves that struck Australia last year were almost certainly a direct consequence of greenhouse gases released by human activity, researchers said Monday. It is perhaps the most definitive statement climate scientists have made tying a specific weather event to global warming.
And from the Virginia housing market:
Click here for reuse options!About a quarter of properties in Norfolk – just over 17,000 – are in high-risk flood plains, with values totaling 34 percent of the tax base, according to city figures.
The number of homes that repeatedly flood, so-called “repetitive loss” properties, has increased from about 200 in 2002 to almost 900 today, said Lenny Newcomb, the city’s zoning administrator.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
211 responses to Real World Effects Of Climate Change
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bob Cronos September 30th, 2014 at 19:33
“… the most definitive statement climate scientists have made tying a specific weather event to global warming..” —
“Scientists used to say that individual weather events — a specific
hurricane or flood, for example — cannot be attributed to climate
change.” —
So which is it?
Bunya September 30th, 2014 at 21:32
Neither, of course. Droughts, floods, hurricanes; they’re all just Jesus’ way of punishing all the Muslims and non-believers out there.
Bob Cronos October 1st, 2014 at 00:17
If you say so…
fahvel October 1st, 2014 at 02:27
good one B!
fancypants October 1st, 2014 at 04:14
its not true until your on a network and making money while spreading all kinds of fear.
wait in line
Glen September 30th, 2014 at 23:47
An “individual weather event” covers things like hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, floods, etc. Heat waves, cold snaps, and the like are longer-term events, directly associated with temperature/energy, and can occur in specific locations due to changes in climate. So both are true, at this point in time.
That being said, it is possible that climate change will result in changes in climate structure (such as the Gulf Stream) that mean that events like hurricanes occur in places they never used to. So the accurate way to view things is that scientists had not observed any significant changes in climate structure that were causing new phenomena, and now they’re more willing to identify specific events because they’re observing structural changes to the earth’s climate.
Bob Cronos October 1st, 2014 at 00:08
“that events like hurricanes occur in places they never used to…” — The ocean used to cover Utah and 20k years ago NY was covered in ice 2 miles deep… The climate changes… get used to it and enjoy the warmer weather while you can…
Obewon October 1st, 2014 at 00:44
In 2 centuries CO2 skyrocketed +40% to 400 PPM in 2014. For 1.3 M years+ CO2 was “about 278 PPM” until ‘human burning fossil fuels causes 80% of modern Global Warming, with human deforestation causing 20% of GW temperature rises’-NASA!
Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
Mike Butkus Jr. October 1st, 2014 at 10:14
You can rub BC nose in facts all day long and it wont do any good. He’s a FOX lap dog.
raincheck October 8th, 2014 at 06:46
Bad BC bad!!….no biscuit!!
Bob Cronos October 2nd, 2014 at 00:08
So? Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas… Where’s that time history?
Robert M. Snyder October 2nd, 2014 at 00:48
“In 2 centuries CO2 skyrocketed +45%”
In those same 2 centuries, world population skyrocketed +600%. It was about 1 billion in 1800, and is about 7 billion today.
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:05
YEP! CO2 has gone to 400ppm. And global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant surface warming for over 17 years.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 13:16
You’re well proven 100% Wrong with each post! A new LL troll record! “The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.”-POTUS Obama 2013 SOTU. Data from NASA shows 13 of the hottest years on record have come in the last 15, and by a different data set produced by NOAA, 14 of the hottest years on record have come in the last 15. Obama was actually over-cautious in his statement, so we rate his statement True.-NASA, NOAA, UK MET, et al verified by nonpartisan Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/
FYI> Goddard Institute, told PolitiFact that the institute’s data produces the following ranking of hottest years. Items on the same line are statistically tied.
1-2: 2010, 2005
3-8: 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009
9-12: 2012, 2011, 2001, 2004
13: 2008
14: 1997
15: 1995
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:00
And yet…. a graph of the mean shows a flat graph. AND the pro warming scientists state that there is a “pause.”
Take it up with them.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 16:11
And yet your parroting GOP leader Rusty the racist proves why you’re always wrong e.g. facts prove earth temps already rose +2 F curently rising +.4 C, and on track as forecast to continue rising +7.3 F this century!
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:18
Looking at the big picture is not what climate deniers want to see. They want to cherry pick certain dates out where they can draw a flat line graph. The art of mis-information is the trolls stock and trade. I don’t think cargosquid will ever offer any useful information. All they want to do is distract with deception and omission.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:34
Oh..you mean like starting warming graphs at the coldest points. Adjusting data to fit the theory. Picking certain dates to accentuate warming. Inputting data that will ONLY lead to a model showing warming. ….That sort of thing.
We actually START the graph at the current day and work backwards, We find no warming. The upward slant stopped at 1998.
I can tell, though, that pointing out the problems in the global warming assertions here will be considered to be heresy instead of discussion.
Your idea of “useful information” seems to be anything that remotely promotes the AGW theory. If I’m deceiving…. prove it.
Omission…you mean like those saying West Antarctica is going to “collapse”, but ignore the discovery that the area in question is geothermally active, including MULTIPLE volcanoes under the ice?
And this is not an insult. But when you say things like this: “All they want to do is distract with deception and omission.”, you come across like Paul the Apostle warning about “false teachings.”
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:20
I notice that you have posted no link to support your statistics.
Earth temps have risen +2 degrees F? And will rise +7.3? I would love to see your source. Also, you are mixing F and C, which do you want to use.
We are not rising at .4 C per year. There is no atmospheric warming.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 17:36
Anybody but you CargoSquid knows the above facts as agreed to by 97% of Earth’s Climatologists, NASA, NOAA, MET, UN IPPC, et al. I Updated the above with 1 of many links for you and Part 2>
Graphic “NOAA-2012” ‘Sea Level Rise Scenarios’ As also linked above and below: Additional Sources include: “Much higher projections than IPCC are also a consistent feature of more recent assessments published since 2007, e.g. the Antarctic Science Report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, the Arctic Report of AMAP and the recent World Bank Report. Higher projections are also commonly used in coastal planning, e.g. in the Netherlands, in California and North Carolina, and included in the recommendations of the US Army Corps of Engineers. And last month NOAA published the following new sea-level scenarios for the US National Climate Assessment: – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-we-stand-at-the-start-of-2013/#sthash.ApZeAXoI.dpuf ” Why doesn’t SquidCargo know anything accurate?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 17:59
What I object to is our assertion that we will rise 7+ degrees when reality does not show that. The IPCC’s worst case project was that high.
Hard to have an increase in temp when there’s no warming.
I like your link for sea level rise. Of course, that is not the correct theory but just ONE theory. Even that person states that there are scientists that disagree… By the way…you state that NOAA published that last month. That is a realclimate blog post from January 2013.
Here is some discussion on that actual NOAA report, with links and data. Have fun.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/latest-noaa-mean-sea-level-trend-data-through-2013-confirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/
Excerpt:
UN IPCC AR5 WGI claims of increasing rates of sea level rise from 1971 to 2010 are unsupported
The UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report claims that:
“It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level
rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2010, and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.” (3)
As discussed in detail below the latest mean sea level rise trend
data from NOAA simply does not support IPCC assertions that mean sea level rise trends are increasing since 1971. The IPCC report describes the fact that individual location tide gauge measurement values can vary significantly from global average values (4) generally because of the consequences of location specific topography and geology related impacts.
But what the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report completely fails to address is the fact that the long duration period NOAA mean sea level trend data behavior represent constant and unchanging linear records over time which present major challenges to IPCC claims of increasing sea level rise rates since 1971. The NOAA data is simply unsupportive of IPCC claims of increasing rates of sea level rise in recent decades.
While you may disagree with me, Watts, and the above, at least there is an argument with evidence presented.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 18:22
Ex- Weather-guy Watt’s isn’t a climatologist, Watt’s has no degree and Watt;s never graduated. LOL! No wonder you’re so errant and s l o w. . . .
“Climate model projections were summarized in the 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario using stringent mitigation and 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) for their highest.[14] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[#15][#16]”-Start by clicking on these citations embedded herein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
[#15]Schneider Von Deimling, Thomas; Held, Ganopolski, Rahmstorf (2006). “Climate sensitivity estimated from ensemble simulations of glacial climate”. Climate Dynamics27 (2–3): 149. Bibcode:2006ClDy…27..149S.doi:10.1007/s00382-006-0126-8. CiteSeerX:10.1.1.172.3264. [#16]Jump up^ Meehl et al., Chap. 10: Global Climate Projections,Section 10.5: Quantifying the Range of Climate Change, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.
Then maybe you can work your way up to (970K links https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS378US378&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=NASA%20climate%20indicators ) E.g. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ & NASA, http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ And NOAA! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ <-"Human Influence" NOAA Top 10 proofs of Global Warming. http://cpo.noaa.gov/warmingworld/
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:30
Watts didn’t write the article.
Go read it.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 20:58
I & 97% of climatoligist debunked your Watt’s linked delusional-disorder paranoids long ago. See a Dr about your mental HC needs.
cargosquid October 15th, 2014 at 01:11
Riiight… except that this is a new report on NOAA. NOAA is saying something that sheds light on the IPCC.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 18:03
1. “Small Islands – IPCC” ipcc-Oct 28, 2013 wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap29_FGDall.pdf
2. “the second assessment report on the influence of climate http://typhooncommittee.org/docs/publications/ESCAPWMOTD_0004.pdf “-December 2012
3. “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf
R.J. Carter October 14th, 2014 at 16:23
Out of scientific curiosity, what were the last 15 coldest years on record for the last 100 years?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:34
From the chart here https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years it looks like they were all around 1910. https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:36
Btw…. did you notice the blue line about 2000 onwards.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:58
Interesting isn’t it. It correlates with the time frame in which glaciers all over the planet have been melting at record rates. I wonder if that is what is absorbing the extra heat? Well, that and the oceans. What happens when the ice is melted and there is nothing left to absorb the heat? Do you think air temps will continue like nothing has happened?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:23
It is interesting. It shows no increasing heat.
Have we warmed?
Yes.
Are we warming? No.
What happens when the ice melts? Are you saying that we don’t have any observable heating in the atmosphere because suddenly the ice is hiding it by melting?
As for the future, I have no idea what it holds. At the present, we have no observable warming, and that pause was not in any of the oh so correct models.
But let’s agree. Say that there IS global warming. AND its caused by manmade CO2.
Please tell me how you stop producing CO2? China will not stop. The western world will not go back to third world status. The third world will demand better energy sources. Industrial agriculture is the only viable way to feed the world’s billions and that is the main cause of methane.
In the meantime, the only viable alternatives to oil are being demonized. Nukes are anathema. Natural gas, once touted as a green source is no longer loved.
Solar and batteries demand heavy industry to be built. Both use rare earth elements, primarily mined in China, using fossil fuels and then shipped here using fossil fuels. Neither of those things will power a city reliably.
