Preliminary IPCC report predicts increased weather extremes

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:26 PM GMT on November 03, 2011

Share this Blog
24
+

There is at least a 2-in-3 probability that climate extremes have already worsened because of human-caused releases of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, and some types of extreme weather events will increase in the coming decades as huge cost, says a preliminary draft of an international climate report leaked to the Associated Press (AP) this week. The Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues reports on the state of the scientific knowledge of climate change every six years, with the next full report due out in 2013. However, the IPCC is working on a special report detailing the evidence that extreme weather events may be increasing due to climate change, and how we might best prepare for the coming increase in these costly and dangerous events. The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters (SREX) is due to be released later this month, after a meeting in Uganda, where diplomats will recommend changes to the preliminary document leaked to AP. The IPCC requires that all countries agree unanimously on the content of the official reports, so the language of the leaked report may undergo considerable change. In the AP article, University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who was not among the authors, is quoted as saying that the report was written to be “so bland” that it may not matter to world leaders. With the diplomats free to make changes to the report, I think it is likely that the already bland SREX report will be further watered down. Despite all the objections one hears about the extreme and dire predictions of the IPCC, the science in these reports is actually very conservative and watered down, due to the requirement that the language must be approved by every country (including oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia.) So, it should grab our attention that the preliminary draft of the SREX report predicts that some regions of the world might suffer extremes so severe as to leave them "increasingly marginal places to live", heat waves could peak at 5°F hotter by 2050 and 9°F hotter by 2100, and intense single-day rainstorms that happen only once every twenty years now will happen up to once every five years by 2100. I'll have more on the SREX report after its official release.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 153 - 103

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

153. chrisale
3:37 AM GMT on November 05, 2011
I find it incredibly ironic, telling, and sad.... that the same people who flock to this website to hear Dr. Jeff Masters forecasts and analysis on Hurricanes, and trust them thoroughly due, I presume, to a trust in his knowledge as a climate scientist do not also trust his judgement when it comes to climate change and it's veracity.

You can't pick and choose what 'science' you believe in. It's all connected. If you don't 'believe' what comes out of Jeff Masters mouth when he utters the word 'global warming', then I would suggest leaving this website because you have invalidated his opinion on any other climate or meteorological event as well.

You don't think the "Heat Content" in the ocean that powers hurricanes doesn't rely on the same science that proves the greenhouse effect and a warming world?

It's time to Buck Up.

The science proves that global warming is happening.
The science proves that it is changing our climate in both predictable and unpredictable ways
The science proves that the only known process able to create that change is Greenhouse Gases
The *numbers* proves that the only Greenhouse gas rising enough to create that Greenhouse Effect are CO2 and Methane emitted by human activity.

Dr. Jeff Masters is simply relaying this information to you. He is showing you the proof everyday.
Member Since: July 15, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 63
152. TropicTraveler
2:42 PM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting wunderweatherman123:

based on all of that what do you think is the earliest for another el nino to form?

I could understand this better if I knew what PDO is?
Member Since: July 24, 2007 Posts: 2 Comments: 924
151. aspectre
1:39 PM GMT on November 04, 2011
38 Patrap "co2now.org 389.00ppm Atmospheric CO2 for September 2011"

People pumped ~512million more (metric) tonnes of carbon into the air in 2010 than they did in 2009, an increase of 6%. That extra pollution exceeds the individual emissions of all but 3 countries...

...China (2,248megatonnes), the UnitedStates (1,498megatonnes), and India (564megatonnes).
Simply put, it's all India's fault. Reducing India's carbon emissions to 52megatonnes would eliminate the increase.

Extra emissions from China and the U.S. account for more than half of the increase last year... hrrrm... May hafta eliminate Russia's contribution to make up for 2011.

The carbon emissions for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change four years ago...
...which led to a projected global temperature increase of 4to11degreesFahrenheit with the best estimate at 7.5degrees by the end of the century.

The IPCC's worst case scenario was about in the middle of what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated to be likely scenarios.

The good news is, the developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8% below 1990 levels.

