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: 2629 - 2579

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

2629. Nimbless
5:57 PM GMT on October 03, 2013
"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."
This statement does not include the point of some of the stories from the media that the US government and others were lobbying the IPCC to soften this statement. It makes you wonder what the real truth is. Also, discounting data can be dangerous: Apollo 13 and Pan Am 759 crash come to mind (low altitude warning ignored, if I remember correctly).
Member Since: October 1, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
2628. UPF7
4:30 PM GMT on October 03, 2013
We could have hoped for a more balanced discussion of climate change from Dr. Masters. From today's news:

Yet, NBC called for “drastic” changes in carbon emissions. Anne Thompson interviewed Jeff Masters of Weather Underground. Regarding CO2 emissions, she asked him “How much longer can we go?”

“We’ve got about 30 or 40 years before we have to completely stop and go to zero,” Masters replied.
Member Since: November 18, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
2627. yoboi
7:23 PM GMT on September 30, 2013
Quoting 2626. OKJunkie:
Warmed since mid 20th century? Obviously. Unprecidented? Not so much.



One panel shows the global temperature anomalies from 1895-1946. The other shows the anomalies from 1957-2008. Both cover 52 years. Both are plotted to an identical scale. Richard Lindzen (MIT, lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report) asks his audiences whether they can tell which panel covers which period. It is not at all easy to tell.



there is a new blog....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2337
2626. OKJunkie
7:17 PM GMT on September 30, 2013
Warmed since mid 20th century? Obviously. Unprecidented? Not so much.



One panel shows the global temperature anomalies from 1895-1946. The other shows the anomalies from 1957-2008. Both cover 52 years. Both are plotted to an identical scale. Richard Lindzen (MIT, lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report) asks his audiences whether they can tell which panel covers which period. It is not at all easy to tell.
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7
2625. Broward
2:09 AM GMT on September 30, 2013
LOL ..ok I just didnt want to interrupt the flow in the tropical blog..this does take posts though..nice outside tonight
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2624. GeoffreyWPB
2:03 AM GMT on September 30, 2013
lol....to tell you...you are on the wrong blog...community activity shows you.
Member Since: September 10, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 11159
2623. Broward
2:01 AM GMT on September 30, 2013
so why are you here then?
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2622. GeoffreyWPB
1:55 AM GMT on September 30, 2013
Quoting 2621. Broward:
533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012

BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013





You know this blog ended this morning?
Member Since: September 10, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 11159
2621. Broward
1:51 AM GMT on September 30, 2013
533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012

BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013



Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2620. GatorWX
5:47 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
"I'll tell you this
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn"


Arctic Sea Ice Minimum in 2013 is Sixth Lowest on Record

This year's minimum was reached September 13th.

Last year, we saw a record low minimum. Keep that in mind, 2012, when referring to this year's marginal recovery. It's still a downward trend, even with the slight recovery from the year prior and a recovery we've witnessed before.
Member Since: January 1, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 3083
2619. unknowncomic
5:44 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Time to start a GW blog.

The GW Billboard. Where beachin and insults are welcome.
Member Since: August 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1941
2618. Broward
5:34 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
the fact that continual predictions about climate change are just not happening. The IPCC said global temperatures would rise by up to 0.2C [0.36F] a decade and this is not happening.
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2617. daddyjames
5:32 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2615. Broward:
the earth is always changing I just don%u2019t agree that its caused by humans except for deforestations and polluting the land and water.I am an engineer I calibrate temperature probes and other electronic equipment