I actually support alternative sources of energy. I’m a use it all person. If there is a viable market and supply….use it.
But only a society based on free enterprise and made rich by such will be able to take care of the environment. And without a plentiful fuel source, we ALL die freezing in the dark.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 18:58
R.J. ‘Earth’s coldest 15 years since 1880’ 37+Years ago predates 1976 & Here’s why: -NOAA Global Highlights: The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20thcentury—1998—was warmer than 2013. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 15:35
Doesn’t look like it to me. http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/index_ds.php#
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:45
Funny….. climate scientists are saying that there has been no significant warming for over 17 years….. and are trying to explain it by saying the heat went somewhere else.
And now you use one day’s anomaly to disprove the pro-warming position that there is a pause?
Amazing.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 15:55
It is pretty much like that everyday. Amazing that all you can do is deny, deny, deny.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:58
Yep..amazing. Yet..I’m not the one denying anything. I’m AGREEING with the pro warming scientists that there is, in fact, a “pause,” to use THEIR term.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:08
A pause in the air temp warming quickly as the ice melts and the oceans warm is not good. Air temp is still warming on overall trend. We are do for a spike in temps though. I wonder what the climate deniers will say then?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:39
Well, if the upcoming El Nino doesn’t spike temps….what will you guys say?
If you can produce a theory that actually matches real world conditions… and predict what is happening…. then WE would have to reexamine OUR statements. So far, however, the AGW theory has not been presented as a falsifiable theory. Everything that points out where it has failed… is ignored as “disinformation.”
Glen October 14th, 2014 at 20:10
That’s actually the problem. If you look at natural climate cycles, there should be warming and cooling patterns. Now we have faster warming during the warming part of the cycle, and no cooling at all during the cooling part of the cycle.
And you do understand that surface temperature isn’t the only part of the climate, right? Surface warming has remained mostly steady… and in the meantime, ocean temperatures, especially in the pacific, have risen. This is caused by the La Nina part of the Southern Oscillation, which causes certain flow patterns that drive the heat deeper into the ocean, thus cooling the surface but warming the ocean. La Nina causes cooling, El Nino causes warming. So why is it that we haven’t seen any cooling under La Nina, and what happens when El Nino kicks back in, which is due this year or next year?
I’m going to put this here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:24
There are many…which natural cycle are you talking about?
fahvel October 1st, 2014 at 02:26
not a very bright light in this warming planet are you? It won’t shrivel you to a prune (brain may already be there) but what about the kids and their kids and then theirs?
mea_mark October 1st, 2014 at 09:22
Obviously he doesn’t care about them. It is all about me, right now, for BC. Ignorance is bliss.
Bob Cronos October 1st, 2014 at 23:52
Why are you always bad mouthing me behind my back? You enjoy all the same benefits of a first world life that I do…
What are you willing to give up? That internet connection perhaps? Fresh food? Great coffee? World class healthcare? Subsidized transportation? That computer you’re using? Heat in the winter?
How do YOU think WE should live?
Bob Cronos October 1st, 2014 at 23:19
I figure they’ll have nicer tans, lower heating bills and flying cars…
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:06
Please point out in our world’s history where a warm planet was bad for humans.
We’ll wait.
Glen October 1st, 2014 at 14:11
You do understand the difference between 20k years and 50 years, right?
Your argument is roughly the equivalent of saying that, since small, natural, lightning-caused fires happen, it’s therefore OK for an arsonist to burn down an entire forest using large amounts of kerosene to ensure maximal damage. The scale, the speed, the overall level of damage, and the cause are all very different, and therefore it is simply absurd to ignore the arsonist’s actions on the basis of “fires happen”.
Kind of like how, if you expose insects to low levels of pesticide over a long period of time, they eventually, through a selection process, end up developing an immunity to that pesticide… yet if you dose them with massive amounts in one hit, they all die. The rate at which something happens is relevant.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:04
What a wonderful paragraph that said nothing. I applaud you.
They are more willing to point at whatever might convince people that don’t remember the previous statements of these scientists.
There have been no structural changes that can be proven to be caused by anything other than natural occurrence.
Glen October 14th, 2014 at 19:20
The fact that you did not understand what it said does not mean it said nothing. And I always find it fascinating when amateurs try to assert “facts” based on nothing but their own personal beliefs (I’ve got a PhD, specialising in fluid dynamics, heat transfer, and evaporation).
Perhaps it would help you to understand what the difference is between “weather” and “climate”. In very simplified terms, “weather” is what happens on a particular day in a particular location. Hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods are “weather”. “Climate” is patterns over long periods of time, and covers such things as El Nino and La Nina, frequency and strength of weather events, and global weather dynamics (such as the aforementioned Gulf Stream).
Beyond that, science never just takes something as fact. It’s always checking and rechecking. Scientists had a certain level of understanding of the climate 20 years ago. They had a better understanding 10 years ago. They have an even better understanding now. No weather events could be specifically tied to climate change 20 years ago. Now, we’re able to connect longer-term weather events like heat/cold snaps, which border on “climate” in terms of scale and duration (as they are driven by ocean and air currents and can be caused by changes in the patterns of these currents), to climate change.
By the way, “proven” is a bad word to use in science. Science works off evidence, and one can never prove anything physical. On the other hand, we have an extensive amount of evidence supporting the claim that structural changes have been caused, and more will be caused, by non-natural forcing of the climate.
So please, stop using your ignorance as justification for arrogant dismissal of scientific advancement.
Carla Akins October 14th, 2014 at 19:27
Hallelujah.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 19:47
Except that when the skeptic use “weather” to point out the weakness in your theory…. it is dismissed because it is weather.
I will lay out my reasoning for my description of your paragraph. And I am not trying to be a pain. I am truly curious why you proponents don’t seem to recognize that there are problems with the theory and that too many models and predictions, have failed for us to take you on faith that this time its right.
“So the accurate way to view things is that scientists had not observed any significant changes in climate structure that were causing new phenomena, and now they’re more willing to identify specific events because they’re observing structural changes to the earth’s climate.”
I see that as saying…. scientists had not observed any changes in climate structure that were causing new phenomena while they were predicting and describing those very things during these past years. And now they are more “willing,” which is an interesting choice of a word, to identify things that they earlier dismissed because, suddenly they were observing structural changes to the climate.
Why is it only now that there are changes to the climate that were not there before?
My problem is that throughout all of this, authorities like yourself told us contradictory things….and then told us to shut up because “I’m an authority.” While you have not exactly done this…it is a good thing to present your knowledge base, too many will not allow any disagreement from the non-credentialed.
Okay… I’ll agree with your statement of “proven.” I, of course, will now use it against all the AGW activists that state that AGW is proven.
I even admit that there has been warming. And that the arctic is reduced in size.
Please point to these structural changes that can be definitively linked to AGW theory. Please demonstrate how these new structural changes or weather effects cannot be explained by natural occurrence or are now unique due to the effects of our unprecedented CO2 levels.
The problem is that too many AGW scientists standing on authority have made ludicrous claims that have been contradictory and/or wrong. You say that no weather events could be tied to AGW, but now they can. Then what were all those predictions about weather conditions about? If you couldn’t tie it to the data, then why speculate?
Every time the theory is challenged, the goal posts are moved. And on the basis of this theory, massive economic and social changes are advocated. Nor are any of the effects of this warming ever examined to be bad or good….. they are inevitably described as bad for humanity. See the above predictions of weather. Historically, warmer weather has been good for mankind. This warming is NOT unprecedented.
Glen October 14th, 2014 at 20:04
I’m not wasting more time arguing with you, so I’m just going to put this here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
That site addresses every one of your claims. You are, quite simply, wrong. And for the record, the existence of bad models doesn’t invalidate the good ones.
Carla Akins October 14th, 2014 at 20:20
Your comments are appreciated. Well-informed readers, like yourself offering this type of valuable insight, are always welcome. Personally, this subject is one I struggle to fully understand so I find your explanations valuable. Unfortunately, cargosquid seems intent on stirring discontent on practically every topic of discussion on the site. Don’t let his comments dissuade you from further participation.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:29
The site is a propaganda site. They are known to fudge their statements and cherry pick. They’ve even been known to lie.
This is why we dismiss your claims.
I actually tried to discuss this with you. I laid out my reasoning. I laid out everything, because you seemed reasonable. You laid out an argument and explained what you said.
And now you toss this at me and declare me wrong.
Nope. the existence of bad models does NOT invalidate the good ones. The problem is that the AGW side won’t admit that any of the models are wrong. Thus, distrust of all the models increases.
If there are good models, their existence has not publicized very far or their difference from the bad models explained.
Glen October 25th, 2014 at 23:37
Actually, I “tossed it” at you because despite your claim of trying to discuss this with me, you actively ignored my actual points while tossing all of the chestnuts of the denialist movement at me. Thus why I tossed a website dedicated to demolition of the denialist argument at you.
Meanwhile, your argument in this particular comment seems to all be about what is said in the media… the problem is, what gets said in the media is a stripped down and simplified message intended for lay people – trying to explain the entire body of scientific knowledge via media articles is simply not going to be an effective way of getting the basic understanding of the situation out there.
You hear of “wrong models”, but you don’t hear of “right models” because they’re all wrong to one degree or another. What matters is that models are getting progressively more accurate, closer to what is really going on.
The fact that you refer to “the AGW side” demonstrates the problem with your perspective. You treat this like there’s two “sides” to a “debate”, and that one “side” is doing a bad PR job. There’s no sides. There’s scientific investigation being done, and there’s non-experts who try to claim that the science is wrong, yet spend all of their time arguing by non-scientific arguments (meanwhile, scientists inform politicians and the media using simplified terminology and concepts, and those people then treat the simplified info as accurate).
Take, for instance, the claim that it’s all caused by sunspots and solar irradiation. It was made by a scientist whose expertise was in astrophysical radiation, and not climate… and the denialists conveniently ignore that subsequent releases by him note that the solar irradiation theory explains pre-1980 variation, but post-1980 variation isn’t explained by it.
If you doubt the models’ veracity, investigate properly. Look into the actual science. Look at the statistical analyses (that aren’t predictive, but ask whether the factors used sufficiently explain the variations in the data) that concludes that there’s more than 99% (likely more than 99.9%) certainty that natural variation in climate doesn’t explain recent variations – that is, there’s less than a one-in-a-hundred (probably less than one-in-a-thousand) chance that, if no human-caused factors influence the climate, we would see the climate doing what it’s doing now, or more extreme than what it’s doing now, by random chance. If you’ve learned any statistics, understand that the 99% is referring to a p-value less than 0.01.
Also look at the various models, and what they’re intended to do. Most are designed to predict long-term behaviour, of the order of 20, 50, 100 years. Thus why they’ve started adding shorter-term cycles (like the southern oscillation) in order to better validate their models.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:02
The answer is easy…..whichever will support their pet theory and new explanation.
