Landmark 2013 IPCC Report: 95% Chance Most of Global Warming is Human-Caused

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 10:50 AM GMT on September 27, 2013

Share this Blog
124
+

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased." Thus opens the landmark 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued today. Working without pay, hundreds of our most dedicated and talented climate experts have collaborated over a six-year period to create the most comprehensive and authoritative scientific document on climate change ever crafted. The first 31 pages of what will be a 4,000-page tome was released this morning after an all-night approval session that stretched until 6:30 this morning in Stockholm, Sweden. This "Summary For Policymakers" lays out a powerful scientific case that significant climate change with severe impacts is already occurring, humans are mostly responsible, the pace of climate change is expected to accelerate, and we can make choices to cut emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that will limit the damage.

Q: How much has the planet warmed, and what has caused the warming?
The report documents that Earth's surface temperature warmed by 0.85°C (1.5°F) between 1880 - 2012. Two-thirds of this warming (0.6°C, 1.1°F) came after 1950. Human-emitted heat-trapping gases likely were responsible for 0.5 - 1.3°C of this post-1950 warming, while human-emitted aerosol particles reflected away sunlight and likely caused cooling (-0.6° - 0.1°C change in temperature.) Climate change due to variations in solar energy, volcanic dust, and natural sources of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were likely responsible for a small -0.1° - 0.1°C change in temperature since 1950. The sun was in a cool phase between 1978 - 2011, and the report estimates that lower solar output cooled Earth's climate slightly during this period. The influence of cosmic rays on climate over the past century was to weak to be detected, they said. In short, the report shows little support for a significant natural component to global warming since 1950. In fact, natural effects may well have made Earth cooler than it otherwise would have been. The report says that "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." In other words, close to 100% of the observed warming is due to humans.


Figure 1. The changing view of the IPCC's assessment reports on the human contribution to climate change.

Q: How have the IPCC reports changed through time?
1990: The report did not quantify the human contribution to global warming.

1995: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate."

2001: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are likely (67-90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951.

2007: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are very likely (at least 90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951.

2013: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are extremely likely (at least 95% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951. This is the same confidence that scientists have in the age of the universe, or that cigarettes are deadly, according to an excellent AP article published this week by Seth Borenstein.

Q: Did the new report change the plausible range of global warming?
A. Yes. The "climate sensitivity" is defined as how much the planet would warm if the amount of atmospheric CO2 doubled. A variety of studies have arrived at very different estimates of the exact CO2 sensitivity of the climate, and the 2007 IPCC report gave a range of the most plausible values: 2 to 4.5ºC, with 3ºC deemed the most likely value. Recent research indicates that a sensitivity as low as 1.5ºC may be possible, so the IPCC widened the range of the most plausible values: 1.5 to 4.5ºC. The new lower limit of 1.5ºC is a best-case scenario that appears no more likely than the high end of 4.5ºC. Furthermore, even the lowest sensitivity scenario would not negate the need for emissions reductions. Current trends show that emissions are on track to increase far beyond doubling, which would create dangerous temperature rise even in a low-sensitivity climate. (Note that they give a small but worrisome possibility--0 to 10% chance--that the climate could warm by more than 6ºC for a doubling of CO2.)


Figure 2. Average of NASA's GISS, NOAA"s NCDC, and the UK Met Office's HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature departures from average, from January 1970 through November 2012 (blue), with linear trends applied to the time frames Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12. Climate change skeptics like to emphasize the shorter term fluctuations in global temperatures (blue lines) and ignore the long-term climate trend (red line.) The global surface temperature trend from January 1970 through November 2012 (red line) is +0.16°C (+0.29°F) per decade. Image credit: skepticalscience.com.