Then talk to your civil engineer counterparts. The costs and steps that they have to take to mitigate saltwater intrusion due to the rise in ocean levels. Whether or not you wish to accept why it is happening, is irrelevent. It is happening. And in 20 years, SOFL will be having to cope with it, one way or the other. The IPCC is designed to allow for governments to plan accordingly - and many are doing so. But it would be better to address the problem head on, then try to "adapt".
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3732
2616. Broward
5:25 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
95% Chance Most of Global Warming is Human-Caused


so what is most ? 51% ? .
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2615. Broward
5:21 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
the earth is always changing I just dont agree that its caused by humans except for deforestations and polluting the land and water.I am an engineer I calibrate temperature probes and other electronic equipment
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2614. daddyjames
4:54 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2613. Broward:
I don’t insult people for their opinions.I just don’t feel the last 50 years of data shows a trend representative of the human influence causing a .8 temperature rise .What caused the 3-5 c drop of the mini ice age?..we have ocean air and surface temp differences..even if all the ice melts the gulf stream would stop and it would refreeze and the earth survives with less humans.we will kill ourselves before the oceans rise.It would be better served to have everyone cut back on their personal pollution and consumption using clean food and water as a reason then GW


But your statements are disingenuous. You realy think that in two generations we "will kill ourselves". If you live in Broward, you should be particularly concerned. Talk to engineers and their concerns with the rise in the oceans, and the impact it already is having there. Find how much money is being spent, and will have to be spent, to keep as they are.

The science has been done, and will continue to be done. All signs are that temperatures, ocean levels, and the costs to mitigate the impacts are going up - and will continue to go up, if we do not take steps to minimize it. In 10-20 years, SoFL will be feeling the reality - and much sooner than others.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3732
2613. Broward
4:45 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
I don’t insult people for their opinions.I just don’t feel the last 50 years of data shows a trend representative of the human influence causing a .8 temperature rise .What caused the 3-5 c drop of the mini ice age?..we have ocean air and surface temp differences..even if all the ice melts the gulf stream would stop and it would refreeze and the earth survives with less humans.we will kill ourselves before the oceans rise.It would be better served to have everyone cut back on their personal pollution and consumption using clean food and water as a reason then GW
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2612. gordydunnot
4:26 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Money equals power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I'm not counting on the next generation, as the consolidation of money in relatively fewer and fewer hands means more control of media and politicians.
My hope and I see it in my children is, thru the internet and online education and self instruction they already know more about what is going on then our generation.I'm sure will see pressure in the future on this freedom. For all we've got now is blogs like this and other individuals who care enough to speak their mind. Probably at their own economic peril. Bottom line if you don't like the blog, I believe there are others to blog on.I'm kind of thinking your well thought discourses won't be missed. Lastly the person who created drink the Kool aid idea was someone who thought he knew the gospels better than most.I haven't heard the Doc. comment on his personal beliefs, he doesn't need to, his action speak louder than his words. He doesn't have a flock here just people that are interested in weather. It mostly about the tropics assuming there is anything in the tropics to discuss.So check your local weather first, if it mentions something tropical tune in, otherwise do yourself a favor and tune out. I'm done peeing in the wind, but fell better.
Member Since: August 18, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 3113
2611. Broward
4:13 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
I haven't seen any proof that man caused any warming and a .8c change in temp is around the inaccuracy of the calibration of the temperature rtds..troll this..lol
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2610. Sfloridacat5
4:12 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2605. Bielle:


Check the "join" dates. That will tell you a lot. If they are new in the past few days, then you will know.


And you don't have to make a post to + a comment.

Lots of people veiw the blog, but only a small percentage of them actually make posts.
I believe (could be wrong) most the people who fequent the blog on a dialy basis (and make posts) would prefer to discuss the topics.

But the tropics haven't been overly exciting this season for the U.S.
Member Since: September 16, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6886
2609. Broward
4:11 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
later ..Jeff created a new tropical blog..
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2608. CarolinaHurricanes87
4:09 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2590. Broward:
well when u put a hotly debated blog topic where people want to read about the tropics what do you expect..if you disagree with their opinion just insult them and call them trolls.. who is the intellectual now?