Bob Cronos September 30th, 2014 at 19:33
“… the most definitive statement climate scientists have made tying a specific weather event to global warming..” —
“Scientists used to say that individual weather events — a specific hurricane or flood, for example — cannot be attributed to climate change.” —
So which is it?
Bunya September 30th, 2014 at 21:32
Neither, of course. Droughts, floods, hurricanes; they’re all just Jesus’ way of punishing all the Muslims and non-believers out there.
Bob Cronos October 1st, 2014 at 00:17
If you say so…
fahvel October 1st, 2014 at 02:27
good one B!
fancypants October 1st, 2014 at 04:14
its not true until your on a network and making money while spreading all kinds of fear.
wait in line
Glen September 30th, 2014 at 23:47
An “individual weather event” covers things like hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, floods, etc. Heat waves, cold snaps, and the like are longer-term events, directly associated with temperature/energy, and can occur in specific locations due to changes in climate. So both are true, at this point in time.
That being said, it is possible that climate change will result in changes in climate structure (such as the Gulf Stream) that mean that events like hurricanes occur in places they never used to. So the accurate way to view things is that scientists had not observed any significant changes in climate structure that were causing new phenomena, and now they’re more willing to identify specific events because they’re observing structural changes to the earth’s climate.
Bob Cronos October 1st, 2014 at 00:08
“that events like hurricanes occur in places they never used to…” — The ocean used to cover Utah and 20k years ago NY was covered in ice 2 miles deep… The climate changes… get used to it and enjoy the warmer weather while you can…
Obewon October 1st, 2014 at 00:44
In 2 centuries CO2 skyrocketed +45% to “402.07” PPM in the week of April 27, 2014. For 1.3 M years+ CO2 was “about 278 PPM” until ‘human burning fossil fuels caused 80% of modern Global Warming, with human deforestation causing 20% of GW temperature rises’-NASA!
Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
Mike Butkus Jr. October 1st, 2014 at 10:14
You can rub BC nose in facts all day long and it wont do any good. He’s a FOX lap dog.
raincheck October 8th, 2014 at 06:46
Bad BC bad!!….no biscuit!!
Bob Cronos October 2nd, 2014 at 00:08
So? Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas… Where’s that time history?
Robert M. Snyder October 2nd, 2014 at 00:48
“In 2 centuries CO2 skyrocketed +45%”
In those same 2 centuries, world population skyrocketed +600%. It was about 1 billion in 1800, and is about 7 billion today.
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:05
YEP! CO2 has gone to 400ppm. And global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant surface warming for over 17 years.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 13:16
You’re well proven 100% Wrong with each post! A new LL troll record! “The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.”-POTUS Obama 2013 SOTU. Data from NASA shows 13 of the hottest years on record have come in the last 15, and by a different data set produced by NOAA, 14 of the hottest years on record have come in the last 15. Obama was actually over-cautious in his statement, so we rate his statement True.-NASA, NOAA, UK MET, et al verified by nonpartisan Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/
FYI> Goddard Institute, told PolitiFact that the institute’s data produces the following ranking of hottest years. Items on the same line are statistically tied.
1-2: 2010, 2005
3-8: 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009
9-12: 2012, 2011, 2001, 2004
13: 2008
14: 1997
15: 1995
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:00
And yet…. a graph of the mean shows a flat graph. AND the pro warming scientists state that there is a “pause.”
Take it up with them.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 16:11
And yet your parroting GOP leader Rusty the racist proves why you’re always wrong e.g. facts prove earth temps already rose +2 F currently rising +.4 C, and on track as forecast to continue rising +7.3 F this century!-IPPC. et al including “Fig. 1. Source: Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment, NOAA (2012) As also Updated: Additional Sources include: “Much higher projections than IPCC are also a consistent feature of more recent assessments published since 2007 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-we-stand-at-the-start-of-2013/#sthash.ApZeAXoI.dpuf “
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:18
Looking at the big picture is not what climate deniers want to see. They want to cherry pick certain dates out where they can draw a flat line graph. The art of mis-information is the trolls stock and trade. I don’t think cargosquid will ever offer any useful information. All they want to do is distract with deception and omission.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:34
Oh..you mean like starting warming graphs at the coldest points. Adjusting data to fit the theory. Picking certain dates to accentuate warming. Inputting data that will ONLY lead to a model showing warming. ….That sort of thing.
We actually START the graph at the current day and work backwards, We find no warming. The upward slant stopped at 1998.
I can tell, though, that pointing out the problems in the global warming assertions here will be considered to be heresy instead of discussion.
Your idea of “useful information” seems to be anything that remotely promotes the AGW theory. If I’m deceiving…. prove it.
Omission…you mean like those saying West Antarctica is going to “collapse”, but ignore the discovery that the area in question is geothermally active, including MULTIPLE volcanoes under the ice?
And this is not an insult. But when you say things like this: “All they want to do is distract with deception and omission.”, you come across like Paul the Apostle warning about “false teachings.”
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:20
I notice that you have posted no link to support your statistics.
Earth temps have risen +2 degrees F? And will rise +7.3? I would love to see your source. Also, you are mixing F and C, which do you want to use.
We are not rising at .4 C per year. There is no atmospheric warming.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 17:36
The above facts are agreed to by 97% of Climatologists, NASA, NOAA, MET, UN IPPC, et al. I Updated the above & below link for you & Part 2>Graphic “NOAA-2012” ‘Sea Level Rise Scenarios’ Additional Sources include: “Much higher projections than IPCC are also a consistent feature of more recent assessments published since 2007, e.g. the Antarctic Science Report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, the Arctic Report of AMAP and the recent World Bank Report. Higher projections are also commonly used in coastal planning, e.g. in the Netherlands, in California and North Carolina, and included in the recommendations of the US Army Corps of Engineers. And last month NOAA published the following new sea-level scenarios for the US National Climate Assessment: – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-we-stand-at-the-start-of-2013/#sthash.ApZeAXoI.dpuf ” Why doesn’t SquidCargo know anything accurate?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 17:59
What I object to is our assertion that we will rise 7+ degrees when reality does not show that. The IPCC’s worst case project was that high.
Hard to have an increase in temp when there’s no warming.
I like your link for sea level rise. Of course, that is not the correct theory but just ONE theory. Even that person states that there are scientists that disagree… By the way…you state that NOAA published that last month. That is a realclimate blog post from January 2013.
Here is some discussion on that actual NOAA report, with links and data. Have fun.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/latest-noaa-mean-sea-level-trend-data-through-2013-confirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/
Excerpt:
UN IPCC AR5 WGI claims of increasing rates of sea level rise from 1971 to 2010 are unsupported
The UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report claims that:
“It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level
rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2010, and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.” (3)
As discussed in detail below the latest mean sea level rise trend
data from NOAA simply does not support IPCC assertions that mean sea level rise trends are increasing since 1971. The IPCC report describes the fact that individual location tide gauge measurement values can vary significantly from global average values (4) generally because of the consequences of location specific topography and geology related impacts.
But what the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report completely fails to address is the fact that the long duration period NOAA mean sea level trend data behavior represent constant and unchanging linear records over time which present major challenges to IPCC claims of increasing sea level rise rates since 1971. The NOAA data is simply unsupportive of IPCC claims of increasing rates of sea level rise in recent decades.
While you may disagree with me, Watts, and the above, at least there is an argument with evidence presented.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 18:22
Watt’s isn’t a climatologist, has no degree and Watt;s never graduated. LOL! No wonder you’re so errant->”Climate model projections were summarized in the 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario using stringent mitigation and 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) for their highest.[#14] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[#15][#16]”Citations linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming [#14] Stocker et al., Technical Summary, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013. [#15]”Climate sensitivity estimated from ensemble simulations of glacial climate”. Climate Dynamics27[#16]Chap. 10: Global Climate Projections,Section 10.5: Quantifying the Range of Climate Change, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007. E.g. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ And NOAA! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ <-"Human Influence"& NOAA Top 10 proofs of Global Warming. http://cpo.noaa.gov/warmingworld/
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:30
Watts didn’t write the article.
Go read it.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 20:58
NASA, I & 97% of climatologists debunked your Watt’s linked delusional-disorder paranoids long ago. NASA concurs & specifically cites 1/18 IPCC: “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13 “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14 *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.” http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ 2/18 NASA Concurs “Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2 -Good luck trolling NASA: 3/18 “Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1 and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.” ‘Modern global warming climate change is 80% caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and 20% caused by human deforestation’-NASA et al.
cargosquid October 15th, 2014 at 01:11
Riiight… except that this is a new report on NOAA. NOAA is saying something that sheds light on the IPCC.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 18:03
1. “Small Islands – IPCC” ipcc-Oct 28, 2013 wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap29_FGDall.pdf
2. “the second assessment report on the influence of climate http://typhooncommittee.org/docs/publications/ESCAPWMOTD_0004.pdf “-December 2012
3. “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf
R.J. Carter October 14th, 2014 at 16:23
Out of scientific curiosity, what were the last 15 coldest years on record for the last 100 years?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:34
From the chart here https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years it looks like they were all around 1910. https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:36
Btw…. did you notice the blue line about 2000 onwards.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:58
Interesting isn’t it. It correlates with the time frame in which glaciers all over the planet have been melting at record rates. I wonder if that is what is absorbing the extra heat? Well, that and the oceans. What happens when the ice is melted and there is nothing left to absorb the heat? Do you think air temps will continue like nothing has happened?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:23
It is interesting. It shows no increasing heat.
Have we warmed?
Yes.
Are we warming? No.
What happens when the ice melts? Are you saying that we don’t have any observable heating in the atmosphere because suddenly the ice is hiding it by melting?
As for the future, I have no idea what it holds. At the present, we have no observable warming, and that pause was not in any of the oh so correct models.
But let’s agree. Say that there IS global warming. AND its caused by manmade CO2.
Please tell me how you stop producing CO2? China will not stop. The western world will not go back to third world status. The third world will demand better energy sources. Industrial agriculture is the only viable way to feed the world’s billions and that is the main cause of methane.
In the meantime, the only viable alternatives to oil are being demonized. Nukes are anathema. Natural gas, once touted as a green source is no longer loved.
Solar and batteries demand heavy industry to be built. Both use rare earth elements, primarily mined in China, using fossil fuels and then shipped here using fossil fuels. Neither of those things will power a city reliably.
I actually support alternative sources of energy. I’m a use it all person. If there is a viable market and supply….use it.
But only a society based on free enterprise and made rich by such will be able to take care of the environment. And without a plentiful fuel source, we ALL die freezing in the dark.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 18:58
’15 coldest yr Period since 1900′ “Observed”-graphed pre-1930 (And =37+Yrs ago pre-1976 & pre 1950):-NOAA Global Highlights: 2013 ties with 2003 as the 4th warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20thcentury—1998—was warmer than 2013. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 15:35
Doesn’t look like it to me. http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/index_ds.php#
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:45
Funny….. climate scientists are saying that there has been no significant warming for over 17 years….. and are trying to explain it by saying the heat went somewhere else.
