Extreme weather and climate change: a new IPCC report

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:48 PM GMT on November 18, 2011

Share this Blog
35
+

Extreme weather events are already being affected by human-caused climate change, and will increase in destructive power during the coming decades as huge cost, reported the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today. The 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, concern over the possible impact climate change may already be having on extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, and droughts prompted the IPCC to release their first-ever Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The SREX report was divided into two sections: how human-caused climate change has already affected extreme weather events, and predictions on how these events will change during the rest of the century. Here are some highlights on how the climate has already changed, according to the SREX report:

- Globally, cold days and nights have decreased, and warm days and nights have increased (90 - 100% chance).

- In many but not all regions of the globe, the length or number of heat waves has increased.

- Some areas have seen more intense and longer droughts, in particular, southern Europe and West Africa. However, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter in some areas, such as central North America and northwestern Australia.

- Heavy precipitation events have changed in some regions. There is at least a 2-in-3 probability that more regions have seen increases than decreases in heavy precipitation events.

- The historical data base on hurricanes and tropical cyclones is not good enough to tell if they have changed.

- The jet stream has shifted towards the poles, meaning that the tracks of rain-bearing low pressure systems have also shifted towards the poles.

- Rising sea levels have led to an increase in extreme coastal flooding events (66 - 100% chance).

- Damage from extreme weather events has increased. Increases in population and wealth, and the fact more people are living in vulnerable areas, is a major cause of this increase in damage. It is uncertain if climate change is partially responsible for the increase in damage.


Figure 1. Predicted return periods for 1-day extreme precipitation events that occurred, on average, only once every 20 years between 1981-2000. A decrease in return period implies more frequent extreme precipitation events (i.e., less time between events on average). For Eastern North America, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-7 to 1-in-9 year event by the end of the century, according to these climate model predictions. The box plots show results for regionally averaged projections for two time horizons, 2046 to 2065 and 2081 to 2100, as compared to the late-20th-century, and for three different emissions scenarios--a scenario where humans emit relatively little CO2 and other heat-trapping gasses (B1, blue bars), and two higher-emission scenarios (A1B and A2, green and red bars). Humanity is currently on a pace to emit more CO2 than the highest emission scenario shown here. Results are based on 14 climate models that contributed to the 2007 IPCC report. The level of agreement among the models is indicated by the size of the colored boxes (in which 50% of the model projections are contained), and the length of the whiskers (indicating the maximum and minimum projections from all models). Values are computed for land points only. The “Globe” inset box displays the values computed using all land grid points. Averaged over all areas of the globe, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-8 to 1-in-12 year event by the end of the century. Image credit: The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters (SREX), 2011.

Here are some highlights of the forecasts for the future from the 2011 SREX report:

- A 1-in-20 year hottest day is at least 66% likely to become a 1-in-2 year event by the end of the 21st century in most regions, except in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is likely to become a 1-in-5 year event.

- For Eastern North America, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-7 to 1-in-9 year event by the end of the century.

- For Eastern North America, a maximum high temperature that occurred only once every 20 years during 1980 - 2000 is predicted to occur between once every three years and once per year by 2100.

- Extreme high temperature readings that occur once every 20 years will increase by 1°C to 3°C (1.8°F - 5.4°F) by mid-21st century and by about 2°C to 5°C (3.6°F - 9°F) by late-21st century.

- It is at least 66% likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. This is particularly the case in the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes. There is medium confidence that, in some regions, increases in heavy precipitation will occur despite projected decreases of total precipitation in those regions.

- Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones are at least 66% likely to increase with continued warming, and the maximum winds will increase. The total number of these storms is likely to remain about the same or decrease.

- There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas. Southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, Central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa are at particular risk.

- In some regions, the main driver for increased damages from extreme weather events will not be climate change, but increases in population and wealth and vulnerability.

Intoducing climatecommunication.org
For those of you seeking detailed information on the research linking extreme weather events to climate change, I recommend a new website dedicated to improving communication of climate change information to the public, media, and policy makers, climatecommunication.org. The group is led by Susan Joy Hassol, a veteran climate change communicator, analyst, and author known for her ability to translate science into English, making complex issues accessible to policymakers and the public. Climatecommunication.org has put together an overview of extreme weather and climate change that I find a helpful resource when I am looking for the latest research results on the subject. I serve on their advisory board, along with a number of leading climate scientists.


Figure 2. Still image of the Bangkok, Thailand floods of October - November, 2011, as seen on the inaugural episode our new bi-monthly Extreme Weather video series.