Q: What does the IPCC say about the "speed bump" in surface global warming over the past 10 - 15 years?
Much attention has been given in the press to the fact that the rate of surface warming over the past fifteen years has been slower than during previous decades. The report notes that due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) of 0.05 °C per decade, which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 of 0.12 °C per decade. However, the recent slow-down in surface warming is likely to be a mere "speed bump" on the highway of global warming, caused by natural variability. We have seen such "speed bumps" before, as well as short, sharp downhill stretches where surface warming speeds up. For example, climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf writes at realclimate.org that "the warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was almost twice as fast as expected (0.3°C per decade), and (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 where we noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to be." Physics demands that the massive amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide humans have dumped into the atmosphere must cause significant warming, but the chaotic complexity of the system is expected to obscure the magnitude of the long-term trend on time scales of a few years to a decade. The attention being to this latest "speed bump" on the highway of global warming is a direct result of a well-funded PR effort by the fossil fuel industry. One has to look at the total warming of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice to judge the true progress of global warming, not just the surface temperature. There has been no slowdown in total global warming when we regard this entire system, as I argued in a post earlier this year. More than 90% of the energy of global warming goes into the oceans, and the reason for the relative lack of surface warming this decade is that more heat than usual is being stored in the oceans. That heat will be released to the atmosphere at some point, removing the "speed bump".

The new IPCC report says that there is medium confidence that the "speed bump" in surface warming is due in roughly equal measure to natural multi-year unpredictable variability in the weather, and to changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface due to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. Most of the climate models do not reproduce this lower surface warming rate during the past 10 - 15 years. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is due to natural climate variability that is impossible to predict (for example, the El Niño/La Niña cycle), with possible contributions from the models' inadequate handling of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output, and changes in light-reflecting aerosol particles, and, in some models, a too-strong response to heat-trapping gases. For an explanation of why arguments about the global warming “slowdown” are misleading and should not offer any consolation, see this explainer from Skeptical Science and this one from the Union for Concerned Scientists.

Q: What does the IPCC say about drought?
A: Drought and reduction in water availability due to decreased mountain snow and ice is the greatest threat civilization faces from climate change, since it attacks the two things we need to live--water and food. Unfortunately, the report makes no mention of drought in the text, and we will have to wait for the March 2014 release of the "impacts" portion of the report to hear more about the threat drought poses to society. Today's report does mention drought in one of their two tables, giving “low confidence”--a 20% chance--that we have already observed a human-caused increase in the intensity and/or duration of drought in some parts of the world. This is a reduction in confidence from the 2007 report, which said that it was more likely than not (greater than 50% chance.) However, the forecast for the future is the same as in the 2007 report: we are likely to see dry areas get dryer due to human-caused climate change by 2100. In particular, there is high confidence (80%) in likely surface drying in the Mediterranean, Southwest U.S., and Southern Africa by 2100 in the high-end emissions scenario (RCP8.5), in association with expected increases in surface temperatures and a shift in the atmospheric circulation that will expand the region of sinking air that creates the world's greatest deserts.

Q: What does the IPCC say about sea level rise?
A: Global average sea level has risen 7.5" (19 cm) since 1901. Sea level has accelerated to 1.5" (3.2 cm) per decade over the past 20 years--nearly double the rate of rise during the 20th century. The report projects that sea level will rise by an extra 0.9 - 3.2' (26 to 98 cm) by 2100. While the maximum sea level rise expected has gone up since the 2007 report, when the IPCC did not even consider melt from Greenland and Antarctica because of the primitive state of glacier science then, the new upper bound (3.2') is still is a very conservative number. IPCC decided not to include estimates from at least five published studies that had higher numbers, including two studies with rises of 2 meters (6.6 feet.) This is in contradiction to NOAA's December 2012 U.S. National Climate Assessment Report, which has 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) as its worst-case sea level rise scenario for 2100. Even this number may be too low; at a presentation Thursday in New York City for Climate Week, glaciologist Dr. Jason Box, who knows as much about Greenland's ice sheets as any person alive, explained that Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise doubled over the past ten years. If Greenland's melt rate continues to double every ten years until 2100, Greenland alone will contribute 4.6' (1.4 meters) of global sea level rise, he said. If the doubling time becomes every nine years, then Greenland will cause 16.4' (5 meters) of sea level rise by 2100. His best-guess number for global sea level rise by 2100 is 4.7' (1.5 meters), but warns that our models used to predict melting of ice of Greenland have large unknowns.