And now you use one day’s anomaly to disprove the pro-warming position that there is a pause?
Amazing.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 15:55
It is pretty much like that everyday. Amazing that all you can do is deny, deny, deny.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:58
Yep..amazing. Yet..I’m not the one denying anything. I’m AGREEING with the pro warming scientists that there is, in fact, a “pause,” to use THEIR term.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:08
A pause in the air temp warming quickly as the ice melts and the oceans warm is not good. Air temp is still warming on overall trend. We are do for a spike in temps though. I wonder what the climate deniers will say then?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:39
Well, if the upcoming El Nino doesn’t spike temps….what will you guys say?
If you can produce a theory that actually matches real world conditions… and predict what is happening…. then WE would have to reexamine OUR statements. So far, however, the AGW theory has not been presented as a falsifiable theory. Everything that points out where it has failed… is ignored as “disinformation.”
Glen October 14th, 2014 at 20:10
That’s actually the problem. If you look at natural climate cycles, there should be warming and cooling patterns. Now we have faster warming during the warming part of the cycle, and no cooling at all during the cooling part of the cycle.
And you do understand that surface temperature isn’t the only part of the climate, right? Surface warming has remained mostly steady… and in the meantime, ocean temperatures, especially in the pacific, have risen. This is caused by the La Nina part of the Southern Oscillation, which causes certain flow patterns that drive the heat deeper into the ocean, thus cooling the surface but warming the ocean. La Nina causes cooling, El Nino causes warming. So why is it that we haven’t seen any cooling under La Nina, and what happens when El Nino kicks back in, which is due this year or next year?
I’m going to put this here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:24
There are many…which natural cycle are you talking about?
fahvel October 1st, 2014 at 02:26
not a very bright light in this warming planet are you? It won’t shrivel you to a prune (brain may already be there) but what about the kids and their kids and then theirs?
mea_mark October 1st, 2014 at 09:22
Obviously he doesn’t care about them. It is all about me, right now, for BC. Ignorance is bliss.
Bob Cronos October 1st, 2014 at 23:52
Why are you always bad mouthing me behind my back? You enjoy all the same benefits of a first world life that I do…
What are you willing to give up? That internet connection perhaps? Fresh food? Great coffee? World class healthcare? Subsidized transportation? That computer you’re using? Heat in the winter?
How do YOU think WE should live?
Bob Cronos October 1st, 2014 at 23:19
I figure they’ll have nicer tans, lower heating bills and flying cars…
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:06
Please point out in our world’s history where a warm planet was bad for humans.
We’ll wait.
Glen October 1st, 2014 at 14:11
You do understand the difference between 20k years and 50 years, right?
Your argument is roughly the equivalent of saying that, since small, natural, lightning-caused fires happen, it’s therefore OK for an arsonist to burn down an entire forest using large amounts of kerosene to ensure maximal damage. The scale, the speed, the overall level of damage, and the cause are all very different, and therefore it is simply absurd to ignore the arsonist’s actions on the basis of “fires happen”.
Kind of like how, if you expose insects to low levels of pesticide over a long period of time, they eventually, through a selection process, end up developing an immunity to that pesticide… yet if you dose them with massive amounts in one hit, they all die. The rate at which something happens is relevant.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:04
What a wonderful paragraph that said nothing. I applaud you.
They are more willing to point at whatever might convince people that don’t remember the previous statements of these scientists.
There have been no structural changes that can be proven to be caused by anything other than natural occurrence.
Glen October 14th, 2014 at 19:20
The fact that you did not understand what it said does not mean it said nothing. And I always find it fascinating when amateurs try to assert “facts” based on nothing but their own personal beliefs (I’ve got a PhD, specialising in fluid dynamics, heat transfer, and evaporation).
Perhaps it would help you to understand what the difference is between “weather” and “climate”. In very simplified terms, “weather” is what happens on a particular day in a particular location. Hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods are “weather”. “Climate” is patterns over long periods of time, and covers such things as El Nino and La Nina, frequency and strength of weather events, and global weather dynamics (such as the aforementioned Gulf Stream).
Beyond that, science never just takes something as fact. It’s always checking and rechecking. Scientists had a certain level of understanding of the climate 20 years ago. They had a better understanding 10 years ago. They have an even better understanding now. No weather events could be specifically tied to climate change 20 years ago. Now, we’re able to connect longer-term weather events like heat/cold snaps, which border on “climate” in terms of scale and duration (as they are driven by ocean and air currents and can be caused by changes in the patterns of these currents), to climate change.
By the way, “proven” is a bad word to use in science. Science works off evidence, and one can never prove anything physical. On the other hand, we have an extensive amount of evidence supporting the claim that structural changes have been caused, and more will be caused, by non-natural forcing of the climate.
So please, stop using your ignorance as justification for arrogant dismissal of scientific advancement.
Carla Akins October 14th, 2014 at 19:27
Hallelujah.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 19:47
Except that when the skeptic use “weather” to point out the weakness in your theory…. it is dismissed because it is weather.
I will lay out my reasoning for my description of your paragraph. And I am not trying to be a pain. I am truly curious why you proponents don’t seem to recognize that there are problems with the theory and that too many models and predictions, have failed for us to take you on faith that this time its right.
“So the accurate way to view things is that scientists had not observed any significant changes in climate structure that were causing new phenomena, and now they’re more willing to identify specific events because they’re observing structural changes to the earth’s climate.”
I see that as saying…. scientists had not observed any changes in climate structure that were causing new phenomena while they were predicting and describing those very things during these past years. And now they are more “willing,” which is an interesting choice of a word, to identify things that they earlier dismissed because, suddenly they were observing structural changes to the climate.
Why is it only now that there are changes to the climate that were not there before?
My problem is that throughout all of this, authorities like yourself told us contradictory things….and then told us to shut up because “I’m an authority.” While you have not exactly done this…it is a good thing to present your knowledge base, too many will not allow any disagreement from the non-credentialed.
Okay… I’ll agree with your statement of “proven.” I, of course, will now use it against all the AGW activists that state that AGW is proven.
I even admit that there has been warming. And that the arctic is reduced in size.
Please point to these structural changes that can be definitively linked to AGW theory. Please demonstrate how these new structural changes or weather effects cannot be explained by natural occurrence or are now unique due to the effects of our unprecedented CO2 levels.
The problem is that too many AGW scientists standing on authority have made ludicrous claims that have been contradictory and/or wrong. You say that no weather events could be tied to AGW, but now they can. Then what were all those predictions about weather conditions about? If you couldn’t tie it to the data, then why speculate?
Every time the theory is challenged, the goal posts are moved. And on the basis of this theory, massive economic and social changes are advocated. Nor are any of the effects of this warming ever examined to be bad or good….. they are inevitably described as bad for humanity. See the above predictions of weather. Historically, warmer weather has been good for mankind. This warming is NOT unprecedented.
Glen October 14th, 2014 at 20:04
I’m not wasting more time arguing with you, so I’m just going to put this here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
That site addresses every one of your claims. You are, quite simply, wrong. And for the record, the existence of bad models doesn’t invalidate the good ones.
Carla Akins October 14th, 2014 at 20:20
Your comments are appreciated. Well-informed readers, like yourself offering this type of valuable insight, are always welcome. Personally, this subject is one I struggle to fully understand so I find your explanations valuable. Unfortunately, cargosquid seems intent on stirring discontent on practically every topic of discussion on the site. Don’t let his comments dissuade you from further participation.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:29
The site is a propaganda site. They are known to fudge their statements and cherry pick. They’ve even been known to lie.
This is why we dismiss your claims.
I actually tried to discuss this with you. I laid out my reasoning. I laid out everything, because you seemed reasonable. You laid out an argument and explained what you said.
And now you toss this at me and declare me wrong.
Nope. the existence of bad models does NOT invalidate the good ones. The problem is that the AGW side won’t admit that any of the models are wrong. Thus, distrust of all the models increases.
If there are good models, their existence has not publicized very far or their difference from the bad models explained.
Glen October 25th, 2014 at 23:37
Actually, I “tossed it” at you because despite your claim of trying to discuss this with me, you actively ignored my actual points while tossing all of the chestnuts of the denialist movement at me. Thus why I tossed a website dedicated to demolition of the denialist argument at you.
Meanwhile, your argument in this particular comment seems to all be about what is said in the media… the problem is, what gets said in the media is a stripped down and simplified message intended for lay people – trying to explain the entire body of scientific knowledge via media articles is simply not going to be an effective way of getting the basic understanding of the situation out there.
You hear of “wrong models”, but you don’t hear of “right models” because they’re all wrong to one degree or another. What matters is that models are getting progressively more accurate, closer to what is really going on.
The fact that you refer to “the AGW side” demonstrates the problem with your perspective. You treat this like there’s two “sides” to a “debate”, and that one “side” is doing a bad PR job. There’s no sides. There’s scientific investigation being done, and there’s non-experts who try to claim that the science is wrong, yet spend all of their time arguing by non-scientific arguments (meanwhile, scientists inform politicians and the media using simplified terminology and concepts, and those people then treat the simplified info as accurate).
Take, for instance, the claim that it’s all caused by sunspots and solar irradiation. It was made by a scientist whose expertise was in astrophysical radiation, and not climate… and the denialists conveniently ignore that subsequent releases by him note that the solar irradiation theory explains pre-1980 variation, but post-1980 variation isn’t explained by it.
If you doubt the models’ veracity, investigate properly. Look into the actual science. Look at the statistical analyses (that aren’t predictive, but ask whether the factors used sufficiently explain the variations in the data) that concludes that there’s more than 99% (likely more than 99.9%) certainty that natural variation in climate doesn’t explain recent variations – that is, there’s less than a one-in-a-hundred (probably less than one-in-a-thousand) chance that, if no human-caused factors influence the climate, we would see the climate doing what it’s doing now, or more extreme than what it’s doing now, by random chance. If you’ve learned any statistics, understand that the 99% is referring to a p-value less than 0.01.
Also look at the various models, and what they’re intended to do. Most are designed to predict long-term behaviour, of the order of 20, 50, 100 years. Thus why they’ve started adding shorter-term cycles (like the southern oscillation) in order to better validate their models.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:02
The answer is easy…..whichever will support their pet theory and new explanation.
Robert M. Snyder September 30th, 2014 at 19:39
Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region
By Jack Eggleston and Jason Pope
Prepared in cooperation with the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf
The southern Chesapeake Bay region is experiencing land subsidence and rising water levels due to global sea-level rise; land subsidence and rising water levels combine to cause relative sea-level rise. Land subsidence has been observed since the 1940s in the southern Chesapeake Bay region at rates of 1.1 to 4.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr), and subsidence continues today.
This land subsidence helps explain why the region has the highest rates of sea-level rise on the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Data indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the region. Land subsidence increases the risk of flooding in low-lying areas, which in turn has important economic, environmental, and human health consequences for the heavily populated and ecologically important southern Chesapeake Bay region.
