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.

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: 529 - 479

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

While all the armchair scientists prattle on about how their middle school grasp of science suggests that AGW is nonsense, is anyone else rooting for this system in the east to get organized?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 526. washingtonian115:
If we don't pay attention to it will form....



Yea, it always happens that way. :P
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Everyone on the site realizes that there have been multiple times throughout geologic history when no ice sheets existed, even at the poles, right? You also realize that we are into about year 11000 of an interglacial period, with others lasting over 25000 years. Good, now carry on your conversations with your <50 years of real scientific data on climate change.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 503. Torito:
He got a well deserved 10% upgrade. :P

If we don't pay attention to it will form....

Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16327
Quoting 521. bappit:

We've heard all of these tidbits you are posting a thousand times before.

Stuff gets posted, it is pointed out to be wrong. The person lashes out at others, claiming they just arent reading what they are posting. They get refuted again. Person backpedals and says they just wanted scientists to look into it. It's pointed out that it was looked into. Person lashes out again, but is a victim of people just not wanting to talk about it.

A very predictable cycle.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 507. ScottLincoln:

Do you not agree that as the number of indentpent reconstructions - using independent methods - increases, our confidence in the results should increase?

Shouldn't our confidence be even higher when they tend to agree with one another? Shouldn't it be even higher yet when they agree with known physical mechanisms and predicted climatic changes?


I would agree, that all of the properties being observed and calculated upon are from the same source. However, they are all still being generated from thousands, or millions of years of assumptions of the varaible aspects. We do not and never will know what the global temp was 1000 years ago, beings the first mercury thermometer was not invented until 1714. Granted, there are definately methods of estimating what those temps were, but we do no have the factual data that says "It was 76 degrees for the high in Denver, Co area in Oct 998 AD.

I am not arguing that these are half-cocked, unprocessed theories, but they are still theories just the same given the amount of assumed data. Give us another 1000 years of accurate record keeping, and then I would feel that there may be an adequate enough data suite to derive a more defined theory from.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 422. jtc123:
Scientists believe the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. We've been accurately measuring the temperature for maybe a 100 years, or 0.0000022% of that time. But we have observed it enough to rule out any natural heating/cooling cycles?
Yes - because there are methods to see the into past and reconstruct the events and processes that influenced past events. This is usually easier than seeing the future. Science uses these past patterns to develop and test computer models to see if they might be useful for predicting future climate patterns and trends - but not future weather events.

But it's a very complex and difficult process best left to scientists - and not armchair bloggers like you and me.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1396
"95% "+"chance+"most of global warming = "We really don't know!???" Hmmmm??? Did they arrive at that percentage by "most" of them thinking that by "chance" we are stupid and don't know all about that fuzzy math ushered in by Slick Willy Clinton? After all, 1995 is when they dreamed up their "balance of evidence suggesting". Oops there's another one of those "It depends on what is is" words. There's a gold mine in these alarmist scares. I'm certain it was Henry Ford's fault that we got the Great Lakes. Then there was that other "evil human" who invented that coal burning smoke belching Choo-Choo train. Heck, we didn't need no stinking Choo-Choo train or any gas burning vehicles.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 516. DoctorDave1:


Well, if I called for scientific study to determine if there is a causation base on Lui's correlation, don't you understand that that means I do not accept Lui's hypothesis on face value either. You folks are too used to pushing people down on this blog that actually try to have discussions on this forum that you don't even try to open your minds (and ears) just a little bit.

We've heard all of these tidbits you are posting a thousand times before. Get a new script!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Angela's Blog
What the 5th IPCC Assessment Doesn't Include

Posted by: Angela Fritz, 12:06 PM CDT on September 27, 2013


A heavyweight boxer in the climate change match is missing from the 5th climate assessment report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday.

Permafrost, which is frozen ground that doesn't melt during the summer, covers 24% of the land in the northern hemisphere. Permafrost acts like a massive cryogenic chamber, stabilizing tens of thousands of years of organic matter, and stores approximately 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, which is twice the amount of carbon that's currently in our atmosphere. When the organic matter thaws, that carbon will be exposed to the elements, made available to escape into the air in the form of heat-trapping gases, with the potential to knock out our efforts to slow down global warming with a one-two punch.

This effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century. But research done in the past few years shows that leaving the permafrost effect out of the climate models results in a far more conservative estimate of how our climate will change. Scientists predict that greenhouse gas from permafrost alone could lead to an additional 1.5°F of warming by the end of this century, on top of our day-to-day human emissions.