Long-term sea level rise is expected to be much greater. The IPCC report states with "very high confidence" that 119,000 - 126,000 years ago, during the period before the most recent ice age, sea levels were 16 - 33 feet (5 - 10 meters) higher than at present. Melting of Greenland "very likely" contributed 1.4 - 4.3 meters of this rise, with additional contributions coming from Antarctica. Temperatures at that time weren't more than 2°C warmer than "pre-industrial" levels during that period. Two of the four scenarios used for the report project we will exceed 2°C of warming by 2100, with "high confidence", raising the possibility that we could see sea level rises of many meters over time scales of 1,000 years or so. The report expects sea level rise reach 3.3 - 9.8' (1 - 3 meters) by 2300, assuming CO2 levels rise above 700 ppm (close to what the higher-end RCP6.0 scenario prescribes.)

Q: What does the IPCC say about ocean acidity?
A: The world's oceans have seen a 26% increase in acidity since the Industrial Revolution, as the average pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. Under all report scenarios, the acidification of the world's oceans will increase, with the pH falling by another 0.06 - 0.32 units. According to a 2012 study in Science, the current acidification rate is likely the fastest in 300 million years, and "may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems."

Q: How about hurricanes?
A: The new report gives “low confidence”--a 20% chance--that we have observed a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes in some parts of the world. This is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said that it was more likely than not (greater than 50% chance.) The IPCC likely took note of a landmark 2010 review paper, "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change", authored by ten top hurricane scientists, which concluded that the U.S. has not seen any long-term increase in landfalling tropical storms and hurricanes, and that "it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes." The 2013 IPCC report predicts that there is a greater than 50% chance (more likely than not) that we will see a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes by 2100 in some regions; this is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said this would be likely (66% chance or higher.)

Q: How about extreme weather events?
"Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights have decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe." The report made no mention of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, since the uncertainties of how they have behaved in the past and how climate change might affect them in the future are too great.

Q: What does the IPCC say about a "Day After Tomorrow" scenario?
A: In the disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)--the ocean current system of which the Gulf Stream Current is a part of--collapses, causing a rapid and extreme change in climate. A collapse of the AMOC is very unlikely (0 - 10% chance) before 2100 according to the report, but cannot be ruled out beyond the 21st century. A weakening of the AMOC by about 11 - 34% by 2100 is expected in the moderate RCP4.5 scenario, where CO2 levels reach 538 ppm in 2100. However, these odds assume that Greenland will dump a relatively modest amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic by 2100. If the higher-end sea level rise estimates that the IPCC did not consider as plausible come true, the AMOC will likely slow down much more, with a higher chance of collapse this century. No slow-down in the AMOC has been observed yet, according to the report.

Commentary
As I read though the report, digesting the exhaustive list of changes to Earth's atmosphere, oceans, and ice that have occurred over the past few decades, I was struck by how the IPCC report reads like lab results from a sick hospital patient. The natural systems that civilization depends upon to thrive have been profoundly disturbed, and the forecast for the future reads like a medical diagnosis for an overweight smoker with a heart condition: unless the patient makes major lifestyle changes, the illness will grow far worse, with severe debilitation or death distinct possibilities. We can and we must make the huge effort to turn things around. Oil and natural gas are the energy technologies of the 20th century. Coal is the energy technology of the 19th century. We have countless innovative and dedicated people ready to move us to the energy technology of the 21st century; I heard three of them speak last night at the Climate Week event I am at, and they really gave me some needed hope that we can turn things around. We must elect new leaders and pressure our existing leaders to take the strong actions needed to advance us into a new, 21st century energy economy. You can all help make it so!

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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: 729 - 679

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53Blog Index

Quoting 727. luvtogolf:


They sent their disciples to this blog to spread the good news.


One of us! One of us!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 722. Naga5000:


Hey, that looks like a left handed hockey stick, they show up everywhere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 715. rickdove:
If man is destroying the earth's climate, what is IPCC recommending we do?