The aquifer system in the region has been compacted by extensive groundwater pumping in the region at rates of 1.5- to 3.7-mm/yr; this compaction accounts for more than half of observed land subsidence in the region. Glacial isostatic adjustment, or the flexing of the Earth’s crust in response to glacier formation and melting, also likely contributes to land subsidence in the region.
Land subsidence in the southern Chesapeake Bay region was first documented by Holdahl and Morrison (1974), who reported results of geodetic surveys completed between 1940 and 1971 and found land surfaces across the region were sinking at an average rate of 2.8 mm/yr with rates ranging from 1.1 to 4.8 mm/yr (fig. 12; table 3). The two areas where subsidence rates were fastest roughly coincide with groundwater pumping centers at Franklin and West Point. Measurements of land subsidence are currently (2013) made at CORS stations in the region. The National Geodetic Survey has computed velocities for three of these stations (fig. 2) between 2006 and 2011 and found an average subsidence rate of 3.1 mm/yr
Relative sea-level rise measured at four National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tidal stations (fig. 2; table 2) averaged 3.9 mm/yr from about 1950 through 2006. At the Sewells Point tidal station in Norfolk, Va., rising sea levels have been recorded since 1927 (fig. 14; table 2). Sea level at Sewells Point rose at an average rate of 4.4 mm/yr from 1927 to 2006, with a 95 percent confidence interval of ±0.27 mm/yr (Zervas, 2009). In comparison, global average sea levels have been rising at about 1.8 mm/yr. Although rates of absolute sealevel rise (rise due just to increases in ocean volume) can vary substantially from one location to another and change over time (Boon and others, 2010; Sallenger and others, 2012), the global average rate of 1.8 mm/yr from 1961 to 2003 is a widely accepted global benchmark rate (Bindoff and others, 2007, p. 410). The difference between the average sea-level rise computed from the four NOAA tidal stations in the study area (3.9 mm/yr) and the benchmark global rate (1.8 mm/yr) is 2.1 mm/yr, which is an estimate of the average rate of land subsidence at the four NOAA stations. These numbers indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the southern Chesapeake Bay region.
Robert M. Snyder September 30th, 2014 at 19:39
Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region
By Jack Eggleston and Jason Pope
Prepared in cooperation with the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf
The southern Chesapeake Bay region is experiencing land subsidence and rising water levels due to global sea-level rise; land subsidence and rising water levels combine to cause relative sea-level rise. Land subsidence has been observed since the 1940s in the southern Chesapeake Bay region at rates of 1.1 to 4.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr), and subsidence continues today.
This land subsidence helps explain why the region has the highest rates of sea-level rise on the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Data indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the region. Land subsidence increases the risk of flooding in low-lying areas, which in turn has important economic, environmental, and human health consequences for the heavily populated and ecologically important southern Chesapeake Bay region.
The aquifer system in the region has been compacted by extensive groundwater pumping in the region at rates of 1.5- to 3.7-mm/yr; this compaction accounts for more than half of observed land subsidence in the region. Glacial isostatic adjustment, or the flexing of the Earth’s crust in response to glacier formation and melting, also likely contributes to land subsidence in the region.
Land subsidence in the southern Chesapeake Bay region was first documented by Holdahl and Morrison (1974), who reported results of geodetic surveys completed between 1940 and 1971 and found land surfaces across the region were sinking at an average rate of 2.8 mm/yr with rates ranging from 1.1 to 4.8 mm/yr (fig. 12; table 3). The two areas where subsidence rates were fastest roughly coincide with groundwater pumping centers at Franklin and West Point. Measurements of land subsidence are currently (2013) made at CORS stations in the region. The National Geodetic Survey has computed velocities for three of these stations (fig. 2) between 2006 and 2011 and found an average subsidence rate of 3.1 mm/yr
Relative sea-level rise measured at four National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tidal stations (fig. 2; table 2) averaged 3.9 mm/yr from about 1950 through 2006. At the Sewells Point tidal station in Norfolk, Va., rising sea levels have been recorded since 1927 (fig. 14; table 2). Sea level at Sewells Point rose at an average rate of 4.4 mm/yr from 1927 to 2006, with a 95 percent confidence interval of ±0.27 mm/yr (Zervas, 2009). In comparison, global average sea levels have been rising at about 1.8 mm/yr. Although rates of absolute sealevel rise (rise due just to increases in ocean volume) can vary substantially from one location to another and change over time (Boon and others, 2010; Sallenger and others, 2012), the global average rate of 1.8 mm/yr from 1961 to 2003 is a widely accepted global benchmark rate (Bindoff and others, 2007, p. 410). The difference between the average sea-level rise computed from the four NOAA tidal stations in the study area (3.9 mm/yr) and the benchmark global rate (1.8 mm/yr) is 2.1 mm/yr, which is an estimate of the average rate of land subsidence at the four NOAA stations. These numbers indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the southern Chesapeake Bay region.
Obewon October 1st, 2014 at 01:09
Global Warming causes U.S. Navy to abandon oldest & world’s largest naval base, Norfolk, VA navy base. Easy reader USA Today video version. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/17/sea-level-rise-swamps-norfolk-us-coasts/3893825/
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:53
“A scientific report released this week found that global warming has
contributed to the melting of a large section of a West Antarctica ice
sheet, which could lead to a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more.”
From the links.
What utter BS. A) the “large section” of a West Antarctic ice sheet couldn’t raise sea level by a mm. That report states that if the Antarctic starts melting do to global warming….which it is not doing….. sea level could rise.
Sea level is rising at 3mm per year. Norfolk is NOT in danger. The military will put out whatever the CINC wants.
“In the past 100 years sea level has climbed about a foot or more in
some U.S. cities because of ocean currents and land subsidence”
Neither of which is global warming.
“ensuring that at least 50% of the Navy’s total energy consumption comes from alternative sources by 2020.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA! So….we’re going for increased nuclear power then? Because I’ve yet to see a windmill powered destroyer.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 20:44
You could have read the link or used Google.com “Greenfleet”
because the obviously renewable “Biofuels”-were long ago approved after testing by the Navy on ships and airplanes. http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/energy/ Links to:
“Advanced biomass-based transportation fuels have the potential to provide a reliable and cost-effective alternative to traditional fuel sources,” said Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman. “By advancing technologies that reduce our carbon emissions, this multi-agency partnership is demonstrating that by protecting our energy and environmental security, we will enhance our national security as well.”
In total, these projects will produce more than 100 million gallons of military grade fuel beginning in 2016 and 2017 at a price competitive with their petroleum counterparts. http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=83417
cargosquid October 15th, 2014 at 01:13
The Navy will do whatever it is told to do.
The biofuels is causing a huge fueling problem and is causing the budget to be broken on fuel costs.
Obewon October 1st, 2014 at 01:09
In 2005-2008 Global Warming caused the Pentagon to announce it’s closing 30 of the USA’s oldest coastal bases, and the world’s largest naval base located in Norfolk, Va. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/military-bases-brace-slow-motion-war-climate-change-n124761 & http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html?_r=0
Today’s solution to help save other bases: – A Great Green Fleet carrier strike group by 2016; phasing in hybrid fuel and electric vehicles to halve petroleum use in the Navy’s 50,000 commercial vehicle fleet by 2015; requiring that by 2020 each base—the Navy owns 2.2 million acres of land plus 65,000 buildings—be at least 50% self-powered by renewables like solar, wind, and wave energy; and ensuring that at least 50% of the Navy’s total energy consumption comes from alternative sources by 2020. http://www.wired.com/2013/02/full-green-ahead/all/ NOAA: “Sea level has risen nearly +8 inches worldwide (average) since 1880 but, unlike water in a bathtub, it doesn’t rise evenly.”
‘In the past 100 years sea level has climbed about a foot or more in some U.S. cities because of ocean currents and land subsidence — +11 inches in New York and Boston, +12 in Charleston, +16 in Atlantic City, +18 in Norfolk, Virginia and +25 in Galveston, Texas, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2012 tide gauge data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).’ Via http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/17/sea-level-rise-swamps-norfolk-us-coasts/3893825/
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:53
“A scientific report released this week found that global warming has
contributed to the melting of a large section of a West Antarctica ice
sheet, which could lead to a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more.”
From the links.
What utter BS. A) the “large section” of a West Antarctic ice sheet couldn’t raise sea level by a mm. That report states that if the Antarctic starts melting do to global warming….which it is not doing….. sea level could rise.
Sea level is rising at 3mm per year. Norfolk is NOT in danger. The military will put out whatever the CINC wants.
“In the past 100 years sea level has climbed about a foot or more in
some U.S. cities because of ocean currents and land subsidence”
Neither of which is global warming.
“ensuring that at least 50% of the Navy’s total energy consumption comes from alternative sources by 2020.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA! So….we’re going for increased nuclear power then? Because I’ve yet to see a windmill powered destroyer.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 20:44
You could have read the link, or Google’d ‘ U.S. Navy Green Fleet ‘ https://www.google.com/search?q=%27Greenfleet%27&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS378US378&oq=%27Greenfleet%27&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.594j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=U.S.+Navy+Green+Fleet because these obviously more efficiently created “sustainable” and renewable “Biofuels”-were long ago approved after testing by the Navy on ships and airplanes. http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/energy/ Links to:
“Departments of the Navy, Energy and Agriculture Invest in Construction of Three Biorefineries to Produce Drop-In Biofuel for Military: -Advanced biomass-based transportation fuels have the potential to provide a reliable and cost-effective alternative to traditional fuel sources,” said Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman. “By advancing technologies that reduce our carbon emissions, this multi-agency partnership is demonstrating that by protecting our energy and environmental security, we will enhance our national security as well.”
“In total, these projects will produce more than 100 million gallons of military grade fuel beginning in 2016 and 2017 at a price competitive with their petroleum counterparts.” http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=83417
cargosquid October 15th, 2014 at 01:13
The Navy will do whatever it is told to do.
The biofuels is causing a huge fueling problem and is causing the budget to be broken on fuel costs.
crc3 October 1st, 2014 at 09:45
Miami…New York City…New Orleans…Charleston, SC…plus thousands of tropical islands and low lying areas in the world will all be under water within the next 50-100 years because of sea level rise. Droughts and flooding rains attributed to climate change will destroy croplands. With all of the other problems facing the world it will not be one I want to live in. Kids born today are facing a very bleak future imo…
Robert M. Snyder October 1st, 2014 at 13:11
The major issue in New Orleans is not global sea level rise, but land subsidence. Even if global sea level rise (estimated at 1.8 mm/yr) were completely halted, New Orleans would still have big problems.
Global sea level rise is estimated to be about 1.8 mm/yr. New Orleans is experiencing land subsidence that is estimated to be at least 5 mm/yr.