Wunderground launches new Extreme Weather video series
Wunderground now features a new, twice-monthly Extreme Weather video series from GREEN.TV, with the latest reports and analysis on extreme weather around the world. From droughts to hurricanes to blizzards to flooding, Extreme Weather will cover the story and the science behind the events to try to understand their causes and consequences. The Extreme Weather series is sponsored by Vestas, the world's leading wind turbine manufacturer. The inaugural episode, launched yesterday, features video of the great Thailand flood, destructive floods in Italy, the $3 billion Northeast U.S. snowstorm of October 29 - 30, the massive Bering Sea, Alaska blizzard of November 9, the Texas drought, and the launch of a new polar-orbiting weather satellite. Look for a new video every two weeks on our Climate Change Videos page.

Resources
For those of you who haven't seen it, my top "must-read" post of 2011 is called, 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?. Back in June, I went through the ridiculous barrage of extreme weather events the planet saw in 2010 and early 2011, and concluded: But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work. The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force.

Wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood, has some thoughtful observations on the communication of the extreme weather/climate change link published in earthzine magazine titled, Changing the Media Discussion on Climate Change and Extreme Weather.

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: 312 - 262

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
Jeff Masters is not a grant funded scientist. He works for...and owns a substantial equity interest in...a private, for profit weather service. Which company is dependent, to some extent, upon cultivating and maintaining a sizable public audience...as well as goodwill and credibility with same.

So...please answer me this:

What possible benefit could accrue to him from presenting false or misleading information?




.....Bueller?



Anyone..?

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127371
Jeff Masters is not a grant funded scientist. He works for...and owns a substantial equity interest in...a private, for profit weather service. Which company is dependent, to some extent, upon cultivating and maintaining a sizable public audience...as well as goodwill and credibility with same.

So...please answer me this:

What possible benefit could accrue to him from presenting false or misleading information?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
I'm still here.

Rookie, where are you from? I'm from San Diego, California, same state as Taz


Taz is from California? I thought he was from Tazmania. ;-)

I am from Texas. The Houston area.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


If it only churned up the ground, then it probably couldn't have been an EF4 tornado. Because the EF-scale is damage-based, it would require one of the damage indicators on the EF-scale to have been hit by the tornado for it to have been rated as such. A tornado with 200mph winds could still be rated a weak tornado if it hit nothing.

This is obviously one of the issues with trying to link tornado data to climate variability or even climate change, and is why most climate scientists stick with things few fewer biases/uncertainties.


B-I-N-G-O!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Barefootontherocks:


Hey, Neo. I got a question. Rhetorical, of course. If a tornado, EF4 or otherwise, occurred and was not observed by anyone except cows and did not trash any trees or buildings and only churned up the ground on a vast expanse of cattle-grazing land, would it still be a tornado?

Why is it rhetorical? Of course it would still be a tornado, just as an unobserved hurricane far out at sea is still a hurricane, and how an earthquake too small to feel is still an earthquake.
Quoting TampaSpin:
Heck Dr. Masters post about the rising of water puts Tampa under water in 100years or so.

It's funny you mention sea level change vis-a-vis Florida; this story was in this morning's News / Sun Sentinel:

Climate change begins to affect South Florida

"The debate over global warming tends to focus on future perils — scary maps of flooded suburbs, the northward creep of tropical diseases, rich farmland turning into desert.

"But some of the effects of global warming have already arrived in South Florida, as coastal cities flood more frequently and overheated corals turn white and die. The region's temperatures have not gone up, however, and many scientists say climate change has had little effect on hurricanes.

"While most climate scientists agree the Earth has warmed over the past century, they say it's extremely difficult to assess the impact of slight temperature increases on complex natural systems.

"There is general consensus among scientists that climate change is occurring and that human activities are influencing that," said James W. Jones, director of the Florida Climate Institute at the University of Florida."

- - - - - - - - - -

The most immediate, easily measured and incontrovertible impact of global warming on South Florida is a rise in sea levels that has already generated flooding in coastal cities.

The tide station in Miami Beach has registered an increase of seven inches since 1935, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. An older station in Key West has measured an increase of eight inches since 1920.

Higher temperatures raise sea levels because water expands as it warms, although the melting of polar ice packs is expected to accelerate the increase. With sea levels higher, storm surges at high tide have pushed water through storm sewer systems into the streets of eastern Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood and other coastal cities.

"Tides come up through the pipes and explode out of the grates," said Dr. John Golia, who lives in the Hendricks Isle section of Fort Lauderdale.

- - - - - - - - - -
"We're conducting an experiment on the Earth," [the NHC's Chris] Landsea said. "We're throwing all these greenhouse gases out there and we don't know what's going to happen."


Full article here
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Quoting Barefootontherocks:


Hey, Neo. I got a question. Rhetorical, of course. If a tornado, EF4 or otherwise, occurred and was not observed by anyone except cows and did not trash any trees or buildings and only churned up the ground on a vast expanse of cattle-grazing land, would it still be a tornado?