They sent their disciples to this blog to spread the good news.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 720. WalkingInTheSun:


Well, you are right about the "contentious" aspect.
I posed a question, and Naga500 offered a response.
No problem there, and he had a link with info to back up what he apparently thought. Good!
However, his link addressed only a small part of my question, yet got big approvals, while my question itself -- a legitimate one -- got 1 approval.

Look, if you want to argue a point legitimately, do so. I wasn't even argueing, just posing thoughts. However, the response shows that there seem to be a lot of people who don't care WHAT you say but rather WHO is saying it and WHICH SIDE is saying it.
Well, that is not very scientific. To play politics & ram one sidedly on an issue due solely upon political & personal emotions....does not belong in a scientific discussion. Right?

If you got evidence of something, fine, but people, please be mature enough to be scientific & view things aside from mere emotion. I think both sides can say this is a good idea. What I posted was responded with a polite referrence to it relating to only 2 - 4 % of GW. Okay, but there was much more to it than that not accounted for in what the link was about, so how much does the rest (non-urban) account for in the GW issue? If it pushes the amount of GW up into double-digits, isn't that significant? Or, should it be ignored because it wasn't thought about or doesn't alarm as much (since it is a simpler issue that people CAN do something about)?

Btw -- Thanks, Naga5000 for responding with that link. I simply think it is not sufficient for the totality of my concerns. Maybe they simply don't have data on the other aspects yet. Hey, you tried.


Actually I didn't really look into it. I just did a simple google search. I'm sure there is a bunch of info on the subject, it's one of those things that I highly doubt was overlooked.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 714. TropicalAnalystwx13:
Some people are upset that this "debate" is going on today. I'm actually pretty happy about it...I have to write a 12-page junior research paper about it next month. :)


Based on the rate of comments here today, there will be 12 pages of comments for you to sift through by midnight. If not just increase the font size and decrease your margins O_o
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 714. TropicalAnalystwx13:
Some people are upset that this "debate" is going on today. I'm actually pretty happy about it...I have to write a 12-page junior research paper about it next month. :)

I almost got a research project on AGW last year in AP Econ (yes, I said Econ), but because someone beat me to it, I got the topic of minimum wage. I knew that I would easily be able to find a lot of links that would help me on here, but no, the person in front of me choose AGW.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm still waiting for you to deliver my ham sandwich with a coke.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 717. yoboi:




why does that graph start in 1979???


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 671. DrMickey:
Note to Dr. Masters:

Time to pull the switch and shut off comments on your blog. The AGW argument has made it contentious and antagonistic, and even disrespectful to you in your own house.

I never was much of a poster here, but I'll do my part and make this my last comment.


Well, you are right about the "contentious" aspect.
I posed a question, and Naga500 offered a response.
No problem there, and he had a link with info to back up what he apparently thought. Good!
However, his link addressed only a small part of my question, yet got big approvals, while my question itself -- a legitimate one -- got 1 approval.

Look, if you want to argue a point legitimately, do so. I wasn't even argueing, just posing thoughts. However, the response shows that there seem to be a lot of people who don't care WHAT you say but rather WHO is saying it and WHICH SIDE is saying it.
Well, that is not very scientific. To play politics & ram one sidedly on an issue due solely upon political & personal emotions....does not belong in a scientific discussion. Right?

If you got evidence of something, fine, but people, please be mature enough to be scientific & view things aside from mere emotion. I think both sides can say this is a good idea. What I posted was responded with a polite referrence to it relating to only 2 - 4 % of GW. Okay, but there was much more to it than that not accounted for in what the link was about, so how much does the rest (non-urban) account for in the GW issue? If it pushes the amount of GW up into double-digits, isn't that significant? Or, should it be ignored because it wasn't thought about or doesn't alarm as much (since it is a simpler issue that people CAN do something about)?