To put that in perspective, the earth has already warmed around 1.5°F since 1901, and climate scientists suggest that we should keep global warming below 3.6°F in order to avoid a "dangerous" level of warming. The climate models used in Friday's report, without the permafrost effect, estimate that by the end of this century we will have warmed at least 7°F if we continue "business as usual" with no efforts to reduce our fossil fuel consumption.

Permafrost contains more than soil. It acts like a massive cryogenic chamber, stabilizing tens of thousands of years of organic matter like leaves and plant roots that would otherwise be broken down by bacteria and releasing greenhouse gases into the air.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I know this is too far out to believe, but there now appears to be yet another nor'easter or sub-tropical system impacting the north east US at the very end of the GFS full res run.....

992MB for those who need glasses...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 514. floridaT:
they are spending billions restoring the Everglades. I live 3 blocks from an area this includes. Three blocks in the other direction they are going to frack for oil. How nuts is that?


We're fracking in the freakin' Everglades???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tipping point (climatology)


The climate change in the Arctic image above shows where average air temperatures (October 2010-September 2011) were up to 3 degrees Celsius above (red) or below (blue) the long-term average (1981-2010).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 500. Xulonn:
Scott is a scientist who has demonstrated his knowledge and expertise here many times, and is very helpful in teaching non-scientists.

Who are you, and what are your qualifications in the field of atmospheric chemistry? Your posts don't make sense, and appear to have been soundly rebutted.

Skepticalscience.com, which is all based on peer-reviewed science, says this:

"A paper published in an obscure physics journal by the University of Waterloo's Qing-Bin Lu (2013) has drawn quite a bit of media attention for blaming global warming not on carbon dioxide, but rather on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, which are also greenhouse gases). However, there are numerous fundamental flaws in the paper, which is based almost entirely on correlation (not causation) and curve fitting exercises."

"Lu's hypothesis can be disproven very simply. He argues that the radiative forcing (global energy imbalance) from CFCs matches global surface temperatures better than that from CO2 over the past decade. This is because as a result of the Montreal Protocol, CFC emissions (and emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, which replaced CFCs) have been flat over the past decade, and global surface air temperatures have also been essentially flat during that short timeframe, while CO2 emissions have continued to rise."

"Ultimately the 'CFCs are driving global warming' myth from Lu (2013) is based on assuming rather than proving the hypothesis, unphysical curve fitting, and misrepresenting the cited research."

Can you refute it?

Instead of being defensive, could you enlighten us with some details?


Well, if I called for scientific study to determine if there is a causation base on Lui's correlation, don't you understand that that means I do not accept Lui's hypothesis on face value either. You folks are too used to pushing people down on this blog that actually try to have discussions on this forum that you don't even try to open your minds (and ears) just a little bit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This needs a yellow crayon, 10%.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 484. opal92nwf:
Whether Global Warming/Climate Change is real or not, I think we should still be doing all we reasonably can in this world to minimize the effects of us humans on our earth. Things like developing less forests and natural lands, and consolidating development in already developed places.

The way I see it in places like Florida is: they just keep developing and developing and developing beautiful natural land They are just going to keep doing that until there is NO MORE DEVELOP-ABLE LAND and Florida will just be one concrete mess of suburbia and cities with little islands of National and State parks and other protected lands. I mean, at this rate, nothing is going to stop the developers! It's terrible. It's almost impossible because 1000 people move to Florida each day! EVERYONE wants to move to Florida.

We should be doing more to stop this.
they are spending billions restoring the Everglades. I live 3 blocks from an area this includes. Three blocks in the other direction they are going to frack for oil. How nuts is that?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 502. DoctorDave1:


That is exactly why I called for scientific study to see if there is a causation. That is the definition of skepticism.

Scientists have already looked into the physical properties of CFCs and their ability to retain heat in the climate system. Your "look, this is interesting, we should look into this!" is just a distraction.Scientists have looked into it. People who have read the IPCC assessment reports know this.

I would imagine that is why it is well-established that they are greenhouse gases. I would also imagine that that is also why we see their signature on analysis of infrared outgoing radiation (although with much less energy blocked than by H20, CO2, and methane.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am sorry to say this, but DoctorDave is posting misleading information. I believe he is not discussing the issue in good faith.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 330. DragonmumNC:
Dr. Masters, Thank you so much for the work you are doing to inform the public on climate change, including your posts from yesterday and today.

Every time I read arguments by people who don't "believe" in global climate change, I cry tears of blood.

I think people denying that man is causing acceleration of global warming and/or man can do anything to reverse it are much more dangerous than people who argue creationism has some sort of equivalency with evolution as an origin of man or that "more research needs to be done" to see if the Holocaust happened.

My grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be struggling right beside their children and grand-children to adjust to the extreme consequences of our behavior. There will be no denial then.


GIFSoup

Leslye - Doctor, Scientist, Mother of 3


So,...someone thinks creationists are dangerous....and that GW cannot be reversed by man? Wow. Maybe need to take those tears of blood & crawl in a hole in the mountains with 50 yrs of K-rations.

Btw, indicated before, it is odd for people to think nobody is more intelligent or that there cannot be higher life or a Creator. The biblical event of the creation of Eve mentions things with modern equivalents possibly -- putting Adam into a sleep like in modern surgery & takig a rib, making a woman from it as in cloning, genetic manipulation/genetic engineering, etc. We see life all around us that shows some creatures are more intelligent or less intelligent than others. We see the same in children & siblings even. Do we then think NObody could exist Who is more intelligent than us...but that those who think so...are "dangerous"? Wow! Wakey-wakey! ah, but facts & data mean nothing to the dangerous crowd who has its mind made up that they don't want to believe in a Divine Being or Creation, come hell or high water, simply because it doesn't fit their personal beliefs or how they want to live life.

As for reversing GW, I recently posted about new inventions like caged Cesium atoms & other alloys that turn wasted heat into electicity....and new tech that makes workable the idea of spitting water to get the hyrdogen for clean energy. These two new technologies in themselves -- not to mention big advances in solar tech -- can revolutionize the energy sector....as we meanwhile use more natural gas instead of fuels with higher pollution.

So, the world could relatively soon see the bad emissions go way down....while simultaneously seeing a much more efficient use of what fuels ARE used and more clean-burning fuels. This is BIG, whether you believe in manmade GW or not!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 504. JRRP:
The Constant Making Cyclone (CMC) or Global Embarrassed Model (GEM) is showing a TS east of antilles


uhh, I see 4 systems there. 2 TD and one TS in the ATL and one TS in the EPAC. xD
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
He even looks better than that wretched TS Erin that didn't deserve TS status. xD

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 494. DoctorDave1:


http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970 s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

Quoting from your source:

"During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age."

That's the media, not scientists.

See my previous post for the history of the science.

Quoting 497. bappit:
Anyone interested in the history of the science leading up to the series of IPCC reports can read the article here: "The Discovery of Global Warming".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 493. MikeyRana:
I totally agree that physical properties of gases have not changed, and never will. However, even with the physical properties as a constant, the reconstructions are still based on certain assumptions, and not recorded facts.

Do you not agree that as the number of independent reconstructions - using independent methods - increases, our confidence in the results should increase?

Shouldn't our confidence be even higher when they tend to agree with one another? Shouldn't it be even higher yet when they agree with known physical mechanisms and predicted climatic changes?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 501. ScottLincoln:

The majority of science papers in the 1970s predicting warming, not cooling.

I'd recommending looking it up. Here is a starting point:



I was just about to post that. Thanks, Scott.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
(Nevermind; Scott beat me to it.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
504. JRRP
The Constant Making Cyclone (CMC) or Global Embarrassed Model (GEM) is showing a TS east of antilles
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
He got a well deserved 10% upgrade. :P

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 491. ScottLincoln:

That should make you skeptical. Almost nothing corresponds so closely. And what about natural variability? We know that natural climate variability shows up on top of the climate (or climate change trend). How could they have had a 1.00 correlation with just CFCs in that case? And what about their timescales for global temperature measurement? That matters to... the more averaging you do, the less of a role the variability plays and the stronger the signal of climate.

Based upon the background you've claimed to have, those concerns right there should have immediately set off skepticism in head.

And all of this is moot if there is not a physical mechanism for CFCs to retain that much heat in the climate system. It's not the correlation that indicates CO2 is the dominant player... it's the physics!


That is exactly why I called for scientific study to see if there is a causation. That is the definition of skepticism.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 494. DoctorDave1:


http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970 s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

The majority of science papers in the 1970s predicting warming, not cooling.

I'd recommending looking it up. Here is a starting point:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 397. DoctorDave1:


And with that, you have just demonstrated that you do not know the difference between mathematics and science.
Scott is a scientist who has demonstrated his knowledge and expertise here many times, and is very helpful in teaching non-scientists.

Who are you, and what are your qualifications in the field of atmospheric chemistry? Your posts don't make sense, and appear to have been soundly rebutted.