Here is a brief summary prepared by the Louisiana State University Department of Engineering, which estimates land subsidence in southern Louisiana at between 6 and 16 mm/yr.
https://www.eng.lsu.edu/news/2013/4/quantifying-vulnerability/
Pull quotes:
“Land subsidence is a complicated process,” Kent said. “South Louisiana is essentially wet and mushy. Combined with natural processes including tectonic loading, shifting growth faults and sea-level rise caused by global climate change, agricultural and industrial activities have caused localized subsidence. The construction of levees have essentially dried up landscapes, preventing water from replenishing the land and accelerating compaction rates. And the extensive use of water from natural aquifers further contributes to subsidence.”
Continuing research conducted by late LSU professor and researcher Roy K. Dokka, Kent and colleagues physically gathered more than 2,000 miles of road elevation data in south Louisiana and developed four different subsidence models to estimate surface elevations for the years 2015, 2025, 2050 and 2100. Kent and his research team drove their GPS equipment over approximately 90% of southern Louisiana major roadways, collecting elevation data at centimeter level accuracy. Applying factors of man-made subsidence to existing subsidence rate models, Kent used the elevation data to determine land loss rates due to subsidence ranging from approximately 6 to 16 millimeters per year.
crc3 October 1st, 2014 at 13:59
Good and informative post. Thanks!
Obewon October 1st, 2014 at 21:21
Jason Satellite data proved the past decade global sea level rise of +1.25 inches averaged 3.17 MM per year. That is double your posted claim. http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/Integrated_Multi-Mission_Ocean_AltimeterData Via NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/ Melting glacial runoff quadrupled last mid decade 2005.
For each +1 foot in sea level rise the damages double from each storm, hurricane and tornado which are also more numerous and stronger.
Robert M. Snyder October 1st, 2014 at 21:49
The IPCC report from 2007 says “Based on a small number (~25) of high-quality tide gauge records from stable land regions, the rate of sea level rise has been estimated as 1.8 mm yr–1 for the past 70 years.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2.html
However, there are many problems with tide gauge data, mainly land subsidence whose confounding effects could not be eliminated prior to GPS.
I am inclined to put greater confidence in the satellite data. Thanks for the links.
So assuming that 3.17mm/yr is the most accurate estimate of global sea level rise, New Orleans still has a bigger problem with land subsidence than with global sea level rise. The problem is not just global energy use patterns (e.g. carbon). For New Orleans, the single biggest problem is regional water usage patterns (i.e. depleting the aquifer, thereby causing subsidence).
Obewon October 1st, 2014 at 22:37
NASA’s Jason Satellite 1993 to 2013 of data wasn’t validated until 2013. “3.17mm/yr is the most accurate estimate”-that was in the past twenty years. The period of 2013 to 2033 is currently estimated to quadruple sea level rise via melting permafrost venting vast amounts of far more damaging Methane, coupled with our vastly warmer oceans now melting oceanic methane Ice.
Robert M. Snyder October 2nd, 2014 at 00:43
“If global economies phase out human burning of fossil fuels…”
That’s a pretty big if. China is the world’s largest CO2 emitter, and its output is growing rapidly. I don’t think the Big Oil Republicans or the Koch Brother have much control over Chinese CO2 emissions.
Obewon October 2nd, 2014 at 01:03
1.3 B fossil fuel pollution poisoned Chinese people have already lowered the boom on expanding their local industry, mandating renewable energy or no new factories or expansions. China is also #1 in solar production.
USA’s 5% global population burns 1/4 of Earth’s annual fossil fuel and produces 25% of the globes carbon pollution. USA’s Thin-Film Solar Cell 22% Efficiency Record Set By First Solar (Again.) http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/07/thin-film-solar-cell-efficiency-record-set-first-solar/ 80% of US drivers commute 39 miles or less daily. EV’s are 4% of US vehicle sales and growing fast.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:09
“1.3 B Chinese people poisoned by fossil fuel pollution have already
lowered the boom on expanding their local industry, mandating renewable
energy, or no new factories or expansions.”
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Chinese people do not mandate ANYTHING to their government. They want their boom to continue. They want energy. They are building one coal plant per week.
They are not about to stop building businesses and the government is not about to listen to them.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 16:29
Even WSJ debunks you “On government orders, Jizhong has closed or is planning to close three of its five Xingtai power plants and has halted operations at a fourth while it upgrades to cleaner-running equipment. Jizhong is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce harmful emissions and effluents even as its earnings plummet due to falling demand for coal.”-WSJ Sept. 16, 2014. http://online.wsj.com/articles/economics-versus-pollution-in-chinas-dirtiest-city-1410901992
2) “China pollution results in (100+) factory closures, flight cancellations: The U.S. embassy in Beijing on Saturday night recorded fine particulate matter at 886 micrograms per cubic meter, the highest since monitoring began in 2007. The air quality index ranking of 755 was also far off the charts, which consider 300 to 500 to be “hazardous.” While in the past the Chinese government has criticized the embassy for scaremongering, their own monitors over the weekend gave readings that were also dire, showing pollution as hazardous in 33 cities. “The air pollution is unprecedented. This is the first time in China’s history we have seen it this bad,’’ said Zhao Zhangyuan of the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences.”-LA Times January 13, 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/13/world/la-fg-wn-china-air-pollution-hits-record-levels-20130113
CargoSquid Strikes 3 & Out! “The human cost of China’s untold soil pollution problem Rapid industrialisation has left a legacy of soil pollution that is damaging health and livelihoods in villages across China, report Chinadialogue and Yale Environment 360”-June 30, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/30/the-human-cost-of-chinas-untold-soil-pollution-problem
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:53
What part of all that was “mandated” by the population?
Also… nothing in that you have copied points to a drawdown in the use of coal. Your link is behind a paywall for me.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999
I was laughing at you because while the Chinese government sees a profit in modernizing…..nothing will stop the building of industry, keeping the money rolling in, and the modernization of China. Their prosperity is the only thing that keeps the Chinese from rebelling.
And the communists do not accept mandates from the population.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 17:06
Your well proven inability to read and comprehend is the only thing notable about any of your posts in denial of reality e.g. “Well regulated”-‘2nd A is why you can’t buy automatic weapons, machine guns, etc’-Obewon post.
CargoSquid replied many times ‘No it doesn’t…’-CargoSquid is an obvious troll.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 17:36
RIiiight…. because I actually provide evidence that you are lying or ignorant…..I’m a troll.
Apparently I read quite well. I addressed your comment accurately.
Since you brought it up…and lied about my response to your incorrect assertion about why you can’t buy automatic weapons, machine guns, etc’ ‘… I’ll point out ..AGAIN that you’re use of the term “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with today’s laws about automatic weapons and that the term is defines as well trained and well disciplined.
We have other reasons, not found in the 2nd, why we have those restrictions.
If you are going to lie…please make it harder to debunk you.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 19:23
Lol WSJ is the only “Paywall” All others are free!
E.g. http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 19:26
Um….WSJ was a paywall. http://online.wsj.com/articles/economics-versus-pollution-in-chinas-dirtiest-city-1410901992
What is your point with this link. It is the same one I just posted to point out that China’s coal dependence is growing.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:58
Don’t leave out Warren Buffett….he LOVES oil.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:01
“The period of 2013 to 2033 is currently estimated to quadruple sea level
rise via melting permafrost estimated to soon begin venting vast
amounts of far more damaging Methane, coupled with our vastly warmer
oceans soon melting oceanic methane Ice.”
Neither of your links even mentions this. Got a link to supply your evidence?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 15:38
Why don’t you do your own research, or do you want to be a climate denier and not know the truth?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:57
No need to do the research. That is Obewhon’s job to support his assertions. That is how it works.
But lets examine his statement. Now I’m curious as to what I will find.
A google search returns exactly ONE viable hit based on his statement.
It goes here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/14569310/The-Renewable-Deal-A-comprehensive-to-transform-American
A book by a Doctor of Social Psychology that wrote a book on climate change.
Now…the problem is…..is THAT Obewhon’s source? Only he can tell us.
So, now…. do you not want to know the truth where his statement came from.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 16:20
100% False! “A google search returns exactly ONE viable hit based on his statement. It goes here: https://www.scribd…”-CargoSquid is a well proven uninformed airhead by NASA as linked: “Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.”-EPA, NASA & NOAA. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html “
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:44
Funny… I just did it. ONE return.
And again…YOU provide no links to disprove me.
I googled this: “The period of 2013 to 2033 is currently estimated to quadruple sea level
rise via melting permafrost estimated to soon begin venting vast
amounts of far more damaging Methane, coupled with our vastly warmer
oceans soon melting oceanic methane Ice.”
And got this
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+period+of+2013+to+2033+is+currently+estimated+to+quadruple+sea+level+rise+via+melting+permafrost+estimated+to+soon+begin+venting+vast+amounts+of+far+more+damaging+Methane%2C+coupled+with+our+vastly+warmer+oceans+soon+melting+oceanic+methane+Ice.%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
I think that the moderator was saying something about deception. You should start supporting your statements.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:42
So you do want to live in denial. Does your source of income depend on living in a state of denial?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:48
Wait a second….
I show that his statement has no support.
I show that it is possible that he got it from a book by an unqualified scientist. IF a skeptic social scientist tried to write a skeptic book…you would jump all over him.
I back up my statements with links and “show my work.”
YOU suggested I do the work…so I did.
And that is all you have? A cliche?
And yet you hold up climate science as a paragon of truth.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:05
Also…lets look at that statement again.
He’s stating that there will be a quadruple rise….starting last year or within his time period….its not clear.
That means that we will suddenly have 12mm of rise per year…..
on average.
And yet….. no signs of it. So, I assume that this will come suddenly in the next 20 years. Roughly half an inch per year.
Will he make a retraction when it turns out to be wrong?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:46
If we are still around I am sure he would be overjoyed to. I certainly would like to admit I am wrong. Unfortunately that probably won’t be the case. All we need is one big methane burp that would last about ten years to create a mega disaster. The only way to prevent such a disaster is to already be working on the problem in advance and scale up fast as possible when it happens.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 18:01
How is it that we didn’t have these methane burps during the Medieval warm period when it was warmer than it was now? Or during the Roman Warm period? Even if you believe that those periods only affected the northern hemisphere, that would still affect the tundra and methane deposits?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 18:18
Not enough ice melted to expose the trapped methane in the permafrost, especially in Siberia where the greatest danger now lies, as the permafrost has been melting and methane is being released. Unfortunately it is in Russia so it is hard to get good data on how bad things could get. I guess we can pray to the great skydaddy and hope it isn’t that bad but I would rather not.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:57
Again…see the report.
Subsidence is the cause.
Sea level has been averaging 3mm per year for thousands of years.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:23
Subsidence is a contributing cause at some locations. This is a good case in point where you are omitting facts and being deceptive. Everything you state is likely to be wrong or disingenuous when all things are considered. Why should anyone waste their time with you when your goal is deception? You have no interest in promoting further understanding, all you appear to care about doing is trolling.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:41
I state that subsidence is the cause…..and pointed to the report.
Where there is increased sea level rise, there is subsidence.