If it only churned up the ground, then it probably couldn't have been an EF4 tornado. Because the EF-scale is damage-based, it would require one of the damage indicators on the EF-scale to have been hit by the tornado for it to have been rated as such. A tornado with 200mph winds could still be rated a weak tornado if it hit nothing.

This is obviously one of the issues with trying to link tornado data to climate variability or even climate change, and is why most climate scientists stick with things that have fewer biases/uncertainties.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3158
Let's discuss the Spencer chart you posted that shows the CERES measurements vs. various IPCC climate model.

In the chart below, you'll note that Spencer chose to highlight only that particular data set that strayed farthest from the model data (blue line) while ignoring the other observed data (in red).

Now, that's an awfully-cluttered graph because of all those models. The thing is, some models are more correct than others, but the clutter makes it very difficult to see that several models were very close in agreement with the observed data. And, as it turns out, those models best simulate El Nino and La Nina. Now, before he was called out on his dishonesty, Spencer's original paper showed only those five models that were the furthest from the observed data (crossed black lines), while excluding other models much mire in agreement (plain black lines).

Uh-oh

A classic case of dishonest cherry-picking, wouldn't you agree?

I merely note Spencer's status as a laughingstock among climate scientists because he's clearly worked so hard to earn it.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Quoting Snowlover123:


Dr. Spencer has become a laughingstock because he uses evidence to base his claims instead of Climate Models like the AGW Supporters like to use?


Let me stop you there.
1. Models are used in virtually every aspect of science. Simple equations are models. Any representation, expression, metaphor, what-have-you of a complex physical process/system into something similar... that is a model.
2. Just earlier you posted a link to research done by Dr. Spencer that included a model as a basis by which he somehow earth-shatteringly refuted all current known climate science.

Think long and hard about what you are claiming if you seriously wish to consider yourself a scientist or a true skeptic. I may have erroneously given you the benefit of the doubt as someone who was truly interested in discussing science in a rational way.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3158
Quoting TampaSpin:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SolarCycleLengtha ndGlobalTemperatureAnomalies1.pdf

very good piece to read...."ITS THE SUN"


Didn't we establish earlier in the comment thread that excel correlation does not equal causation?

It's hard to read much past the URL because of the site's reputation. But in doing so, it doesn't take much to raise multiple red flags about the information presented. Besides the fact that most of their argument is based on correlation in excel graphs, the information is also not published in a peer-reviewed journal, let along any journal, and no valid mechanism is shown that could tie solar cycle length to global temperature. At one point there was a suggestion that solar cycle length might play a role (back in the early 1990s), but this has long been refuted, even by one of the original authors.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-lengt h.htm
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3158
Scott Lincoln- I see you have responded a second time, but I have to go for a few hours since I have a few things to do.

I will reply to your comment when I return.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Gotta run....you all have a great day! You all really need to start breathing only every other breath to help control the Carbon released :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Barefootontherocks:


Hey, Neo. I got a question. Rhetorical, of course. If a tornado, EF4 or otherwise, occurred and was not observed by anyone except cows and did not trash any trees or buildings and only churned up the ground on a vast expanse of cattle-grazing land, would it still be a tornado?


Could have been a bunch of wild HOGS that might have done it.....LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Because of your long post, it will take time to read the information you provided, paricularly the conclusions of the scientists themselves, and then see what other climate scientists have to say about it.


The long post represents just a hint of all of the evidence that is out there that suggests that natural causes have caused MOST of the warming observed in the late-20th Century, as this is when most AGW scientists, such as Professor Peter Cox claim where Natural Cycles can no longer explain Climate Change.

I would agree with your second point in your first sentence, and I will try and keep my posts about AGW a bit more concise in the future.

Palle and Goode 2007 does not represent an Earth shattering paper. It calculated that the amount of energy albedo changes associated with decreasing Cloud Cover have added to Earth's Energy Budget over a 21 year timeframe is 7 w/m^2. Compare this to 2.4 w/m^2, which is the GHG radiative forcing as cited by the IPCC.

That paper is not ground breaking by any means. It uses direct evidence to base its conclusions, (unlike many Pro AGW papers) and I would say it represents the basic skeptical position on climate change.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:

Ah, c'mon, Doug; don't just throw out more ad hominems; please share with the rest of the class just where you don't think I've been honest. ;-)


Hey, Neo. I got a question. Rhetorical, of course. If a tornado, EF4 or otherwise, occurred and was not observed by anyone except cows and did not trash any trees or buildings and only churned up the ground on a vast expanse of cattle-grazing land, would it still be a tornado?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Why is it that its never SOUND SCIENCE when ones findings is against MAN MADE GW! Especially since most studies that find Man Made GW are funded with GRANTS. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Heck Dr. Masters post about the rising of water puts Tampa under water in 100years or so. I just gotta remind my wife to bury me on high ground so i don't float up and look like a stupid ass!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


I have been dying to talk to, and perhaps debate with an actual climate scientist on this issue.