If you want to read about the tropics, there is a place for that. This blog has "global warming is human-caused" directly in its title.... if you disagree with the scientifically backed evidence, provide your own scientific evidence. Don't just yell that people are insulting you and run with your tail between your legs- if you truly believe in your position, do the research and prove it. If not- stop trolling
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 631
2607. pottery
4:09 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting Broward:
land based temperature records are corrupted by urban heat island distortions which are constantly growing over time, building in a warming bias. established temperature authorities today use data from only about 2,000 weather stations, down from 6,000 in 1970, which raises questions about their selections among available sites.


Interesting comment, that.

Would it be more accurate (assuming that your point is correct, which I dont think it is) to locate all the temperature recorders in ''cool'' places such as forests and green parks?

The point you seem to be missing, is that we are indeed a major contributor to GW, and Cities, Pavements, Deforestation etc etc etc are part of that.
It would seem ridiculous to me to NOT include those hot areas in any Temp. Graph.

Oh, and humans built the Cities and so on......
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24314
2606. Broward
4:07 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
ScottLincoln...actually it was a bookmark didn’t need to type or post and I agree with you on atmospheric water vapor
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2605. Bielle
4:06 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2602. VR46L:


It would make me wonder was lots of handles made up to try and convince the Doc that AGW is the direction his blog should go in !


Check the "join" dates. That will tell you a lot. If they are new in the past few days, then you will know.
Member Since: September 18, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 616
2604. Neapolitan
4:05 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2579. CycloneOz:


There is a great amount of money...AND...many careers at stake.

Defending in the face of a severe shortage of "LONG TERM DATA," in support a what is obviously a hoax, is understandable.
You are correct; there is a great deal of money. Here, have a look at this list of American billionaires who made most or all of their fortunes by extracting, processing, or distributing oil, gas, or coal (From Forbes'The 400 Richest People In America):
  • Charles Koch
  • David Koch
  • George Kaiser
  • Len Blavatnik
  • Harold Hamm
  • Richard Kinder
  • Jeff Hildebrand
  • Robert Rowling
  • Ray Lee Hunt
  • William Koch
  • Robert Bass
  • Trevor Rees-JonesDannine Avara
  • Scott Duncan
  • Milane Frantz
  • Randa Williams
  • Terrence Pegula
  • Lynn Schusterman
  • Rodney Lewis
  • Timothy Headington
  • Robert Holding
  • David Rockefeller
  • Christopher Cline
  • George Mitchell
  • Lee Bass
  • Sid Bass
  • John Catsimatidis
  • Gordon Getty
  • Kelcy Warren
  • Edward Bass
  • T. Boone Pickens
  • Ray Davis
  • Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler
  • Dan Wilks
  • Farris Wilks
  • Joseph Craft
  • William Macaulay
  • Aubrey McClendon
  • William Moncrief
  • Jim Justice
Foreign billionaires who made most or all of their fortunes by extracting, processing, or distributing oil, gas, or coal (From Forbes' The World's Billionaires)
  • Eike Batista
  • Mukesh Ambani
  • Vagit Alekperov
  • Mikhail Fridman
  • Mohammed Al Amoudi
  • Viktor Vekselberg
  • Leonid Mikhelson
  • Andrey Melnichenko
  • Gennady Timchenko
  • German Khan
  • Mikhail Gutseriev
  • Alexei Kuzmichev
  • Leonid Fedun
  • Carlos and Alejandro Bulgheroni
  • Pyotr Aven
  • Low Tuck Kwong
  • Clayton Riddell
  • Vladimir Bogdanov
  • Rubens Ometto
  • Silveira Mello
  • Aloys Wobben
  • Ajay Kalsi
  • Jean Claude Gandur
  • Vladimir Gridin
  • Zdenek Bakala
  • Alexander Dzhaparidze
  • Ayman Asfari
  • Anatoly Skurov
  • Kiki Barki
  • N. Murray Edwards
  • Igor Makarov
  • Sit Kwong Lam
  • Edwin Soeryadjaya
  • Mikhail Abyzov
  • Ali Metin Kazanci
  • Chris Wallin
  • Andrei Kosogov
  • Garibaldi Thohir
  • Antonio Jose Carneiro
  • Theodore Rachmat
  • Fan Zhaoxia
  • Alisher Usmanov
  • Viktor Nusenkis
  • Dinu Patriciu
Billionaires who made most or all of their fortune by practicing climate science:
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
2603. daddyjames
4:01 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Good morning from Central OK,

A beautiful fall day here. A a good amount of rain from the front that came through. Definitely will help us out in the long run.