Disagreement with you is not trolling nor deception. If deception was the problem, you should take a look at Obewhon’s omissions and blanket unsupported assertions.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 17:59
I have been following what Obewon has been saying for a long time. In case you haven’t noticed I am a moderator. My job is to ferret out the trolls and expose them and ban them. You have been ferreted out and exposed. Can you guess what comes next? I have played with you and tested you too see what kind of credible info you could provide and whether or not you could provide anything of value to a discussion in trying solve real problems. I hope you find a site that will except your trolling or at the very least will agree with you just because and pat you on the back. I am done.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 18:03
Okay! In other words…his lies are good,. My actual evidence is bad
Because Shut up.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 18:22
Conjecture on possible problems is always better than cherry picked evidence that says there is no problem to worry about. The latter is why disasters occur the former is why there aren’t as many and when they do occur we are better prepared for them.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:55
If I was going to be around in 50 years, I’d bet you $1 million dollars that you would be wrong.
We have always had climate CHANGE. Read some history.
crc3 October 14th, 2014 at 13:21
Read some facts about climate change then make a comment. Otherwise…don’t…
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:14
Oh..so your attitude is “Because Shut up!”
Gotcha.
I see no science in your bold assertion. Since the sea level is rising at 3mm per year…with no sign of changing….. those regions are perfectly safe from sea level rise within the next 100 years.
Or do you consider 11 inches in 100 years to be a problem. Because in the last 100 years….the sea level rose that amount.
crc3 October 1st, 2014 at 09:45
Miami…New York City…New Orleans…Charleston, SC…plus thousands of tropical islands and low lying areas in the world will all be under water within the next 50-100 years because of sea level rise. Droughts and flooding rains attributed to climate change will destroy croplands. With all of the other problems facing the world it will not be one I want to live in. Kids born today are facing a very bleak future imo…
Robert M. Snyder October 1st, 2014 at 13:11
The major issue in New Orleans is not global sea level rise, but land subsidence. Even if global sea level rise (estimated at 1.8 mm/yr) were completely halted, New Orleans would still have big problems.
Global sea level rise is estimated to be about 1.8 mm/yr. New Orleans is experiencing land subsidence that is estimated to be at least 5 mm/yr.
Here is a brief summary prepared by the Louisiana State University Department of Engineering, which estimates land subsidence in southern Louisiana at between 6 and 16 mm/yr.
https://www.eng.lsu.edu/news/2013/4/quantifying-vulnerability/
Pull quotes:
“Land subsidence is a complicated process,” Kent said. “South Louisiana is essentially wet and mushy. Combined with natural processes including tectonic loading, shifting growth faults and sea-level rise caused by global climate change, agricultural and industrial activities have caused localized subsidence. The construction of levees have essentially dried up landscapes, preventing water from replenishing the land and accelerating compaction rates. And the extensive use of water from natural aquifers further contributes to subsidence.”
Continuing research conducted by late LSU professor and researcher Roy K. Dokka, Kent and colleagues physically gathered more than 2,000 miles of road elevation data in south Louisiana and developed four different subsidence models to estimate surface elevations for the years 2015, 2025, 2050 and 2100. Kent and his research team drove their GPS equipment over approximately 90% of southern Louisiana major roadways, collecting elevation data at centimeter level accuracy. Applying factors of man-made subsidence to existing subsidence rate models, Kent used the elevation data to determine land loss rates due to subsidence ranging from approximately 6 to 16 millimeters per year.
crc3 October 1st, 2014 at 13:59
Good and informative post. Thanks!
Obewon October 1st, 2014 at 21:21
Jason Satellite data proved the past decade global sea level rise of +1.25 inches averaged 3.17 mm per year +/- .04 mm/yr. That is double your posted claim. http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/Integrated_Multi-Mission_Ocean_AltimeterData Via NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/ Melting glacial runoff quadrupled last mid decade 2005 see below:
2011 Hurricane Irene: -Sea Level Rise. Greenhouse pollution is causing the world’s oceans to rise…Boston’s relative sea level has increased 11.8 inches since 1990, and sea level at Norfolk, VA has steadily risen 14.5 inches over the past 80 years. The +1 foot rise in sea level means that damage from Hurricane Irene’s storm surge was +50% greater than it would have been otherwise. http://www.alan.com/2011/08/26/hurricane-irene-worse-because-of-global-warming/
Robert M. Snyder October 1st, 2014 at 21:49
The IPCC report from 2007 says “Based on a small number (~25) of high-quality tide gauge records from stable land regions, the rate of sea level rise has been estimated as 1.8 mm yr–1 for the past 70 years.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2.html
However, there are many problems with tide gauge data, mainly land subsidence whose confounding effects could not be eliminated prior to GPS.
I am inclined to put greater confidence in the satellite data. Thanks for the links.
So assuming that 3.17mm/yr is the most accurate estimate of global sea level rise, New Orleans still has a bigger problem with land subsidence than with global sea level rise. The problem is not just global energy use patterns (e.g. carbon). For New Orleans, the single biggest problem is regional water usage patterns (i.e. depleting the aquifer, thereby causing subsidence).
Obewon October 1st, 2014 at 22:37
We agree on the superior accuracy of NASA’s Jason Satellite 1993 to 2013 dataset, that wasn’t validated until 2013. “3.17mm/yr is the most accurate estimate”-that was in the past twenty years. The period of 2013 to 2033 is currently estimated to quadruple sea level rise via melting permafrost estimated to soon begin venting vast amounts of far more damaging Methane, coupled with our vastly warmer oceans soon melting oceanic methane Ice. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html “Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.”-EPA, NASA & NOAA.
If global economies phase out human burning of fossil fuels causing 80% of modern global warming climate change, most all of the 2014 accumulated +45% CO2 402 PPM atmospheric damage remains for 40+ years, but is currently rising +3.5 PPM in our atmosphere per year. Record CO2 also simultaneously skyrocketed ocean acidification to record destructive levels that are already severely impacting ocean plankton, creating 70% of Earth’s Oxygen! http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F ‘Currently by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150% more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.’
It’s obvious why Big Oil Republicans and Koch Oil Bros founded and funded tea party supporters exude scientific illiteracy, because it inaccurately tells them what they want to hear:)
Robert M. Snyder October 2nd, 2014 at 00:43
“If global economies phase out human burning of fossil fuels…”
That’s a pretty big if. China is the world’s largest CO2 emitter, and its output is growing rapidly. I don’t think the Big Oil Republicans or the Koch Brother have much control over Chinese CO2 emissions.
Obewon October 2nd, 2014 at 01:03
1.3 B Chinese people poisoned by fossil fuel pollution have already lowered the boom on expanding their local industry, mandating renewable energy, or no new factories or expansions. China is also #1 in solar production.
USA’s 5% global population burns 1/4 of Earth’s annual fossil fuel and produces 25% of the globes carbon pollution. USA’s Thin-Film Solar Cell 22% Efficiency Record Set By First Solar (Again.) http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/07/thin-film-solar-cell-efficiency-record-set-first-solar/ 2) 78% of US drivers commute 39 miles or less daily. http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/06/how-did-gm-determine-that-78-of-commuters-drive-less-than-40-miles-per-day/ 3) 95% of all car trips could be made In Electric Cars, Says Study. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1071688_95-of-all-trips-could-be-made-in-electric-cars-says-study
EV’s are already 4% of US vehicle sales and growing fast. Solar powered plug-in hybrids are also very popular. by 2023, USA’s 54 MPG average fuel economy is also a big help in reducing greenhouse gas pollution, while saving lives from fossil fuel fallout. Telsa 2013 outsells MERCEDES-BENZ S-CLASS, BMW 7 SERIES, AUDI A8, LEXUS LS AND PORSCHE PANAMERA http://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/forum/forums/tesla-model-s-outsold-mercedesbenz-sclass-bmw-7-series-audi-a8-lexus-ls-and-porsche-pan A less expensive model is being introduced with 300-400 mile range per charge.
Meanwhile Big Oil & Koch Bros coal are inevitably going the way of the dinosaur.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:09
“1.3 B Chinese people poisoned by fossil fuel pollution have already
lowered the boom on expanding their local industry, mandating renewable
energy, or no new factories or expansions.”
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Chinese people do not mandate ANYTHING to their government. They want their boom to continue. They want energy. They are building one coal plant per week.
They are not about to stop building businesses and the government is not about to listen to them.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 16:29
Even WSJ debunks you “On government orders, Jizhong has closed or is planning to close three of its five Xingtai power plants and has halted operations at a fourth while it upgrades to cleaner-running equipment. Jizhong is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce harmful emissions and effluents even as its earnings plummet due to falling demand for coal.”-WSJ Sept. 16, 2014. http://online.wsj.com/articles/economics-versus-pollution-in-chinas-dirtiest-city-1410901992
2) “China pollution results in (100+) factory closures, flight cancellations: The U.S. embassy in Beijing on Saturday night recorded fine particulate matter at 886 micrograms per cubic meter, the highest since monitoring began in 2007. The air quality index ranking of 755 was also far off the charts, which consider 300 to 500 to be “hazardous.” While in the past the Chinese government has criticized the embassy for scaremongering, their own monitors over the weekend gave readings that were also dire, showing pollution as hazardous in 33 cities. “The air pollution is unprecedented. This is the first time in China’s history we have seen it this bad,’’ said Zhao Zhangyuan of the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences.”-LA Times January 13, 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/13/world/la-fg-wn-china-air-pollution-hits-record-levels-20130113
CargoSquid Strikes 3 & Out! “The human cost of China’s untold soil pollution problem Rapid industrialisation has left a legacy of soil pollution that is damaging health and livelihoods in villages across China, report Chinadialogue and Yale Environment 360”-June 30, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/30/the-human-cost-of-chinas-untold-soil-pollution-problem
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:53
What part of all that was “mandated” by the population?
Also… nothing in that you have copied points to a drawdown in the use of coal. Your link is behind a paywall for me.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999
I was laughing at you because while the Chinese government sees a profit in modernizing…..nothing will stop the building of industry, keeping the money rolling in, and the modernization of China. Their prosperity is the only thing that keeps the Chinese from rebelling.
And the communists do not accept mandates from the population.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 17:06
Your well proven inability to read and comprehend is the only thing notable about any of your posts in denial of reality e.g. “Well regulated”-‘2nd A is why you can’t buy automatic weapons, machine guns, etc’-Obewon post.
CargoSquid replied many times ‘No it doesn’t…’-CargoSquid is an obvious troll.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 17:36
RIiiight…. because I actually provide evidence that you are lying or ignorant…..I’m a troll.
Apparently I read quite well. I addressed your comment accurately.
Since you brought it up…and lied about my response to your incorrect assertion about why you can’t buy automatic weapons, machine guns, etc’ ‘… I’ll point out ..AGAIN that you’re use of the term “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with today’s laws about automatic weapons and that the term is defines as well trained and well disciplined.