A few years ago, I full heartedly believed that humans were the primary cause of the warming that was occuring. Now I am convinced that most of climate change that has occured up to this point since the late 1970s has largely been natural.
Many have tried to debunk Clouds being the cause of Global Warming, by simply saying that the Clouds are decreasing as a positive feedback to warming temperatures. However, a recent analysis by Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer says that this is not the case.


You probably should have looked into his analysis a bit more. It is not generally considered sound science, and disagrees with several other analyses on the topic.

You might find this discussion helpful:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negat ive-feedback-climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/201 1/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

It should also be noted that editor-in-chief Wagner stepped down from the Remote Sensing journal over the Spencer and Braswell's analysis being published. As he stated: "The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers." and "[the paper was] fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal"

Dr. Roy Spencer is a climate scientist - one of the few that disagree with several of the things widely understood by the vast majority of other climate scientists. But he also is frequently corrected, and frequently shown wrong. You might find that reading the history of satellite temperature estimates would be helpful. He also has a tendency to lash out at those who show him wrong, sometimes claiming there is some sort of conspiracy against him for his religious beliefs.

Here's the point where I would suggest that you take a step back in your scientific skepticism, and think about this big picture. We'll say for the sake of argument that some paper claims all of your assertions are true. Hypthosized cosmic rays are reducing cloud cover, earthshine measurements show a decrease, and this is causing the warming. What then of all the other evidence? Decades of evidence showing the phsyical properties of greenhouse gases, dozens of analyses showing similar effect on climate due to changes in greenhouse gases, satellite measurements confirming the changes in the energy budget at the exact wavelengths that greenhouse gases emit, changes in atmospheric chemistry showing that the greenhouse gases came from human activities.

When you look at the big picture, it becomes quite clear. Because it isn't one line of evidence or one hypothesis that is binding our understanding of climate change, not one new theory or line of evidence can cause a big upset. It's not as simple as showing that clouds can change due to the sun and that this change can cause climate changes - one must also show that all those other lines of evidence are no longer valid or were flawed.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3158
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
So,what you are saying is,the sun heats the Earth! Truly Amazing!LOL


Amazing that this could be true Huh....LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Whenever I see Roy Spencer quoted at length, I tend to be very leery; he's earned himself a fairly negative reputation in the climate science arena for latching onto many fundamentally flawed items even long after they've been disputed, disproved, and debunked. There are far too many items for me to list them here, but you can do your own Google search and see why he's become somewhat of a laughingstock.


Dr. Spencer has become a laughingstock because he uses evidence to base his claims instead of Climate Models like the AGW Supporters like to use?

He has become a laughingstock because in the face of modelling everything to fit CAGW, he and his team have continued to find that negative feedbacks exist within Earth's Climate, when it is abundently clear that they have always existed by simply looking at the paleoclimatological data?

Just because he notes, by looking at the evidence, that Cloud Cover changes could be responsible for most of the warming, and that they act as a negative feedback AND a forcing, makes him a laughingstock?

If you want evidence based off of models, here you go:



The above image shows that the computer models are not handeling how the Earth radiates heat. Actual observations show that the Earth can radiate much more thermal energy out into space than the models suggest, which would mean that the Earth is less sensitive to changes in the Global Energy Budget.

What I posted about the CERES Radiative flux is not a computer model. It is simple, direct, observations that show that the change in the total radiative flux does not look ANYTHING like a radiative feedback. The radiative forcing makes up a large portion of the total CERES radiative flux, which indicates that whatever changed the Cloud Forcing, rather than a radiative feedback is responsible for most to about all of the decline in Cloud Cover.

May I ask, what is this observed "human signature" that you are talking about that makes it incontroversial that humans are the primary cause of Global Warming?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


I have been dying to talk to, and perhaps debate with an actual climate scientist on this issue.

A few years ago, I full heartedly believed that humans were the primary cause of the warming that was occuring. Now I am convinced that most of climate change that has occured up to this point since the late 1970s has largely been natural.