The U.S. did not ratify the agreement, and that lack of commitment shows.
Member Since: August 21, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 4860
150. Neapolitan
12:16 PM GMT on November 04, 2011
NEW BLOG ENTRY
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13455
149. trunkmonkey
12:11 PM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

As the article states, we would have to see roughly two Mt. Pinatubo eruptions, or ten Mount St. Helens eruptions, every day of the year for volcanic CO2 emissions to equal what we humans emit. There's obviously nothing even remotely close to that going on, and the fact remains that anthropogenic CO2 emissions absolutely dwarf man-made ones.


Thanks for the heads up!
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
148. GeoffreyWPB
12:09 PM GMT on November 04, 2011
This would scare the heck out of me. Although it is awesome.

Member Since: September 10, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10965
147. Neapolitan
11:58 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting trunkmonkey:
That was last year, my point this year, is the volcano activity is more active, so the results will be different, since there are so many active volcano's this year!

As the article states, we would have to see roughly two Mt. Pinatubo eruptions, or ten Mount St. Helens eruptions, every day of the year for volcanic CO2 emissions to equal what we humans emit. There's obviously nothing even remotely close to that going on, and the fact remains that anthropogenic CO2 emissions absolutely dwarf man-made ones.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13455
146. pottery
11:47 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting Skyepony:
USGS study reveals it's Raining Roundup. The herbicide Roundup that is used on the Genetically Modified crops that is the majority of today's foods in the US, is being used in such abundance it is being found in the air, rain & water over all the Mississippi basin during growing season. The components it degrades to is being found year round in the rain.

This is Dread News.
But not unexpected.
As you know, Roundup has been shown to interfere with the reproductive abilities in mammals (we are mammals).

Roundup in our food, and in the air we breathe and in the water we drink, is a very good way to control the population......

From my own observations and the observations of other people in the river valleys of the northern range of mountains here in Trinidad, we are seeing fewer and fewer crayfish, crabs, frogs etc in the rivers and streams where Roundup has been recently introduced with the planting of Christophene, a vegetable that needs to grow in very damp conditions.
The effects are noticed far downriver from the gardens.....
The rivers and streams end up in the sea. Obviously.

It's pretty awful.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 23990
145. trunkmonkey
11:40 AM GMT on November 04, 2011

Here's what the USGS--the scientific body charged with monitoring volcanoes and earthquakes and such--has to say about that:

"Do the Earth's volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, "No." Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010, release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world's degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes."

"The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year. The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year."

Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2: 700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2: 3,500
Number of days for anthropogenic CO2 to equal a year's worth of global volcanism: 2.7

Armed with that, now you can be the judge.



That was last year, my point this year, is the volcano activity is more active, so the results will be different, since there are so many active volcano's this year!
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
144. Neapolitan
11:13 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting trunkmonkey:
I'm just a dumb lurker in here, I watch weather, and global natural issues including earthquakes and volcano's, I see all the global warming issues being posted in here, almost daily, and all the post are aimed at human caused.
I read about volcano's and the amount of gasses of different types being emitted into the atmosphere.
We are having a very active volcano period. Here is a link to all the world's current active volcano's.
You be the judge!

http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoe s.html

Here's what the USGS--the scientific body charged with monitoring volcanoes and earthquakes and such--has to say about that:

"Do the Earth's volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, "No." Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010, release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world's degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes."

"The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year. The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year."

Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2: 700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2: 3,500
Number of days for anthropogenic CO2 to equal a year's worth of global volcanism: 2.7


Armed with that, now you can be the judge.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13455
143. trunkmonkey
10:30 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
I'm just a dumb lurker in here, I watch weather, and global natural issues including earthquakes and volcano's, I see all the global warming issues being posted in here, almost daily, and all the post are aimed at human caused.
I read about volcano's and the amount of gasses of different types being emitted into the atmosphere.
We are having a very active volcano period. Here is a link to all the world's current active volcano's.
You be the judge!

http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoe s.html
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
142. islander101010
9:30 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
looks like rainy season in latin america has finally faded away dec is usually a great time of the yr to visit
Member Since: September 11, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 4313
141. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
9:03 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
India Meteorological Department
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #21
LOW PRESSURE AREA, FORMER KEILA (ARB02-2011)
11:30 AM IST November 4 2011
=========================================

At 6:00 AM UTC, The depression over west central Arabian Sea close to Oman coast weakened into a low pressure area. Low Pressure Area, Former Keila will weaken further and become less marked during the next 24 hours.

