The World Four Degrees Warmer: A New Analysis from the World Bank
The World Four Degrees Warmer: A New Analysis from the World Bank
I ended my last article with the idea that our motivation to address climate change would likely be a series of climate disasters. Each hit will be a blow, and each blow will cause us to accumulate a bit more climate fatigue.
Back in 2011 I changed my class, and I started to teach that we needed to prepare for a world four degrees Celsius warmer. I felt that describing that warm world and developing adaptation strategies would make the climate change problem more concrete. It would make the costs more real and bring the problem home to cities, communities, and people. It would motivate technology, solutions. Ultimately, I feel it will motivate us to take the reduction of greenhouse gases more seriously.
Originally, much of my material was taken from a special issue of The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. In the Introduction by Mark New and colleagues, they argue that the projected rate of population growth and our current warming trajectory work to maximize stress at the same time. With warming approaching four degrees, stress on resources and human systems related to climate change become comparable to those from population stress.
Today a new report from the World Bank gives an analysis of the world four degrees warmer and comes to the conclusion that “a 4 degree Celsius warmer world must be avoided.” (PDF of Report). If the average increase of the global surface temperature is 4 degrees, then the regional changes will be much higher. In the analysis by the World Bank, they point out that the geographical size of regions of extreme heat and drought has increased and will increase significantly. This change in area is in concert with increased frequency of occurrence. The regional changes in the summer in the continental United States will be of order six degrees Celsius, say ten degrees Fahrenheit. Think about the last two summers in the United States, and add ten degrees.
The World Bank is worried about development and poverty. They spend much of the report analyzing the intersection of climate change, climate stress, population, and population stress. For example, water stress related to both precipitation and increasing temperature occurs in regions of increasing population, where stress is already high. This brings attention that this is a problem of population and climate change, not one or the other. The report talks about the compounded effects of drought, flood, extreme weather, people, and vulnerability. The report states, “A 4°C world is likely to be one in which communities, cities and countries would experience severe disruptions, damage, and dislocation, with many of these risks spread unequally. It is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today.” Each hit will be a blow, and each blow will cause us to accumulate a bit more climate fatigue.
And in the language of development bankers and economists: “Projections of damage costs for climate change impacts typically assess the costs of local damages, including infrastructure, and do not provide an adequate consideration of cascade effects (for example, value-added chains and supply networks) at national and regional scales. However, in an increasingly globalized world that experiences further specialization in production systems, and thus higher dependency on infrastructure to deliver produced goods, damages to infrastructure systems can lead to substantial indirect impacts. Seaports are an example of an initial point where a breakdown or substantial disruption in infrastructure facilities could trigger impacts that reach far beyond the particular location of the loss.”
The message of this report is that when considering the cost of a world four degrees warmer and the overlap of that warmer world with people, our built infrastructure, and fragile countries, then we must take the steps to avoid that warmer world. And, that is likely to be four degrees on the way to six degrees.
Next, I will consider this report in context of the International Energy Agency report North America leads shift in global energy balance, IEA says in latest World Energy Outlook.
r
New World Bank Report on a world four degrees warmer.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index
it is what it is.....
my chest.
I will just note again that in the DC area, the past three summers have been the warmest three of record by a large margin over any others
of the past 140 years. This is not by itself proof of global wrming and I suspect this is a local short term climactic
fluctuation only peripherally associated with global warming but it
was nevertheless a shock.
As a gardener (I really like my own produce and my kids
eat more veggies when they are mine) it would take very large
warmings to change my practices. For example a 1C temperature
increase in spring/fall shifts the frost dates by about five days
and other planting dates in mid spring are comparable. However
at the extreme seasons there has been more effect.
In the winter quarter of the year there has been a sufficient reduction
in extreme cold that I can now try to overwinter greens. This is still
iffy and fails many years but it is sometimes possible. The driving
term in survivability is still how much effort one puts into protecting
them (frost covers and snow structures to keep them from getting crushed)
The past three summers however have portended ominous trends. DC and much of the southeast U.S. summer temperatures are at the upper limits of what many crop plants tolerate without reduced yields.
I posted last year about not being able to grow Lima Beans in 2010 and 2011, a problem which I had never before encountered since I began gardening in 1972. In 2012, a protracted heat wave from June 28 to July 8 killed my tomato plants. This is a first but was reported by several colleagues as well. If mean summer temperatures increase another three degrees here, tomatoes are going to become a spring and fall crop with a paucity in late summer. (I am not sure this is entirely due to heat, 2010 and 2011 were banner tomato years in spite of the heat those years. But since many growers reported
problems in 2012 and since the late June-early July heat wave intensity and duration was exceptional, I am comfortable reporting this. By the way I got my earliest tomatoes ever in 2012 (June 3; normal for this area is about June 20) )
I'm rambling but my concern is that we may soon see crop yields,
even in the absence of drought, start to decline in the southeast U.S if
summer warming continues.
described centuries ago as "the tragedy of the commons".