Yes, CO2 has added 1.4 w/m^2 of energy to Earth's Energy Budget since 1790, which is cited by the IPCC, but this forcing is dwarfed by simple albedo changes alone over a 21 year timeframe, as the solar physicists that measured the Earthshine reflecting off of the moon. They document these findings in Palle and Goode 2007


Because of your long post, it will take time to read the information you provided, paricularly the conclusions of the scientists themselves, and then see what other climate scientists have to say about it. On a side note, you may want to be careful with long-winded posts like this in the future, as it may be too long for some to even dare start reading, and may also be considered a gish-gallop.

I'll start with the portion quoted above. Skimming the paper and reading the conclusion of the scientists, I had a hard time finding the claims you suggested. It seemed like they were discussing a feedback mechanism by which changes in solar activity could be amplified. They discussed this as a possible mechanism which needed many more observations. If this turned out to be something that played a role in climate and perhaps climate change, it could actually help explain why the global cooling during the Little Ice Age period was much stronger in magnitude than would be suggested merely by changes in solar irradiance. It might also suggest a slow down in warming if a similar solar activity drop were to occur in the future, thus briefly over-powering changes in greenhouse gases. This paper also isn't particularly earth-shattering, as clouds have remained one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science for some time.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3158
Quoting AussieStorm:

Why don't you delete them yourself. Click modify Comment. Delete everything and replace it with an x . Easy, no need to ask admin.


Authorities begin Wivenhoe dam release


About 57,000 mega-litres of water will be released from Wivenhoe dam, north-west of Brisbane, to help prevent flooding this summer in south-east Queensland.

The Queensland floods inquiry recommended the dam be lowered to 75 per cent if another bad wet season is predicted.

With forecasts showing Queensland's in for a wet summer, water will be discharged from the dam from around midday (AEST).

About 8,000 megalitres of water will be released each day over the next week, reducing the dam's capacity from 80 to 75 per cent.

Water Grid manager Barry Dennien says its prudent given the summer weather forecast.

"The amount of water we've got in storage at the moment across the region is over nearly 2 million megalitres, so what we're releasing is only 3 per cent of that," he said.

"We have security for the next five years - for example the probability of reaching say 60 per cent in the combined dams in the next five years is only 4 per cent."

The State Government says it would be logistically impossible to give residents water at a reduced price while major releases are made from Wivenhoe Dam.

Water efficiency guidelines have been temporarily relaxed, meaning residents can use hoses at any time until next Sunday.

But Deputy Premier Andrew Fraser says it is not possible to give south-east Queensland households water for free.

"There's a practical point here and that is, for this period of time it would require councils to go and read everyone's meter on one day and go back and go and read it again in another 10 days' time," he said.

"That's simply not logistically possible for councils to go and do that."

Hundreds of properties in the Somerset Regional Council area that surrounds the dam were swamped when major releases were made last January.

The council says some property owners still have not returned.

Mayor Graeme Lehmann says residents hope these early low releases will prevent flooding happening again.

"A lot of people copped a lot of hardship through the January floods - glad to see that the release is happening and should give people a little bit more comfort," he said.

"Five per cent of Wivenhoe dam is a lot of water - any extra flood mitigation capability for the dam is definitely welcome."

The releases are expected to last up to a week.

Properties should not be affected but two local bridges will be cut.


- ABC
Quoting Neapolitan:

Ah, the post so nice you posted it thrice. ;-) You can just hit the 'Modify Comment' button on two of the comments and replace the entire contents with a period.


Thank you for both of your suggestions, but my computer will not allow me to submit my modified post for some reason. It really is quite odd.

EDIT:

Never mind, my computer is allowing me to resubmit posts again.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting TampaSpin:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SolarCycleLengtha ndGlobalTemperatureAnomalies1.pdf

very good piece to read...."ITS THE SUN"
So,what you are saying is,the sun heats the Earth! Truly Amazing!LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SolarCycleLengtha ndGlobalTemperatureAnomalies1.pdf

very good piece to read...."ITS THE SUN"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
biggest wave? this is way sketchier than the wave in portugal the man paddled into the jaws on maui wave not towed into it as in portugal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiSHXgrJA-E&NR=1
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
What happens if temps stay flat for 30-40yrs as they have since the predictions begin?

Or, *gasp*, go down?

Need to observe to see if the theory is correct. A theory can only become accepted after confirmation of the prediction.


If such a thing were to occur, numerous things would likely happen.

Scientists would re-evaluate their forcings used in the predictions. From that they may conclude that volcanic forcings were too low, and increased volcanism may have yielded flat/falling temps. There could also be changes in solar activity that wouldn't/couldn't be taken into account. If things such as this were analyzed and refinements could not replicate the actual observations over the period, then further investigation and refinements of the theories and hypotheses that went into the IPCC conclusions would then take place.