At this current status, this will be the final tropical cyclone advisory on this system.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 50 Comments: 44687
140. ktymisty
9:00 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting FrankZapper:
You've reported me tonight? For what? Who insulted who 1st?

I contribute all the time. It's just that you don't like my style. Why else do you think this blog is dying. Intolerance.

And no son, I rarely REPORT others. I want to hear what people THINK.


This is what I think...

Change is happening, it always will happen.
A warmer earth will have mixed results - some places will get better, some will get worse, as it always does.
Doesn't really matter in the long run.

Personally I don't think humans are the main cause, but we contribute. It would be good for us to change the way we do things but it shouldn't be as political as it is now - no point. It's just a 'follow the money trail' issue now, too late to keep it simple.

If I had money I'd buy land around the arctic, and mining stock, and grow trees where you couldn't before, and watch the cities flood and people adapt and change to suit. Evolve like we're suppose to I guess :)
Member Since: August 22, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 206
139. justsouthofnola
7:28 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
thats the only thing thats wrong with this site is the believe and propaganda of humans causing global warming and extreme weather
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 226
138. bio4
7:22 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
An extreme rain event is taking place in southern France now. Please see: Link
Member Since: May 11, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 4
137. FrankZapper
6:38 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
You've reported me tonight? For what? Who insulted who 1st?

I contribute all the time. It's just that you don't like my style. Why else do you think this blog is dying. Intolerance.

And no son, I rarely REPORT others. I want to hear what people THINK.
Member Since: May 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1193
136. FrankZapper
6:29 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
He lost me too there. But it goes to show you, if it is true, that there are a lot more natural feedback mechanisms than the GWers would have you believe.
Member Since: May 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1193
134. sar2401
6:22 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting AstroHurricane001:


The natural cycles are capable of injecting and removing CO2, though usually over very long timescales of thousands to millions of years. CO2 can also be released or absorbed from the ocean in response to temperature changes in the atmosphere. When CO2 levels were higher than 760 ppm, Antactica froze and temperatures were 4C warmer than today, meaning that we could easily reach that kind of climate.


Wait, you lost me on that one. Are you saying that when the CO2 levels were higher than 760 PPM, Antarctica froze but the temperatures (somewhere?) were 4 degrees centigrade warmer than they are (somewhere?) today? Something seems backwards about that.
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 13067
133. FrankZapper
6:19 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Perhaps you've had an excellent way of contributing all these 7 years. Lurking. Now back into that mode!
Member Since: May 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1193
132. sar2401
6:14 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting FrankZapper:
I am considering closing my account and leaving this blog for awhile.

A winter of endless arguments in this circular fashion about a global warming theory does not appeal to me any more than what to do about the endangered Desert Snailtoad (The DST).

The topic has been beaten to death and there is NOTHING new to discuss. Those who feel that this is just a natural process are not being swayed by the GREENS. And we all still line up weekly at the Church of High Octane.

So keep up the hypocritical talk. It beats chopping wood.


Frank, that would be an excellent idea. Come back when you have a better attitude and something positive to contribute.
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 13067
130. swflurker
5:39 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
What a rant? Redneck Joe draining his oil in the back yard. Trash just threw out of the car window. Every parking spot covered with some type of fluid. Throw it away, it's broke. Why should I care, everyone does it! We, as humans, are the biggest pigs/slobs on the earth. Put the crap in the dumpster and it goes away. One of the biggest things you all miss on climate change, is that all the crap ends up somewhere, and releases methane gas (cow farts), which is up there higher than CO2. Plus the our area looks better with all the trash laying around. Don't forget about about the contamination of the drinkable water also. If we make it another 50 years with our current habits, I would be shocked!!
Member Since: August 6, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 171
128. Quadrantid
5:04 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting DallasGumby:

It's not an issue of belief. That's a religious concept. It's an issue of proof. Those advocating for AGW and government involvement in mitigating the alleged effects of AGW have an obligation:
1. To prove (not theorize) what the problem is AND its cause,
2. To prove the problem is actually harmful,
3. To prove their solution actually will mitigate the harm and to what extent AND will not cause more harm along the way - in other words, that it will be both effective and cost-effective.