Skepticalscience.com, which is all based on peer-reviewed science, says this:

"A paper published in an obscure physics journal by the University of Waterloo's Qing-Bin Lu (2013) has drawn quite a bit of media attention for blaming global warming not on carbon dioxide, but rather on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, which are also greenhouse gases). However, there are numerous fundamental flaws in the paper, which is based almost entirely on correlation (not causation) and curve fitting exercises."

"Lu's hypothesis can be disproven very simply. He argues that the radiative forcing (global energy imbalance) from CFCs matches global surface temperatures better than that from CO2 over the past decade. This is because as a result of the Montreal Protocol, CFC emissions (and emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, which replaced CFCs) have been flat over the past decade, and global surface air temperatures have also been essentially flat during that short timeframe, while CO2 emissions have continued to rise."

"Ultimately the 'CFCs are driving global warming' myth from Lu (2013) is based on assuming rather than proving the hypothesis, unphysical curve fitting, and misrepresenting the cited research."

Can you refute it?

Instead of being defensive, could you enlighten us with some details?
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1396
Sssssshhhhhh, no one mention him or he will dissipate in 6 hours.... xD

He looks like a TD now!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 422. jtc123:
Scientists believe the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. We've been accurately measuring the temperature for maybe a 100 years, or 0.0000022% of that time. But we have observed it enough to rule out any natural heating/cooling cycles?


By your logic, since we never observed or photographed dinosaurs, we can not know they existed. Likewise, since we we did not actually observe continental drift, that could not have happened either. There is absolutely no way we could possibly know how the Grand Canyon formed since we weren't around to witness its formation. Ice Ages ? Huh. No way we could know anything about those. Oh and Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 ? Really ? Honestly how do we know when we have no pictures of him stepping off a long boat onto the shores of North America ?

There are many more ways to deduce the history of climate than by looking at historical weather and temperature records.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Anyone interested in the history of the science leading up to the series of IPCC reports can read the article here: "The Discovery of Global Warming".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 477. ncstorm:


trust me You already seen it..its posted 3 times a week..
I have pat on ignore so I haven't been able to see anything.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16327
Quoting 483. Neapolitan:
No, no they weren't.

Sigh...

Evidence is mounting that he's not just confused or making misstatements. He's starting to show signs of being deliberate dishonest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 482. bappit:

That's a myth. You are spreading false information.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970 s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 296. ScottLincoln:

A "realist" would know that we have been reconstructing temperatures for far longer periods than that. A realist would also know that there are known, phsyical properties of gases... physical properties that were truth 1 million years ago, are true today, and will be true in our future, that dictate warming must occur in response to an increase in forcing.

In recent decades, that forcing has been human activity from the burning of fossil fuels.
I totally agree that physical properties of gases have not changed, and never will. However, even with the physical properties as a constant, the reconstructions are still based on certain assumptions, and not recorded facts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 462. DoctorDave1:


No, but if you actually read the blog posts, I would not have to write this. The paper presents an almost 100% correlation between CFCs and observed global temperatures and thats all. Current (last 15 years) CO2 correlation with global temperatures is basically zero.

That should make you skeptical. Almost nothing corresponds so closely. And what about natural variability? We know that natural climate variability shows up on top of the climate (or climate change trend). Do you not believe that ENSO has an effect on global temperature? What about volcanic activity... no effect? Just CFCs?

How could they have had a 1.00 correlation with just CFCs if you believe those other things to be true? You can't have it both ways.

And what about their timescales for global temperature measurement? That matters to... the more averaging you do, the less of a role the variability plays and the stronger the signal of climate.

Based upon the background you've claimed to have, those concerns right there should have immediately set off skepticism in head.

And all of this is moot if there is not a physical mechanism for CFCs to retain that much heat in the climate system. It's not the correlation that indicates CO2 is the dominant player... it's the physics!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Earlier, barbamz posted an article from the BBC about flooding in Acapulco, Mexico. That lead me to this article, also from today's BBC.

La Pintada: the village wiped from the map of Mexico
27 September 2013 Last updated at 06:08 ET

The story is heartbreaking. It also states there are villages that have received very little aid since Manuel, and "Elsewhere in the state there are many other mountain communities which are still cut off from the outside world."
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 1817
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1100 AM PDT FRI SEP 27 2013

FOR THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC...EAST OF 140 DEGREES WEST LONGITUDE..