Btw -- Thanks, Naga5000 for responding with that link. I simply think it is not sufficient for the totality of my concerns. Maybe they simply don't have data on the other aspects yet. Hey, you tried.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If you listen closely, you can actually hear my eyes rolling.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 712. Naga5000:



lol.
Member Since: January 1, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 3803
717. yoboi
Quoting 712. Naga5000:





why does that graph start in 1979???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 639. jeebsa:
Where did the Tropical Weather Blog Go ???
There is no "Tropical Weather Blog." This is Dr. Jeff Masters' personal blog. In addition to being a Ph.D. Meteorologist with a heavy background in tropical and severe weather, he is also an expert on climate change.

Jeff blogs about what he chooses, and that includes AGW/CC. He usually locks down the comments to tropical weather when there are hurricanes or the tropics are are active - which is not happening right now.

The big news in weather/climate today is the release of the IPCC's 5th report - at least the first section of it. That is the subject of Jeff's blog today blog - and most of the comments.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1673
If man is destroying the earth's climate, what is IPCC recommending we do?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Some people are upset that this "debate" is going on today. I'm actually pretty happy about it...I have to write a 12-page junior research paper about it next month. :)
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 33873
Quoting 651. koolbreez:


Because Wunderground was like The Weather Channel before TWC was bought by NBC. WU put out weather information and didn't lecture us on consensus masquerading as fact. Now that WU is owned by TWC (and therefore NBC) the political excrement rolling downhill has muddied TWC and WU to the extent that they are NBC shills with an occasional, "Oh, by the way, here's a weather forecast"...
And why does it matter how many comments a member has posted?
That's where I was going with the question. It matters why?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 708. TropicalAnalystwx13:

What? This blog has always, and continues to be, the sole provider of Dr. Masters. Everything written here is his views and his views only...it has nothing to do with Wunder Underground being bought by The Weather Channel. Masters has been a pro-AGW for many years now.


Citation needed. And I don't mean a link to an unreliable blog who believes AGW was birth by filthy politicians trying to sell an agenda either. Let's stick to scientists. :)


It is unreasonable to expect that the sea ice extent will be consecutively lower. There are, and will be, pauses in the grand scheme of global warming. While the idea that there is 60% more sea ice in the Arctic this year is technically true, it's extremely misleading. We don't have more sea ice because it got colder. We have more sea ice because more of it melted last year and it's simply refreezing. Plus, 2012 hit a record low for sea ice.

Looks pretty bad to me:




We cannot contribute any single weather event to global warming. However, with an increasing climate, there is a possibility that systems like Sandy could become more common. A lack of sea ice allows for more warming in the Arctic, which can raise heights and create more Greenland Blocks. The Greenland Block was responsible for preventing Sandy from escaping out to sea. The negatively-tilted trough sent it into the coastline. We have not seen a storm like Sandy before.


I don't think anybody is suggesting the flooding in Colorado was a result of global warming. Flash flooding occurs on a daily basis; the Boulder area just happened to be unlikely as storm cells trained across the area.


What?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OK Everybody...

It's sing-along time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI&featur e=youtube_gdata_player

"I read it in the Daily Mail"

: )

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
709. VR46L
Quoting 698. hydrus:
If the 20% thing wraps into the big low to the west, will we have a hybrid.?


Maybe I honestly haven't followed the models this week is that where the Noreaster comes from that is projected
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 633. koolbreez:
Wunderground was a great alternative to The Weather Channel. Now, WU has been bought by TWC, which has been bought by NBC, which has become nothing more than an extension of the White House press office.

What? This blog has always, and continues to be, the sole provider of Dr. Masters. Everything written here is his views and his views only...it has nothing to do with Wunder Underground being bought by The Weather Channel. Masters has been a pro-AGW for many years now.

Quoting 633. koolbreez:
There is evidence that the earth has been cooling over the past fifteen years so why aren't you alarmists not celebrating?

Citation needed. And I don't mean a link to an unreliable blog who believes AGW was birth by filthy politicians trying to sell an agenda either. Let's stick to scientists. :)

Quoting 633. koolbreez:
Why aren't you happy that there is 60% MORE sea ice in the Arctic Ocean this year than last summer when you were predicting that all sea ice would be gone by now?