None of those has been proven. We have a theory - a potentially valid theory, but a theory that seems to have been contradicted by the last 11 years. And, in the face of that theory, what is being asked is a wholesale upheaval of the economies of the world, at the cost of trillions of dollars, with the certainty that there will be harmful effects to many around the globe, for a result that is not shown to be significantly better than what is theorized to happen.


While I agree with you that belief has no place in science (and I've stated this often before), I've got to take issue with your view of science. One of the big problems science comes across in trying to get its ideas across to politicians, the media, and the general public, comes down to the way the process is portrayed, and the way we're taught science at school.

One of the basic tenants of the way science works, at least from my training in Physics and Astronomy, is that you can never prove a theory. That just isn't how it works. Instead, you put forward a theory that is testable. It makes predictions - if this happens, then this will be the result. Each time the predictions made by your theory come true, then you become more confident that the theory is a true representation of how the world works.

However, it only takes one measurement to disprove a theory. That's why you do the tests. If the theory is disproved, then you go away and either come up with a whole new theory, or work out what was wrong in your original one.

For that reason, it is absolutely impossible to prove that AGW is happening, and that we're entirely to blame. However, to the best of my knowledge, it is the only theory available that explains all the observations to date, and makes predictions that are verified on a daily/yearly basis.

I'm an astronomer - and as such, I know that the ideas that are put forth by those who some on here would label "deniers" are often simply unfounded - they're easily disproven. Not all of them, of course - I'm not qualified to judge on those. I am qualified to comment on the allegations that the climate change is being driven by the Milankovic cycles (it clearly isn't -- it's happening much too fast, among other things). It isn't being driven by variations in the Sun's output either - that just simply doesn't work.

I've said this a few times - but my thinking is that acting to moderate the things we're doing to drive climate change is much like taking out fire insurance on an old wooden house. Sure, you're not going to set fire to your house, but there's a chance that it'll catch fire in the coming year, so you take out insurance such that, if it does, you'll be covered. If you take no insurance, and it doesn't burn down, you save a tiny bit of money, but if you take no insurance and it does, you're in deep trouble.

With climate change then, two possibilities, and two routes.

Possibility 1: The climate is changing as a result of our actions (the only theory that currently explains all the observations, and makes worthwhile predictions that keep being verified).
Possibility 2:The climate may be changing, but we're not contributing.

Route 1: We do nothing
Route 2: We do something

------

So - Scenario 1: Combine Possibility 2 (no AGW) and Route 2 (We do something). Here, there'll be some economic pain, as petrol prices go up, taxes go up, and people change their ways. However, on the flip side, loads of jobs and new technologies are created as we drive to find alternative energy sources and clean up our ways, so long term, the economy benefits, even though there's short term pain. At the same time, our environment becomes more pleasant as we cut down the pollution. What is there not to like? I suspect, as an aside, that industry in London in the 1950s argued against the clean air act, since it wasn't proven that their pollution was causing the evil smog...

Scenario 2: Possibility 2 (no AGW, Route 1 (We don't act): Things just carry on as they are. At some point, we'll run out of oil and coal and gas, and have to change, but that's someone elses concern. No short term pain, but little growth in new technology areas and jobs, since there's no point finding alternatives to the stuff we already use.

Scenario 3: Possibilty 1 (AGW), Route 2 (We do something): Here, we get all the benefits discussed for Scenario 1, PLUS we do something to either avert or prevent what could turn out to be a hellish future. If the worst case scenarios that have been predicted come true, then things will be awful for our children, and their children, into the future. This way, we might be able to act before it is too late AND we get plenty of other benefits

Scenario 4: Possibililty 1 (AGW), Route 1 (We do nothing): Here, the world our children and grandchildren grow up in will be hellish, and we'll be responsible. They'll look back and wonder why we did nothing, as they scrabble to stay alive, and fight wars over food, and over water, and deal with millions being displaced by the weather.

---------

So - in short, taking action is a bit like insurance - if we take action and it turns out the planet wasn't warming because of us, then we'll be somewhat out of pocket, but have a nicer living environment because of it, and have loads of new technology and new jobs too, which long term benefits the economy and standard of living. If we don't take action, and AGW is really happening (and remember, all the evidence points that way), then the future is hellish, and we're dooming our children to a terrible future.