See the tropics are a bit more active. Was surprised to see that the TD had not graduated to Jerry yet. That ULL still disrupting any further strengthening.

I hope you all have a fantastic day.

Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3732
2602. VR46L
4:00 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2591. barbamz:
BTW, the entry of our doc was plussed 121 times until now :) I cannot remember such an amount of plusses with any other post ...


It would make me wonder was lots of handles made up to try and convince the Doc that AGW is the direction his blog should go in !
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6899
2601. Thrawst
3:59 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2587. Doppler22:
Seems to be more trolls this year then last.. or maybe last year we were all busy tracking storm after storm so we just ignored all of them :p

I think 97L has potential. The gulf coast should keep and eye on it just in case.

How is everyone's weather today? Its very nice where I am


Coral Gables is currently about to get a big downpour. Other than that looks nice!!
Member Since: July 18, 2010 Posts: 50 Comments: 1894
2600. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
3:59 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
2599. Sfloridacat5
3:58 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2594. Doppler22:

Haha yes, although I think Dr. Masters will probably right a new entry soon. Most likely tomorrow about TD11 and 97L. Do you think he might crank out a blog today?


It's posssible, but he usually posts a new blog around 10-11am on most days.
Member Since: September 16, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6886
2598. Thrawst
3:58 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
11L gon' be a hurricane, watch. lol
Member Since: July 18, 2010 Posts: 50 Comments: 1894
2597. FOREX
3:57 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2594. Doppler22:

Haha yes, although I think Dr. Masters will probably right a new entry soon. Most likely tomorrow about TD11 and 97L. Do you think he might crank out a blog today?


Hopefully.
Member Since: August 17, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2293
2596. ScottLincoln
3:57 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2590. Broward:
well when u put a hotly debated blog topic where people want to read about the tropics what do you expect..if you disagree with their opinion just insult them and call them trolls.. who is the intellectual now?

Dr. Masters' blog is not the only source for tropical information on the internet, nor the only tropical weather blog. It was your personal choice to type this URL into your browser's address bar. It was your personal choice to read Dr. Masters' blog entry. It was your personal choice to use your mouse to scroll down to the bottom and read comments to Dr. Masters' climate science related blog posts. It was your personal choice to comment on the blog.

It seems as if your concerns could be addressed most easily if you broke a piece of the chain listed above.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
2595. unknowncomic
3:56 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Latest GFS has 97l weak and passing between w cuba and mexico into gom.
Member Since: August 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1941
2594. Doppler22
3:56 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2591. barbamz:
BTW, the entry of our doc was plussed 121 times until now :) I cannot remember such an amount of plusses with any other post ...

Haha yes, although I think Dr. Masters will probably write a new entry soon. Most likely tomorrow about TD11 and 97L. Do you think he might crank out a blog today?
Member Since: February 13, 2012 Posts: 11 Comments: 3754
2593. ScottLincoln
3:55 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2586. CycloneOz:


Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere DWARF concentrations of CO2.

So what method do you people propose to control water vapor levels?

Your original comment was in regards to the most important gases in the atmosphere for plants, and thus, life in general. Without H20 in the atmosphere, there would be no rainfall. Without rainfall, there would be no surface freshwater.

Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, but its lifetime in the atmosphere is much much less than CO2. It's concentration is closely correlated with temperature. There is an equilibrium level of water molecules leaving and returning to the surface of liquid droplets which is tied to the temperature. Look up saturation vapor pressure.