It is unreasonable to expect that the sea ice extent will be consecutively lower. There are, and will be, pauses in the grand scheme of global warming. While the idea that there is 60% more sea ice in the Arctic this year is technically true, it's extremely misleading. We don't have more sea ice because it got colder. We have more sea ice because more of it melted last year and it's simply refreezing. Plus, 2012 hit a record low for sea ice.

Looks pretty bad to me:



Quoting 633. koolbreez:
Sandy was a hurricane that was caught up in a perfect storm JUST LIKE the Perfect Storm of '91. Not an anomaly.

We cannot contribute any single weather event to global warming. However, with an increasing climate, there is a possibility that systems like Sandy could become more common. A lack of sea ice allows for more warming in the Arctic, which can raise heights and create more Greenland Blocks. The Greenland Block was responsible for preventing Sandy from escaping out to sea. The negatively-tilted trough sent it into the coastline. We have not seen a storm like Sandy before.

Quoting 633. koolbreez:
The recent Colorado flooding was JUST LIKE the flooding of 1937 and 1938.

I don't think anybody is suggesting the flooding in Colorado was a result of global warming. Flash flooding occurs on a daily basis; the Boulder area just happened to be unlikely as storm cells trained across the area.

Quoting 633. koolbreez:
Don't force laws and taxes on us over consensus. Remember, the consensus was that the Earth was flat and was also the center of the universe...

What?
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 33873
Several waterspouts filmed in sea off Florida coast

Talk about a near miss!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Heading into October -- 2013 global hurricane activity remains historically low

• North Atlantic tropical cyclone ACE is 71% below normal. 5th lowest since 1950. --> Figure
• Northern Hemisphere ACE is 55% below normal. Lowest since 1977. --> Figure
• Global ACE is 47% below normal. Lowest since 1977. --> Figure
"We have moved past the 3/4 point of the Atlantic hurricane season which has been the quietest since 1994 and 5th slowest since 1950 in terms of a metric called Accumulated Cyclone Energy or ACE. Compared to historical ACE records, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is 71% below normal. While Hurricane Ingrid is the 8th named storm, the overall season has been characterized by short-lived and generally weak systems. The formation of Hurricane Humberto just beat the clock by a matter of hours to keep 2013 from going into the record books for the latest-forming first hurricane. Seasonal forecasts clearly overestimated the number of major hurricanes with some scientists blaming African Saharan dust layers drying out the tropical Atlantic atmosphere.

Globally, the Pacific Ocean is the king when it comes to tropical cyclones which are called typhoons, hurricanes, or cyclones depending upon your ocean location. My research has highlighted the dramatic multi-year downturn in global hurricane activity beginning in 2007 which slightly recovered before dropping even further here in 2013. Overall, global tropical cyclone ACE has significantly droppped in the past 6-years and 2013 looks like a continuation of that downward trend." Dr. Ryan Maue

http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Highs in the upper 70's this weekend.. low's in the upper 50's here in Middle Tennessee... 'Honey, get the kids ready for some CAMPIN'! Check y'all on Monday..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
704. yoboi
Quoting 695. schistkicker:


The Skeptical Science page does this exact thing.

The only problem is that the people we'd refer to it would never read it, since confirmation bias is a helluva drug. We know this, since several of them have been referred, repeatedly, to this and similar resources and still toss out the same debunked nonsense the very next day.



Can you provide a link?????? Every time I search J cook I end up with some guy selling cartoon books....TIA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
703. VR46L
Quoting 689. hydrus:
Oh of course not, a blogger on here said that dry air and SAL had no effect on this years hurricane season.......HHHHAAAAA !!


You are Joking me please ?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here's more from the Daily Mail from January 2012:

As the report is characterized in Britain's Daily Mail, "Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona — derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the Sun's surface — suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92% chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the Dalton minimum of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the Maunder minimum (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the Little Ice Age when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
700. VR46L
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 672. Birthmark:

No, it doesn't. You've skipped at least one necessary step to reach that conclusion...assuming your numbers are factual...which I don't assume.


Nonsense. This issue has been studied frequently. The siting makes no difference when corrections are made.