A WEAK AND ELONGATED AREA OF LOW PRESSURE CONTINUES TO PRODUCE
DISORGANIZED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS NEAR THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST
OF MEXICO. SOME SLOW DEVELOPMENT IS POSSIBLE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE
OF DAYS WHILE THE LOW MOVES WESTWARD AT ABOUT 5 MPH...BUT
UPPER-LEVEL WINDS ARE EXPECTED TO BECOME UNFAVORABLE FOR
DEVELOPMENT BY EARLY NEXT WEEK. THIS SYSTEM HAS A LOW CHANCE...
20 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS
AND A LOW CHANCE...20 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE
DURING THE NEXT 5 DAYS. REGARDLESS OF DEVELOPMENT...LOCALLY HEAVY
RAINS ARE STILL POSSIBLE NEAR THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF MEXICO FOR
ANOTHER DAY OR TWO.

&&
Member Since: July 21, 2011 Posts: 83 Comments: 7167
That huge system is slowly developing even though it has so many threats near it...

AN AREA OF CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS LOCATED OVER THE TROPICAL
ATLANTIC ABOUT 850 MILES EAST-NORTHEAST OF THE LEEWARD ISLANDS IS
ASSOCIATED WITH A TROPICAL WAVE INTERACTING WITH AN UPPER-LEVEL
LOW. WHILE THIS SYSTEM HAS BECOME A LITTLE BETTER ORGANIZED THIS
MORNING
...ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE SLOW TO OCCUR DUE TO
STRONG UPPER-LEVEL WINDS. THIS SYSTEM HAS A LOW CHANCE...
20 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS
WHILE IT MOVES NORTHWESTWARD AND THEN NORTHWARD AT ABOUT 15 TO
20 MPH. AFTER THAT TIME...CONDITIONS MAY BECOME A LITTLE MORE
CONDUCIVE FOR DEVELOPMENT...AND THIS SYSTEM HAS A MEDIUM CHANCE...
30 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 5 DAYS.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 465. Patrap:


Perfect visual for the scientist that discovered CFC correlation with global warming. Thanks!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 472. CaicosRetiredSailor:
It is coming up on 18 hours since the images at:

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/GOES/goeseasthurrir. html

have updated....

Does anybody here have information about this outage?



Yea I love that satellite imagery on there, but it frequently goes out for a day or less. Don't be too worried about it unless if it is out for 3 days, as they may have to move another goes satellite there (likely goes 14, since it is currently in low earth orbit storage area, in case if goes 13 gets broken AGAIN.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Whether Global Warming/Climate Change is real or not, I think we should still be doing all we reasonably can in this world to minimize the effects of us humans on our earth. Things like developing less forests and natural lands, and consolidating development in already developed places.

The way I see it in places like Florida is: they just keep developing and developing and developing beautiful natural land They are just going to keep doing that until there is NO MORE DEVELOP-ABLE LAND and Florida will just be one concrete mess of suburbia and cities with little islands of National and State parks and other protected lands. I mean, at this rate, nothing is going to stop the developers! It's terrible. It's almost impossible because 1000 people move to Florida each day! EVERYONE wants to move to Florida.

We should be doing more to stop this.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 478. DoctorDave1:


Lest you forget, in the '70s scientists were firmly convinced that global cooling was occurring. All of the global warming hype started in the '80s.
No, no they weren't.

Sigh...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 478. DoctorDave1:


Lest you forget, in the '70s scientists were firmly convinced that global cooling was occurring. All of the global warming hype started in the '80s.

That's a myth. You are spreading false information. Or perhaps you could actually cite a source to back up your (erroneous) claim?

You made the claim. You must support it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 471. Naga5000:


Surface temperatures only. It does not explain the rapid increase in oceanic heat content. This is where the theory falls apart. Warming has not "stabilized".


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 464. DoctorDave1:


Exactly. Global temperatures stabilized when CFC concentrations started going down. Thanks for the excellent point.

Energy is being stored in the oceans because of the PDO and frequent la nina's.

But you ignore everything else I said. That's cherry picking.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 462. DoctorDave1:


No, but if you actually read the blog posts, I would not have to write this. The paper presents an almost 100% correlation between CFCs and observed global temperatures and that all. Current (last 15 years) CO2 correlation with global temperatures is basically zero.
The way i see it, if you--or anyone else--chooses to abide by a debunked and discredited hypothesis that has absolutely no support among the wider science community, a hypothesis put forth by a known denier whose first few tries at the "CFCs account for all the warming and now the planet is cooling" paradigm were laughed out of the room, and one whose basic mathematical errors have already become the stuff of ridicule and legend among academia, that's perfectly fine. But I would question why anyone would choose to latch on so firmly to a nearly-impossible outlier, while at the same time rejecting in its entirety the massive mountains of evidence that exist offering a valid and "extremely likely" (read: "almost certainly true) hypothesis.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 529 - 479

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.

Local Weather

Light Rain
65 °F
Light Rain