Increased temperatures (in recent decades due to human activities) increases atmospheric water vapor, which further increases warming. This is a power positive feedback in the climate system.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
2592. Broward
3:55 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
great.. wish everyone success in our great country now start a tropics blog
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2591. barbamz
3:53 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
BTW, the entry of our doc was plussed 121 times until now :) I cannot remember such an amount of plusses with any other post ...
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 54 Comments: 5949
2590. Broward
3:53 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
well when u put a hotly debated blog topic where people want to read about the tropics what do you expect..if you disagree with their opinion just insult them and call them trolls.. who is the intellectual now?
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2589. ScottLincoln
3:51 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2584. FOREX:


ignored.

It's ok for you to just ignore people without telling each and every one of them that you are ignoring them.

It serves no rational purpose to make your actions known to others in that way.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
2588. Broward
3:49 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
now I have changed my view on many people I previously respected.should be a separate blog for tropical..
Member Since: September 22, 2004 Posts: 1 Comments: 181
2587. Doppler22
3:49 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Seems to be more trolls this year then last.. or maybe last year we were all busy tracking storm after storm so we just ignored all of them :p

I think 97L has potential. The gulf coast should keep and eye on it just in case.

How is everyone's weather today? Its very nice where I am
Member Since: February 13, 2012 Posts: 11 Comments: 3754
2586. CycloneOz
3:49 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2582. ScottLincoln:


Perhaps to you, not to climate scientists. Dr. Masters is a scientist. This is his blog. Whether or not the science topics he chooses to blog about are controversial to you is rather irrelevant.

Of course H20 should also be on your list.

"CO2 is plant food" is not a logical reasoning to contradict the other physical properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That's the part you missed... although essential for plant life because they use CO2 for photosynthesis, it is also essential for all life as we know it, because it keeps temperatures much higher than we would otherwise have in its absence. Increasing the level of the greenhouse gases would thus increase this effect.
Please see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-ba sic.htm

The small concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric is also not a logical reason to contradict its physical properties.


Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere DWARF concentrations of CO2.

So what method do you people propose to control water vapor levels?

It is a serious question! After all...HAARP exists.
Member Since: August 26, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 3684
2585. VR46L
3:47 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2574. Kyon5:

Let's see if it can manage to survive.


That is the interesting question ?
I dont know !

Dust wize it has a chance



Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6899
2584. FOREX
3:47 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2582. ScottLincoln:


Perhaps to you, not to climate scientists. Dr. Masters is a scientist. This is his blog. Whether or not the science topics he chooses to blog about are controversial to you is rather irrelevant.

Of course H20 should also be on your list.

"CO2 is plant food" is not a logical reasoning to contradict the other physical properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That's the part you missed... although essential for plant life because they use CO2 for photosynthesis, it is also essential for all life as we know it, because it keeps temperatures much higher than we would otherwise have in its absence. Increasing the level of the greenhouse gases would thus increase this effect.
Please see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-ba sic.htm

The small concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric is also not a logical reason to contradict its physical properties.


ignored.
Member Since: August 17, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2293
2583. unknowncomic
3:47 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2576. mrmombq:


SYNOPSIS 2013092900

P43L (NHC: 20%-48h, 40%-120h)
15N, 75W
700 hPa


ECMWF: As P43L tracks to the northwest, the semi-permanent South Caribbean gyre remains to the south. OW slowly rises for 96 hours, but OW never gets high.

GFS: Story is fairly similar to yesterday's GFS. Tracks to the northwest crossing western Cuba. OW remains steady at a moderate level.

UKMET: Big shift from a westward, Nicaragua landfall in yesterday's forecast to one that is now similar to GFS, heading for a Pensacola-area landfall not long after 120 hours.

NAVGEM: Continues its story of a westward track, with only a slight shift to the north (Yucatan) compared with yesterday (Belize).

HWRF-GEN: Tracks to the north and farther east than the other models. Crosses Jamaica and central Cuba, ending up just east of Miami at 96 hours and then turning to the NNE.