Congratulations! You went 0-for-however many claims that was! Not a single thing right! lol




Completely wrong, as has been posted on this blog many times. OHC has risen rapidly.


No such prediction appears in the scientific literature.


Citation needed.


Citation needed. Oh, and the number of landfalling hurricanes in the US has nothing to do with the overall frequency of Atlantic hurricanes.


You have confused the US for the world. Try again.


Citation.


Citation needed.


Again, citation needed.


No such decline was predicted. In fact, as far back as twenty years, it was predicted that Antarctic ice would increase.


Arctic sea ice is highly unlikely to have been lower than it is currently in the 1950s, and there is no reliable evidence to indicate that that was the case.


That, too, is nonsense. SLR continues.


That appears to gibberish and is indecipherable. Doesn't matter anyway since it appears to deal with one year. One year isn't climate.


Citations needed.


Citation needed.


Citation needed. But, really, what have polar bears to do with GHGs? lol




None of which has anything to with AGW. Oh, and since you're citing the NAS you may want to see what they have to say about AGW/CC. ;)


So only 12,943 of the citations in AR4 were legit? ROFLMBO

All in all, a tepid Gish gallop of a post, filled with inaccuracies, irrelevancies, and meaningless trivia.

Grade: "F" (I would have given you a "D-", but it's obvious that you C&P'd someone's talking points.)



DANG.. you actually went through the whole post?! Careful.. someone might start thinking you actually care...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 673. VR46L:


Hmmm Dry Air and dust?



If the 20% thing wraps into the big low to the west, will we have a hybrid.?
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 24227
Quoting 679. islander44:


Perhaps we need to make a list of the common myths, with links to the rebuttal. So the followup post would be:

" Your post contains myth 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 13 on this list. Click on the link for the science that refutes your claims."

It would save us all a lot of time.

Now, is there any weather out there worth discussing?


Skeptical Science has already done it:


Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
696. IKE
Crestview,FL.....

Fair and 85 degrees.
  • Humidity45%
  • Wind SpeedVrbl 6 mph
  • Barometer30.00 in (1015.6 mb)
  • Dewpoint61°F (16°C)
  • Visibility10.00 mi
  • Heat Index85°F (29°C)

Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37860
Quoting 679. islander44:


Perhaps we need to make a list of the common myths, with links to the rebuttal. So the followup post would be:

" Your post contains myth 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 13 on this list. Click on the link for the science that refutes your claims."

It would save us all a lot of time.

Now, is there any weather out there worth discussing?


The Skeptical Science page does this exact thing.

The only problem is that the people we'd refer to it would never read it, since confirmation bias is a helluva drug. We know this, since several of them have been referred, repeatedly, to this and similar resources and still toss out the same debunked nonsense the very next day.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 687. IKE:
What this blog needs is a nice sized system in the ATL that has the potential to be a problem for someone. There isn't one like that in the ATL.

The 20% is nothing more than a fish headed to the Atlantic graveyard. Since there is nothing really going on in the ATL, it's turned into a climate change blog.

What I do is simply skip over the climate change posts. I have a belief and will stick with it. I don't need to read what this person or that person says on it.

The ATL is a bust in 2013. Two hurricanes. Both of peak winds to 85mph. That is incredible based on what was forecast for the season.

9-2-0 rocks on....oh...plus one TD.




Can't agree more... frankly, it feels good to have made it through another season without losing my fishing pier. It was obliterated by Isaac. Onward and upward!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Inductive reasoning; the reason climate change is a challenge for some.
Member Since: January 1, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 3803
Quoting 621. N3EG:
When is the tipping point where global warming goes from commonly accepted theory to proven fact?

Hopefully soon.
It's already "commonly accepted" by the global scientific community.

It's those swayed by the "manufactured doubt" climate denial industry who don't accept it. The same people who boosted the tobacco industry after it became established that cigarettes greatly increase the incidence of lung cancer have been hired to plant doubt about AGW/CC!!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1673
Quoting 683. VR46L:
Now its grading comments made ...hilarious ... Didn't know this was a school quiz LMAO !