Temperature is not the only way to measure the greenhouse effect or the changes in it. And yes, the hypothesized and modeled changes have already been measured.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3158
Invest 90E is close to becoming a tropical depression this morning. There is deep convection located atop a well-defined, low-level circulation, and there are hints of banding features beginning to develop. It will probably attain TD status this afternoon, and receive the name Kenneth by morning.

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 112 Comments: 31336
Quoting Neapolitan:

So you got nothing? That was just a baseless insult casually thrown into the mix? That's what I figured. Cool.

Anyway, have a good weekend. You guys are supposed to be close to 80 tomorrow; sounds like a pleasant Sunday...


Righteous Indignation?

Funny.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 549
.."The Sun is the same in a relative way but your older/ "warmer", and shorter of breath, and one day closer to death"..
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127371
Quoting TampaSpin:
For every so called EXTREME Weather EVENT something similar has happened many many years ago before current evolution.

True. The climate reacts to whatever is forcing it at the moment--and at the moment, that is us.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Quoting PensacolaDoug:



I don't catalogue 'em. Maybe I should.

So you got nothing? That was just a baseless insult casually thrown into the mix? That's what I figured. Cool.

Anyway, have a good weekend. You guys are supposed to be close to 80 tomorrow; sounds like a pleasant Sunday...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Quoting TampaSpin:
THEY just don't get it. Its called "THE SUN"!

The sun's been cooling--yet the planet continues to warm. Can you please describe how your "It's called 'THE SUN'!" theory jibes with that? I'd be very interested in your response; perhaps you've found something hundreds of climate scientists and solar physicists have somehow overlooked.

uh-oh
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Quoting Neapolitan:

Ah, c'mon, Doug; don't just throw out more ad hominems; please share with the rest of the class just where you don't think I've been honest. ;-)



I don't catalogue 'em. Maybe I should.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 549
For every so called EXTREME Weather EVENT something similar has happened many many years ago before current evolution. Guess CAVE MAN from GEICO could help us with that tho to see how many cars was tearing up the rocky roads.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:




Honesty is always welcome here. That's rich coming from you.


ROFLMAO.....LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trunkmonkey:
Climate change folks and those with communist agendas are simular, many belong to the same organizations, tha is why i don't agree with Climate change, I can post the communist organizations if needed.
I would guess many in here support the communist supported and funded occupy 99% while those in our government are stealing the taxpayers money!
Giving them a pass because of their ideology towards communism!


Trunk, the most honest post i have seen on here.....THEY just don't get it. Its called "THE SUN"!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:




Honesty is always welcome here. That's rich coming from you.

Ah, c'mon, Doug; don't just throw out more ad hominems; please share with the rest of the class just where you don't think I've been honest. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Quoting Snowlover123:


I have been dying to talk to, and perhaps debate with an actual climate scientist on this issue.

A few years ago, I full heartedly believed that humans were the primary cause of the warming that was occuring. Now I am convinced that most of climate change that has occured up to this point since the late 1970s has largely been natural.

Yes, CO2 has added 1.4 w/m^2 of energy to Earth's Energy Budget since 1790, which is cited by the IPCC, but this forcing is dwarfed by simple albedo changes alone over a 21 year timeframe, as the solar physicists that measured the Earthshine reflecting off of the moon.

Measuring albedo through this method is fairly complicated. When ISR reflects off of Clouds, it subsequently reflects off of the moon, which becomes "Earthshine." This can be seen here:



The prominent Solar Physicsists, which are led by Professor Phillip Goode and Dr. Enric Palle have calculated that albedo changes have added 7 w/m^2 of Energy to Earth's Energy Budget over a 21 year timeframe.



This graph from Palle 2004 shows the albedo reconstruction from the Earthshine data with the blue line, and the ISSCP reconstrcution in black. Both decreased, until early this century, which is coincidentally when we stopped warming. For a comparison to how small the CO2 and GHG effect is, the amount of Energy that GHGs have added since 1790 is shown in red.

They document these findings in Palle and Goode 2007

They also document that the sharp uptick in albedo seen in 2003 was just a spurious reading.

Dr. Enric Palle presents these findings in a PDF presentation, where he rules out the cause of the warming as being due to Greenhouse Gases.

Many have tried to debunk Clouds being the cause of Global Warming, by simply saying that the Clouds are decreasing as a positive feedback to warming temperatures. However, a recent analysis by Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer says that this is not the case.



The graph above shows 3 month variations in the CERES Global Radative Energy Balance (black), which is comprised of radiative forcing and radiative feedback, which is shown in red and blue respectively. The Radiative feedback is calculated from the HadCrut Global Temperature anomalies, and uses a relatively simple formula (which is shown in this graph) to calulcate that radiative feedback.