Or, in the case of the house - if we think the house might catch fire, and take out insurance, we're covered, and slightly out of pocket. But if we deny that it might, and ignore the insurance, then we may be slightly better off in the short term, but if the house burns down, all is lost.

Personally, I find it hugely depressing that there's still so much misinformation and bad media being thrown around on this topic. I mentioned the other week that the situation here in Australia has become so caustic and anti-science (in large part thanks to advertising campaigns trying to drive home that climate change isn't happening) that a female colleague of mine, an infra-red astronomer, not a climate scientist, has been verbally abused on a number of occasions in public places by people she's met who found out that she is part of the evil scientist conspiracy that's trying to destroy our jobs and our livelihoods.

It sickens me :(

To finish, and perhaps illustrate my point better than I could myself, here's a wonderful article from TheConversation.edu.au, written by Matthew Bailes, the guy who discovered the diamond planet mentioned earlier. He's talking about the difference between the media reception he got for his work, and the way it would have been if he had been a climate researcher rather than astronomer, and makes for sobering reading, I think.
Member Since: June 13, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 106
127. Seawall
4:53 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Been a member for a long time on Wunderground. Still am. Just noticed, though, the category is now officially changed on this blog to Climate Change. What a let down. Guess there are no more weather discussions allowed until Hurricane Season begins again. (Even if then?) What a shame.
Member Since: September 8, 2001 Posts: 1 Comments: 401
126. JNCali
4:30 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting Skyepony:
USGS study reveals it's Raining Roundup. The herbicide Roundup that is used on the Genetically Modified crops that is the majority of today's foods in the US, is being used in such abundance it is being found in the air, rain & water over all the Mississippi basin during growing season. The components it degrades to is being found year round in the rain.

Forget the roundup.. how about the genes they put into the crops themselves.. ugh.. talk about a pandora's box
Member Since: September 9, 2010 Posts: 5 Comments: 1034
125. Skyepony (Mod)
3:46 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
USGS study reveals it's Raining Roundup. The herbicide Roundup that is used on the Genetically Modified crops that is the majority of today's foods in the US, is being used in such abundance it is being found in the air, rain & water over all the Mississippi basin during growing season. The components it degrades to is being found year round in the rain.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37300
124. Orcasystems
3:33 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26511
123. AussieStorm
2:25 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting WxGeekVA:


OK awake now...... LOL

Not Out. lol
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15932
122. WxGeekVA
2:23 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting AussieStorm:

HOWZAT!!!!!!!!


OK awake now...... LOL
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468
121. AussieStorm
2:20 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting FrankZapper:
I am considering closing my account and leaving this blog for awhile.

A winter of endless arguments in this circular fashion about a global warming theory does not appeal to me any more than what to do about the endangered Desert Snailtoad (The DST).

The topic has been beaten to death and there is NOTHING new to discuss. Those who feel that this is just a natural process are not being swayed by the GREENS. And we all still line up weekly at the Church of High Octane.

So keep up the hypocritical talk. It beats chopping wood.

Well, you could always go to my blog once our Cyclone season starts down here.
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15932
120. AussieStorm
2:18 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting WxGeekVA:
*Crickets Chirp....*

HOWZAT!!!!!!!!
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15932
119. WxGeekVA
2:14 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
*Crickets Chirp....*
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468
118. FrankZapper
1:08 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
I am considering closing my account and leaving this blog for awhile.

A winter of endless arguments in this circular fashion about a global warming theory does not appeal to me any more than what to do about the endangered Desert Snailtoad (The DST).

The topic has been beaten to death and there is NOTHING new to discuss. Those who feel that this is just a natural process are not being swayed by the GREENS. And we all still line up weekly at the Church of High Octane.

So keep up the hypocritical talk. It beats chopping wood.
Member Since: May 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1193
117. muddertracker
1:01 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Great...global warming again....oh well, back to Hockey. And I hate hockey.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 2337
116. weatherh98
12:29 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
came to pop in tropics all quiet, Okay this is one of the earliest start to winter ive expirienced. For example, as far back as i can remember, halloween has been HOT like mid 80's and this year it was in the 40's... hope all is well with everyone stay safe
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6461
114. AstroHurricane001
12:17 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting sar2401:


I would be very interested in links that show the amount of CO2 man's activities emits into the atmosphere per day compared to the total amount of CO2 emitted from all sources combined. I'd also be interested in a link that shows how the calculations were made that our atmosphere now has more CO2 than any time in the past 15 to 20 million years. Assuming that those calculations are correct then, by implication, some time more than 15 to 20 million years ago, there was even more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today. What was the source of that huge amount of CO2?