We have other reasons, not found in the 2nd, why we have those restrictions.
If you are going to lie…please make it harder to debunk you.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 19:23
Lol WSJ is the only “Paywall” All others are free!
E.g. http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 19:26
Um….WSJ was a paywall. http://online.wsj.com/articles/economics-versus-pollution-in-chinas-dirtiest-city-1410901992
What is your point with this link. It is the same one I just posted to point out that China’s coal dependence is growing.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:58
Don’t leave out Warren Buffett….he LOVES oil.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 13:01
“The period of 2013 to 2033 is currently estimated to quadruple sea level
rise via melting permafrost estimated to soon begin venting vast
amounts of far more damaging Methane, coupled with our vastly warmer
oceans soon melting oceanic methane Ice.”
Neither of your links even mentions this. Got a link to supply your evidence?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 15:38
Why don’t you do your own research, or do you want to be a climate denier and not know the truth?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:57
No need to do the research. That is Obewhon’s job to support his assertions. That is how it works.
But lets examine his statement. Now I’m curious as to what I will find.
A google search returns exactly ONE viable hit based on his statement.
It goes here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/14569310/The-Renewable-Deal-A-comprehensive-to-transform-American
A book by a Doctor of Social Psychology that wrote a book on climate change.
Now…the problem is…..is THAT Obewhon’s source? Only he can tell us.
So, now…. do you not want to know the truth where his statement came from.
Obewon October 14th, 2014 at 16:20
100% False! “A google search returns exactly ONE viable hit based on his statement. It goes here: https://www.scribd…”-CargoSquid is a well proven uninformed airhead by NASA as linked: “Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.”-EPA, NASA & NOAA. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html “
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:44
Funny… I just did it. ONE return.
And again…YOU provide no links to disprove me.
I googled this: “The period of 2013 to 2033 is currently estimated to quadruple sea level
rise via melting permafrost estimated to soon begin venting vast
amounts of far more damaging Methane, coupled with our vastly warmer
oceans soon melting oceanic methane Ice.”
And got this
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+period+of+2013+to+2033+is+currently+estimated+to+quadruple+sea+level+rise+via+melting+permafrost+estimated+to+soon+begin+venting+vast+amounts+of+far+more+damaging+Methane%2C+coupled+with+our+vastly+warmer+oceans+soon+melting+oceanic+methane+Ice.%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
I think that the moderator was saying something about deception. You should start supporting your statements.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:42
So you do want to live in denial. Does your source of income depend on living in a state of denial?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:48
Wait a second….
I show that his statement has no support.
I show that it is possible that he got it from a book by an unqualified scientist. IF a skeptic social scientist tried to write a skeptic book…you would jump all over him.
I back up my statements with links and “show my work.”
YOU suggested I do the work…so I did.
And that is all you have? A cliche?
And yet you hold up climate science as a paragon of truth.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:05
Also…lets look at that statement again.
He’s stating that there will be a quadruple rise….starting last year or within his time period….its not clear.
That means that we will suddenly have 12mm of rise per year…..
on average.
And yet….. no signs of it. So, I assume that this will come suddenly in the next 20 years. Roughly half an inch per year.
Will he make a retraction when it turns out to be wrong?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:46
If we are still around I am sure he would be overjoyed to. I certainly would like to admit I am wrong. Unfortunately that probably won’t be the case. All we need is one big methane burp that would last about ten years to create a mega disaster. The only way to prevent such a disaster is to already be working on the problem in advance and scale up fast as possible when it happens.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 18:01
How is it that we didn’t have these methane burps during the Medieval warm period when it was warmer than it was now? Or during the Roman Warm period? Even if you believe that those periods only affected the northern hemisphere, that would still affect the tundra and methane deposits?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 18:18
Not enough ice melted to expose the trapped methane in the permafrost, especially in Siberia where the greatest danger now lies, as the permafrost has been melting and methane is being released. Unfortunately it is in Russia so it is hard to get good data on how bad things could get. I guess we can pray to the great skydaddy and hope it isn’t that bad but I would rather not.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:57
Again…see the report.
Subsidence is the cause.
Sea level has been averaging 3mm per year for thousands of years.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:23
Subsidence is a contributing cause at some locations. This is a good case in point where you are omitting facts and being deceptive. Everything you state is likely to be wrong or disingenuous when all things are considered. Why should anyone waste their time with you when your goal is deception? You have no interest in promoting further understanding, all you appear to care about doing is trolling.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:41
I state that subsidence is the cause…..and pointed to the report.
Where there is increased sea level rise, there is subsidence.
Disagreement with you is not trolling nor deception. If deception was the problem, you should take a look at Obewhon’s omissions and blanket unsupported assertions.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 17:59
I have been following what Obewon has been saying for a long time. In case you haven’t noticed I am a moderator. My job is to ferret out the trolls and expose them and ban them. You have been ferreted out and exposed. Can you guess what comes next? I have played with you and tested you too see what kind of credible info you could provide and whether or not you could provide anything of value to a discussion in trying to solve real problems. I hope you find a site that will except your trolling or at the very least will agree with you just because and pat you on the back. I am done.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 18:03
Okay! In other words…his lies are good,. My actual evidence is bad
Because Shut up.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 18:22
Conjecture on possible problems is always better than cherry picked evidence that says there is no problem to worry about. The latter is why disasters occur the former is why there aren’t as many and when they do occur we are better prepared for them.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:55
If I was going to be around in 50 years, I’d bet you $1 million dollars that you would be wrong.
We have always had climate CHANGE. Read some history.
crc3 October 14th, 2014 at 13:21
Read some facts about climate change then make a comment. Otherwise…don’t…
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:14
Oh..so your attitude is “Because Shut up!”
Gotcha.
I see no science in your bold assertion. Since the sea level is rising at 3mm per year…with no sign of changing….. those regions are perfectly safe from sea level rise within the next 100 years.
Or do you consider 11 inches in 100 years to be a problem. Because in the last 100 years….the sea level rose that amount.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:48
“The savage heat waves that struck Australia last year were almost
certainly a direct consequence of greenhouse gases released by human
activity, researchers said Monday. It is perhaps the most definitive
statement climate scientists have made tying a specific weather event to
global warming.”
Are these the same scientists that predicted years of drought before torrential rains flooded Australia? The same scientists that predicted that snow would become a thing of memory, that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013, that stated that our record COLD is caused by warming? THOSE scientists?
As for Norfolk, these climate scientists DID talk to a geologist, right? Parts of Norfolk are sinking. A) because the houses are built on landfill and B) because Norfolk sits on the edge of a crater.
arc99 October 14th, 2014 at 13:21
The scientist who projected an ice-free Arctic by 2013 was Professor Wieslaw Maslowski. His projections were deemed “aggressive” by many of his colleagues, but they did agree that his research was sound where the findings indicate we are moving towards an ice-free Arctic.
So yes, it is THOSE scientists whose opinions on climate change are infinitely more trustworthy than unsubstantiated what-if denials from some anonymous participant on an internet chat board.
As far as Norfolk is concerned, that crater simply makes them more vulnerable to the rising sea levels we get from climate change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”
And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 14:03
The funny part about that is that there is no increase in sea level rise. Since the Arctic has regained some ice…that 2030 date is looking iffy too.
We didn’t lose the Arctic during the Roman and Medieval warm periods…..we’re not going to now.
Why do you put trust in scientists that have continuously FAILED to predict one single climate change. EVERY prediction has been wrong. Or they’ve been modified to cover BOTH results….ie drought AND flooding….Snow and Warmth……
They ignore counter evidence, such as their continuous claims that Western Antarctic will collapse due to global warming while ignoring the discoveries that the melting is due to geothermal events and erosion of the grounding line of the Pine Island glacier.
Being aggressive means that he was WRONG. Even in the face of failing, he did not withdraw his prediction.
Here are more predictions of an ice free arctic.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
They said that 2012’s record ice loss was due to warming. The skeptics disagreed and pointed to natural causes, including wind patterns….and they were right.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:48
“The savage heat waves that struck Australia last year were almost
certainly a direct consequence of greenhouse gases released by human
activity, researchers said Monday. It is perhaps the most definitive
statement climate scientists have made tying a specific weather event to
global warming.”
Are these the same scientists that predicted years of drought before torrential rains flooded Australia? The same scientists that predicted that snow would become a thing of memory, that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013, that stated that our record COLD is caused by warming? THOSE scientists?
As for Norfolk, these climate scientists DID talk to a geologist, right? Parts of Norfolk are sinking. A) because the houses are built on landfill and B) because Norfolk sits on the edge of a crater.
arc99 October 14th, 2014 at 13:21
The scientist who projected an ice-free Arctic by 2013 was Professor Wieslaw Maslowski. His projections were deemed “aggressive” by many of his colleagues, but they did agree that his research was sound where the findings indicate we are moving towards an ice-free Arctic.
So yes, it is THOSE scientists whose opinions on climate change are infinitely more trustworthy than unsubstantiated what-if denials from some anonymous participant on an internet chat board.
As far as Norfolk is concerned, that crater simply makes them more vulnerable to the rising sea levels we get from climate change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”
And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 14:03
The funny part about that is that there is no increase in sea level rise. Since the Arctic has regained some ice…that 2030 date is looking iffy too.
We didn’t lose the Arctic during the Roman and Medieval warm periods…..we’re not going to now.
Why do you put trust in scientists that have continuously FAILED to predict one single climate change. EVERY prediction has been wrong. Or they’ve been modified to cover BOTH results….ie drought AND flooding….Snow and Warmth……
They ignore counter evidence, such as their continuous claims that Western Antarctic will collapse due to global warming while ignoring the discoveries that the melting is due to geothermal events and erosion of the grounding line of the Pine Island glacier.
Being aggressive means that he was WRONG. Even in the face of failing, he did not withdraw his prediction.
(Deleted link)
They said that 2012’s record ice loss was due to warming. The skeptics disagreed and pointed to natural causes, including wind patterns….and they were right.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 14:14
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/no-net-warming-in-australia-for-35-years/
No net warming for 35 years…..
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 15:32
Steven Goddard is a joke and links to his climate denial site are not welcome here.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:42
So….. evidence of past predictions that also failed…and history of climatic events is not allowed?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:11
If it comes from a credible source it is OK. Goddard’s site is not credible.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:36
Why isn’t he considered “credible?”
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:49
Do a google search ” steven goddard credible “, I did. It is obvious.
R.J. Carter October 14th, 2014 at 16:53
Other blogs said so.
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 15:32
Steven Goddard is a joke and links to his climate denial site are not welcome here.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:42
So….. evidence of past predictions that also failed…and history of climatic events is not allowed?
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:11
If it comes from a credible source it is OK. Goddard’s site is not credible.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 16:36
Why isn’t he considered “credible?”
mea_mark October 14th, 2014 at 16:49
Do a google search ” steven goddard credible “, I did. It is obvious.
R.J. Carter October 14th, 2014 at 16:53
Other blogs said so.