However, the changes in the CERES measured radiative flux look completely different than if it were simply measuring radiative feedback. As Dr. Spencer puts it:


Whenever I see Roy Spencer quoted at length, I tend to be very leery; he's earned himself a fairly negative reputation in the climate science arena for latching onto many fundamentally flawed items even long after they've been disputed, disproved, and debunked. There are far too many items for me to list them here, but you can do your own Google search and see why he's become somewhat of a laughingstock. (Spencer, as you recall, is the one who had an article published in an obscure journal this past summer, only to have that article rescinded and apologized for.)

Bottom line on the info you've posted today: Spencer's models are far too simple, exlcuding and ignoring such things as ocean dynamics. And, maybe worst of all in this case, he treats cloud feeedbacks as forcings, which they most certainly are not.

There are many lines of evidence showing that the planet is definitely warming, and many independent observations that indicate a human "fingerprint" on climate change. And there is simply no other known natural or manmade forcing that fits the fingerprint of the observed warming except the GHGs we continue to belch into the environment.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442

TD by 10 AM?

yes..?
no..?
maybe..?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
...big ol' post deleted...


A detailed refutation of everything you posted would be simply too long for a blog post. However, you don't need to talk to a climate scientist directly to "debate". There are many sites that talk about the various scientific conclusions that come out from the climate and climate skeptic community. Better yet, you can read the rebuttals themselves.

For example, Skeptical Science had a piece about the albedo claim by Pelle. Real Climate (which is frequently posted to by multiple climate scientists) also have several rebuttals to the papers you mentioned.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1448
Quoting Articuno:

its a gray circle with a slash in it.
:/
btw good morning

I've replaced the previous version with the YouTube one. You should have better luck now...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
FWIW, Cochabamba was host to last year's World People's Conference on Climate Change.


Randy to Earl',

...."see Earl,that Karma Guy gets around big time!"
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127371
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Here's some cell phone video of a fairly rare tornado tearing through a portion of Cochabamba, Bolivia, this past week. (Rare, as Cochabamba sits at 8,445 feet above sea level.) One thing is obvious: tin roofs and twisters don't mix. Even so, there were no fatalities.



FWIW, Cochabamba was host to last year's World People's Conference on Climate Change.

its a gray circle with a slash in it.
:/
btw good morning
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
Note to Admin, the two posts above the post that is above this one should be deleted, as they are double posts.

Why don't you delete them yourself. Click modify Comment. Delete everything and replace it with an x . Easy, no need to ask admin.


Authorities begin Wivenhoe dam release


About 57,000 mega-litres of water will be released from Wivenhoe dam, north-west of Brisbane, to help prevent flooding this summer in south-east Queensland.

The Queensland floods inquiry recommended the dam be lowered to 75 per cent if another bad wet season is predicted.

With forecasts showing Queensland's in for a wet summer, water will be discharged from the dam from around midday (AEST).

About 8,000 megalitres of water will be released each day over the next week, reducing the dam's capacity from 80 to 75 per cent.

Water Grid manager Barry Dennien says its prudent given the summer weather forecast.

"The amount of water we've got in storage at the moment across the region is over nearly 2 million megalitres, so what we're releasing is only 3 per cent of that," he said.

"We have security for the next five years - for example the probability of reaching say 60 per cent in the combined dams in the next five years is only 4 per cent."

The State Government says it would be logistically impossible to give residents water at a reduced price while major releases are made from Wivenhoe Dam.

Water efficiency guidelines have been temporarily relaxed, meaning residents can use hoses at any time until next Sunday.

But Deputy Premier Andrew Fraser says it is not possible to give south-east Queensland households water for free.

"There's a practical point here and that is, for this period of time it would require councils to go and read everyone's meter on one day and go back and go and read it again in another 10 days' time," he said.

"That's simply not logistically possible for councils to go and do that."

Hundreds of properties in the Somerset Regional Council area that surrounds the dam were swamped when major releases were made last January.

The council says some property owners still have not returned.

Mayor Graeme Lehmann says residents hope these early low releases will prevent flooding happening again.

"A lot of people copped a lot of hardship through the January floods - glad to see that the release is happening and should give people a little bit more comfort," he said.

"Five per cent of Wivenhoe dam is a lot of water - any extra flood mitigation capability for the dam is definitely welcome."

The releases are expected to last up to a week.

Properties should not be affected but two local bridges will be cut.


- ABC
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Occupy New VA Hospital Footprint
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127371
Quoting Snowlover123:
Note to Admin, the two posts above the post that is above this one should be deleted, as they are double posts.

Ah, the post so nice you posted it thrice. ;-) You can just hit the 'Modify Comment' button on two of the comments and replace the entire contents with a period.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Which means...? The globe doesn't just warm up because it was colder at one point. There must be a physical mechanism by which the energy balance changes.