The natural cycles are capable of injecting and removing CO2, though usually over very long timescales of thousands to millions of years. CO2 can also be released or absorbed from the ocean in response to temperature changes in the atmosphere. When CO2 levels were higher than 760 ppm, Antactica froze and temperatures were 4C warmer than today, meaning that we could easily reach that kind of climate.
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2835
113. Articuno
12:03 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
.
Member Since: October 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2293
112. washingtonian115
12:00 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
This has turned into a GW blog.Getting out of hear.God bless yall.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16362
111. CanadianClimateHawk
12:00 AM GMT on November 04, 2011
Quoting DallasGumby:

It's not an issue of belief. That's a religious concept. It's an issue of proof. Those advocating for AGW and government involvement in mitigating the alleged effects of AGW have an obligation:
1. To prove (not theorize) what the problem is AND its cause,
2. To prove the problem is actually harmful,
3. To prove their solution actually will mitigate the harm and to what extent AND will not cause more harm along the way - in other words, that it will be both effective and cost-effective.

None of those has been proven. We have a theory - a potentially valid theory, but a theory that seems to have been contradicted by the last 11 years. And, in the face of that theory, what is being asked is a wholesale upheaval of the economies of the world, at the cost of trillions of dollars, with the certainty that there will be harmful effects to many around the globe, for a result that is not shown to be significantly better than what is theorized to happen.


There is no level of evidence that most deniers would ever accept when it comes to the evidence in support of AGW. Scientists are under no obligation to come up with specific public policy positions when it comes to dealing with the issue of climate change. That is the distinction between science and public policy. We can and are choosing as a species to stick our heads in the sand when it comes to the science behind AGW because it does require us to make difficult choices as individuals and as a society. Just because the science is inconvenient in terms of our political, economic or religious beliefs does not mean the problem will go away. It just means that as one of the most selfish societies we will kick the problem down the road to future generations. And why not? We have already undertaken massive intergenerational financial theft . Why not extend that to running down our environmental (capital) until it is completely exhausted? After all it is what the economy demands.
Member Since: December 30, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5
110. sar2401
11:43 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

As someone else stated on here earlier, supporting the theory of climate change isn't a matter of "believing"; it's a matter of looking at all the science available from reputable, credible sources, and making an intelligent and unbiased determination. Now, just as I don't wish for a science teacher to push the psuedo-science of astrology to my kids over the science of astronomy, I don't want a teacher of my kids to ignore the realities of anthropogenic climate change while pushing the fallacy that it's not happening. That's all...


Indeed. I would hope that all teachers would stick to facts that are settled science while still presenting theories of what may be changing in science. I'm all in favor of teaching students the theories of AGW as long as it's not presented as settled science and we try to avoid the "We're all going to die" type of hysteria I've seen with some AGW proponents. :)
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 13067
109. sar2401
11:37 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

Every 24 hours, our burning of fossil fuels pumps at least 40 trillion liters of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's caused atmospheric CO2 to climb to its highest level in 15 to 20 million years, and that has upset the natural balance that has long existed. And that CO2 doesn't simply vanish; it's accumulating, and roughly 40% of it goes into the oceans. In a year's time, then, we humans in effect pump 12 gigatons of CO2 into the ocean. Now, there is a lot of water on the planet--but that's a lot of carbon dioxide for sensitive fish and corals to dfeal with.


I would be very interested in links that show the amount of CO2 man's activities emits into the atmosphere per day compared to the total amount of CO2 emitted from all sources combined. I'd also be interested in a link that shows how the calculations were made that our atmosphere now has more CO2 than any time in the past 15 to 20 million years. Assuming that those calculations are correct then, by implication, some time more than 15 to 20 million years ago, there was even more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today. What was the source of that huge amount of CO2?
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 13067
108. wunderweatherman123
11:31 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting AstroHurricane001:


Let's examine the previous cold PDO. We'll look at the period 1946-1976, ignoring the brief warm period 1958-1961.