ROTFLMAO.That will take up even more blog space.Everyone of my children's teachers I talk to said that grading papers stresses them out and theey're the PRO's.Can't imagine that here.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 18997
Sunny and 84 in NOLA with 61% humidity. Tad bit warmer than Vostok!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 673. VR46L:


Hmmm Dry Air and dust?



Oh of course not, a blogger on here said that dry air and SAL had no effect on this years hurricane season.......HHHHAAAAA !!
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 24227
Quoting 680. Tazmanian:
yawn am staying out of all of this GW talk


Hope you are doing well, Taz, I've been on all season and have enjoyed the discussions -- only commented a few times -- ... but really miss the tropics... I cannot agree more, the GW stuff makes me crazy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
687. IKE
What this blog needs is a nice sized system in the ATL that has the potential to be a problem for someone. There isn't one like that in the ATL.

The 20% is nothing more than a fish headed to the Atlantic graveyard. Since there is nothing really going on in the ATL, it's turned into a climate change blog.

What I do is simply skip over the climate change posts. I have a belief and will stick with it. I don't need to read what this person or that person says on it.

The ATL is a bust in 2013. Two hurricanes. Both of peak winds to 85mph. That is incredible based on what was forecast for the season.

9-2-0 rocks on....oh...plus one TD.


Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37860
Quoting 676. Neapolitan:
What I find even more amazing is that some people think there's actually a debate.
There is. The world will freeze at -467 degrees in a week....grab your coat.
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 24227
Quoting 678. saintsfan06:
WOW - 8:30AM GW debate, left blog. Back at 2:54 and guess what, GW debate. Not that I am opposed to all of the opinions on the topic...but wondering..is there any severe weather ANYWHERE in the world that can be discussed..... Just saying :)


Tad bit chilly in Vostok

-65 °F
Feels Like -65 °F


Weather History for Vostok, Antarctica
Friday, September 27, 2013 — View Current Weather Conditions
Read more at http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/89606/ 2013/09/27/DailyHistory.html#VTGHx9k3fHK4Usqv.99
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 663. JLPR2:
Well now, this is uncomfortable.

Carolina, Puerto Rico

Partly Cloudy
93°F
34°C
Humidity 50%
Wind Speed SE 9 mph
Barometer 29.85 in
Dewpoint 72°F (22°C)
Visibility 10.00 mi
Heat Index 101°F (38°C)

*At least the humidity isn't that high.


I fear for a drought here if El Nino comes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
683. VR46L
Now its grading comments made ...hilarious ... Didn't know this was a school quiz LMAO !

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
682. CJ5
Jeez, I think this blog has just released enough CO2 for the UN to revise their predictions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 24227
yawn am staying out of all of this GW talk
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 667. Xulonn:
Always good to repeat this occasionally. There are people here who are ignorant of the science with no desire to learn about it, victims of the lies and doubt-planting propaganda from climate denialist industry, including many media outlets, and people who simply cannot deal emotionally with AGW/CC. Many of them are anti-AGW and anti science, and they work very hard to build a wall of doubt based on misinformation and even lies.

Those of us who have studied and understand AGW/CC science. and can converse about it intelligently, would love to just discuss details and progress in knowledge and understanding of this issue which is based on solidly established science. We're more than happy to help those who come to learn.

Unfortunately, this blog's comment space has quite a number of people who use lies, mis-statements, myths, and unfounded opinions and beliefs in futile but persistent attempts to discredit climate science. So we end up wasting huge amounts of time and energy rebutting these myths, false information, bad science, and deceit, when we would rather be having those intelligent conversations.



Perhaps we need to make a list of the common myths, with links to the rebuttal. So the followup post would be:

" Your post contains myth 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 13 on this list. Click on the link for the science that refutes your claims."

It would save us all a lot of time.

Now, is there any weather out there worth discussing?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 729 - 679

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53Blog 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.

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Carrot Nose in Danger
Deep Snow in Brookline, MA
Sunset at Fort DeSoto
New Years Day Sunset in Death Valley