I have been dying to talk to, and perhaps debate with an actual climate scientist on this issue.

A few years ago, I full heartedly believed that humans were the primary cause of the warming that was occuring. Now I am convinced that most of climate change that has occured up to this point since the late 1970s has largely been natural.

Yes, CO2 has added 1.4 w/m^2 of energy to Earth's Energy Budget since 1790, which is cited by the IPCC, but this forcing is dwarfed by simple albedo changes alone over a 21 year timeframe, as the solar physicists that measured the Earthshine reflecting off of the moon.

Measuring albedo through this method is fairly complicated. When ISR reflects off of Clouds, it subsequently reflects off of the moon, which becomes "Earthshine." This can be seen here:



The prominent Solar Physicsists, which are led by Professor Phillip Goode and Dr. Enric Palle have calculated that albedo changes have added 7 w/m^2 of Energy to Earth's Energy Budget over a 21 year timeframe.



This graph from Palle 2004 shows the albedo reconstruction from the Earthshine data with the blue line, and the ISSCP reconstrcution in black. Both decreased, until early this century, which is coincidentally when we stopped warming. For a comparison to how small the CO2 and GHG effect is, the amount of Energy that GHGs have added since 1790 is shown in red.

They document these findings in Palle and Goode 2007

They also document that the sharp uptick in albedo seen in 2003 was just a spurious reading.

Dr. Enric Palle presents these findings in a PDF presentation, where he rules out the cause of the warming as being due to Greenhouse Gases.

Many have tried to debunk Clouds being the cause of Global Warming, by simply saying that the Clouds are decreasing as a positive feedback to warming temperatures. However, a recent analysis by Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer says that this is not the case.



The graph above shows 3 month variations in the CERES Global Radative Energy Balance (black), which is comprised of radiative forcing and radiative feedback, which is shown in red and blue respectively. The Radiative feedback is calculated from the HadCrut Global Temperature anomalies, and uses a relatively simple formula (which is shown in this graph) to calulcate that radiative feedback.

However, the changes in the CERES measured radiative flux look completely different than if it were simply measuring radiative feedback. As Dr. Spencer puts it:

Quoting Dr. Roy Spencer:
The above chart makes it clear that radiative feedback is only a small portion of what CERES measures. There is no way around this conclusion.




So if one is to try and argue that the decrease in Cloud Cover is due to a positive feedback, they are disagreeing with measurements from CERES, since the analysis above shows that the radiative feedback is very small compared to the radiative forcing.

Now what could possibly be the cause of the decrease in Cloud Cover?

The GCR hypothesis was developed by Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark, and looking at all of the evidence available, there is pretty good evidence that GCRs have caused at least some changes in the Cloud Cover.

Take this paper, which shows that GCRs have a significant impact on the diurnal temperature range during FDs, when they have the most evident effect on Climate.

They found that within a few days of the Forbush Decrease, (which is a small lag) the diurnal temperature substantially deviates from the normal diurnal temperature mean.

The diurnal temperature mean can be best described as the difference between the daytime and nightime temperatures.

The reason for why the diurnal temperature range would increase right after a FD, indicates not only that GCRs can influence the atmospheric processes on Earth substantially, but they also do so through Cloud Cover changes.

A sudden reduction in GCRs would substanitally lower Cloud Cover for those few days, which would substantially increase the difference in nighttime and daytime temperatures, since Clouds reflect ISR and trap OLR, reducing the diurnal temperature range.

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans...7-315-2011 .pdf



Quoting Paper


The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.




Or take this paper, which also finds a strong correlation between FDs and Global aerosoles, the "seeds" for the Clouds.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/F RSEMR22l/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/3-Svensmark-et-al- 2009-GRL.pdf




The dashed line is the GCR count and the solid blue line is the aerosol number. A short lag in Global aersoles can clearly be seen right after a Forbush Decrease, which indicates a significant CR-Influence on climate, if Forbush Decreases can have that much of an impact on aerosoles.


Or take this paper which shows a strong correlation between GCRs and Mid Latitude Clouds.



http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp- 10-10941-2010.pdf

Quote:
The influence of GCRs is clearly distinguishable from changes in solar irradiance and the interplanetary magnetic field. However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover. These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.
------------

Or take this study which highlights GCRs being a "plausable" Climate Driver:


http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_20 08.pdf


Quote:
In conclusion, a CR–climate link seems to be a
plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of
statistical studies and existing theoretical models.
----------



Low Level Cloud Cover and GCRs for Europe as presented by Usoskin et. al 2008.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699

Viewing: 312 - 262

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog 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.

Local Weather

Light Rain
72 °F
Light Rain Mist