We see that from 1950 onwards during cold PDO, there were seven La Ninas and five El Ninos during a 23-year period (ignoring the brief warm period). La Nina lasted a total of 12 years and El Nino a total of 7 years, with three periods of strong La Nina and one period of strong El Nino (more than 1.5C deviation from normal).

From 1976 to 2007 was the warm PDO. There were nine El Ninos and five La Ninas during a 31-year period. El Nino lasted a total of 15 years and La Nina a total of 6 years, with five periods of strong El Nino and one period of strong La Nina.



It appears that PDO has a significant effect on ENSO, but it does not prevent the opposite type of oscillation from forming. A recent shift seems to have occurred toward Central Pacific El Ninos, and possibly La Ninas.

It will be interesting to see the total effect of PDO on Atlantic hurricane activity.

based on all of that what do you think is the earliest for another el nino to form?
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1286
107. AstroHurricane001
11:25 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting wunderweatherman123:
it will be hard for el nino to form if the PDO is cold and negative. this summer it tried and failed. we shall see this spring but climatology favor el nino to form in 2013 but anything can change and enso is very unpredictable


Let's examine the previous cold PDO. We'll look at the period 1946-1976, ignoring the brief warm period 1958-1961.



We see that from 1950 onwards during cold PDO, there were seven La Ninas and five El Ninos during a 23-year period (ignoring the brief warm period). La Nina lasted a total of 12 years and El Nino a total of 7 years, with three periods of strong La Nina and one period of strong El Nino (more than 1.5C deviation from normal).

From 1976 to 2007 was the warm PDO. There were nine El Ninos and five La Ninas during a 31-year period. El Nino lasted a total of 15 years and La Nina a total of 6 years, with five periods of strong El Nino and one period of strong La Nina.



It appears that PDO has a significant effect on ENSO, but it does not prevent the opposite type of oscillation from forming. A recent shift seems to have occurred toward Central Pacific El Ninos, and possibly La Ninas.

It will be interesting to see the total effect of PDO on Atlantic hurricane activity.
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2835
106. Neapolitan
11:16 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting sar2401:


OK, I'm confused, Neapolitan. Are saying that only teachers who believe in AGW (or ACC, I guess) should be teach our kids or only teachers that don't believe in it should be teaching our kids? Assuming that teachers of science are teaching settled issues of science as fact, and unsettled issues as theory, are you suggesting some kind of litmus test for teachers that depends on their beliefs rather than how and what they teach?

As someone else stated on here earlier, supporting the theory of climate change isn't a matter of "believing"; it's a matter of looking at all the science available from reputable, credible sources, and making an intelligent and unbiased determination. Now, just as I don't wish for a science teacher to push the psuedo-science of astrology to my kids over the science of astronomy, I don't want a teacher of my kids to ignore the realities of anthropogenic climate change while pushing the fallacy that it's not happening. That's all...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13455
105. Articuno
11:16 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting Xandra:
ScienceShot: Diamond Planet Orbits a Pulsar



As reported in Science, an international astronomy team led by Swinburne University’s Matthew Bailes, has discovered a low-mass but dense object in orbit around a rapidly-rotating neutron star.

Shortly after the discovery Matthew Bailes wrote the article: Diamond planets, climate change and the scientific method.

That is an amazing discovery! Thanks.
Member Since: October 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2293
104. Xandra
11:14 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
ScienceShot: Diamond Planet Orbits a Pulsar



As reported in Science, an international astronomy team led by Swinburne University’s Matthew Bailes, has discovered a low-mass but dense object in orbit around a rapidly-rotating neutron star.

Shortly after the discovery Matthew Bailes wrote the article: Diamond planets, climate change and the scientific method.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
103. wunderweatherman123
11:11 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting AstroHurricane001:


The northern Cold PDO shows up nicely, except for a warm extention of the Kuroshio Current that is cutting it off via warm water. However the anomaly suggests strong Alaska and Pacific storms this winter.
it will be hard for el nino to form if the PDO is cold and negative. this summer it tried and failed. we shall see this spring but climatology favor el nino to form in 2013 but anything can change and enso is very unpredictable
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1286

Viewing: 153 - 103

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.