ECMWF -2.9 v700 120h
GFS -2.2 v700 120h
UKMET -2.6 v700 120h
NAVGEM -3.0 v700 96h
HWGEN -1.0 v700 120h
As usual, up in the air till there is a definite system.
Member Since: August 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1941
2582. ScottLincoln
3:46 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2570. CycloneOz:
Dr. Master's current blog is extremely controversial.


Perhaps to you, not to climate scientists. Dr. Masters is a scientist. This is his blog. Whether or not the science topics he chooses to blog about are controversial to you is rather irrelevant.
Quoting 2570. CycloneOz:
The atmosphere itself is mostly nitrogen with copious amounts of other gases, two of which are most important...oxygen and CO2.

Of course H20 should also be on your list.
Quoting 2570. CycloneOz:Without CO2, plants would not exist. Plants provide oxygen. Most living creatures on Earth require it for life.

What amazes me is that CO2 comprises only 4 parts per 10,000 units...and that it is enough of a concentration for abundant plant life world wide.

"CO2 is plant food" is not a logical reasoning to contradict the other physical properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That's the part you missed... although essential for plant life because they use CO2 for photosynthesis, it is also essential for all life as we know it, because it keeps temperatures much higher than we would otherwise have in its absence. Increasing the level of the greenhouse gases would thus increase this effect.
Please see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-ba sic.htm

The small concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric is also not a logical reason to contradict its physical properties.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
2581. CycloneOz
3:46 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2580. Neapolitan:
Controverisal, perhaps, but only to those who can't or won't understand what's going on.

So far as your poker analogy, well, it's a poor one, if you ask me. Yes, the river card can turn the tables. But it's been well-established that the climatological deck is stacked, so scientists know what that last card is.; they don't expect any sudden surprises.

Yes, CO2 is important for life. So is water. People drown in water. Too much water is, therefore, a bad thing, just as is too much CO2. We have too much CO2.

It is amazing that CO2 can keep plants healthy around the globe, isn't it? I see you have acknowledged that it is, indeed, a very powerful molecule even in relatively small concentrations. That's a good start...


No offense, but your analogy about too much water is poor, just as mine was. :)
Member Since: August 26, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 3684
2580. Neapolitan
3:45 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2570. CycloneOz:
Dr. Master's current blog is extremely controversial.

My opinion...the AGW theorists are holding a losing hand.

95% sure...are they?

Well, having played enough hands of poker to know...the river can turn the tables on that 95%.

Many things influence climate. The Earth is replete with liquid water. A stable star provides heat. Land masses and great oceans interact with the atmosphere.

The atmosphere itself is mostly nitrogen with copious amounts of other gases, two of which are most important...oxygen and CO2.

Without CO2, plants would not exist. Plants provide oxygen. Most living creatures on Earth require it for life.

What amazes me is that CO2 comprises only 4 parts per 10,000 units...and that it is enough of a concentration for abundant plant life world wide.
Controverisal, perhaps, but only to those who can't or won't understand what's going on.

So far as your poker analogy, well, it's a poor one, if you ask me. Yes, the river card can turn the tables. But it's been well-established that the climatological deck is stacked, so scientists know what that last card is.; they don't expect any sudden surprises.

Yes, CO2 is important for life. So is water. People drown in water. Too much water is, therefore, a bad thing, just as is too much CO2. We have too much CO2.

It is amazing that CO2 can keep plants healthy around the globe, isn't it? I see you have acknowledged that it is, indeed, a very powerful molecule even in relatively small concentrations. That's a good start...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
2579. CycloneOz
3:44 PM GMT on September 29, 2013
Quoting 2577. Broward:
site was so much better before that jumped on the alarmist band wagon .


There is a great amount of money...AND...many careers at stake.

Defending in the face of a severe shortage of "LONG TERM DATA," in support a what is obviously a hoax, is understandable.
Member Since: August 26, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 3684

Viewing: 2629 - 2579

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.