Some things never change.. sigh.!
where do you get your seeds?
Also the coldest winter in 50 years but a scant 9 months past.
Richard Gray, and Nigel Burnham
The Telegraph, UK
Sun, 05 Aug 2012 04:52 CDT
British honey shortages have been predicted this year by bee keepers after the wet summer weather has forced them to feed their colonies with emergency supplies of sugar and syrup.
The wet UK summer weather has left honey bees confined to their hives
Prolonged periods of rain since April has meant honey bees across the country have been unable to forage during the peak flowering season when they normally gather plentiful supplies of nectar to feed their broods of larvae and produce honey.
Bee keepers are now bracing themselves for some heavy losses in their bee colonies unless they can benefit from a change in the weather.
The National Bee Unit at the government's Food and Environmental Research Agency has issued a starvation alert warning that bees are at risk of starving to death due to the poor weather conditions.
Officials at the British Bee Keepers Association have also warned that honey crops this year are expected to be particularly poor.
Tim Lovett, the association's director of public affairs, said many key crops such as oil seed rape and fruit trees had flowered during the wettest periods, meaning bees were unable to gather nectar.
He said: "Bees can tolerate the cold quite well as they can cluster together to keep warm and the queen stops laying eggs so there are not so many mouths to feed.
"In wet weather, however, they do not forage and flowers tend not to produce much nectar when it is cold. We can expect a very poor honey output this year."
He added that many colonies were swarming on the few days when conditions were dry, leaving hives abandoned.
"We are seeing hives being left with no queens, which is potentially a greater problem in the long term," he said.
It comes after bee keepers in the UK suffered reported bee losses of 16 per cent over the winter - a three per cent rise on the previous year.
I get most seeds from local garden shops or hardware stores. A few
I get from catalogs, in particular park seeds and Johnnys selected seeds.
Lima beans have been getting hard to find. I get mine from Southern States, a fairly rural general purpose chain of stores.
I grow Florida Speckled Butter and (when I can find it) Sieva.
Both are pole beans.
Join us and help preserve our garden heritage.
Patrick’s tunnel idea for dealing with the effects of Arctic ice melting are one of the many “solutions” that are being examined in the response to battling the effects of climate change.
Link
Ya'll with me yet?????
Link
..
As many of these plants may anticipate a life cycle of 75-100 years, this would seem to bode ill for a transition away from carbon power any time soon.
Full Report
The good news is that humanity will never be able to burn that much coal. The bad news will be the reason why we will not be able to do so. .... Another shot of cyanide, anyone?
1. They never made any mention - they did not use the word - methane. Why?
2. They state that 4C will not be reached until 2070 at the earliest, and that there is only a 10% chance thereof. They do not discuss or defend any of the assumptions that lead to that conclusion. I assume therefore that they have used unrealistic growth rates to force the conclusions they wanted to make.
3. On page 28 is something that would be funny in a different reality:
They state:
"The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is grounded mainly below sea level, with the
deepest points far inland, and has the potential to raise eustatic global sea level by about 3.3 m (Bamber, Riva, Vermeersen, and LeBrocq 2009). This estimate takes into account that the reverse bedslope could trigger instability of the ice sheet, leading to an unhalted retreat."
further
"Using a semi-empirical model indicates that scenarios that approach 4°C warming by 2100 (2090–2099) lead to median estimates of sea-level rise of nearly 1 m above 1980–1999 levels on this time frame (Table 2). Several meters of further future sea-level rise would very likely be committed to under these scenarios"
therefore
the oceans will rise 35 - 77 cm and the contribution from Antarctica will be 26 cm, and that modest increase will take the entire century to be reached.
WHAAAAT??
4. Heres a good one:
"The combination of warming and ocean acidification is likely to lead to the demise of most coral reef ecosystems (Hoegh-Guldberg 2010). Warm-water coral reefs, cold-water corals, and ecosystems in the Southern Ocean are especially vulnerable. Recent research indicates that limiting warming to as little as 1.5°C may not be sufficient to protect reef systems globally."
Which is fine, but they don't point out that after the coral is extinct, there won't be any fish, except jellys.
I must agree with Anderson there must be some sort of bizarre conspiracy:
Lecture
These are the slides.
Hey, I've been there, I understand.
If you want to keep your job, you never commit to paper anything that even the slightest bit controversial.
I wrote site investigations for the superfund program. Investigations that always ended with the conclusion: "No conclusions can be reached, more investigation is needed." Then one day, i'm investigating Reynolds Aluminum and I have an eye witness that tells me that he was in charge of dumping PCE, TCE, TCA, diesel, etc. into a dry well. My report ended with "Reynolds Aluminum poured many thousands of gallons of solvents into the dry well shown in appendix A."
Needless to say, by the time my witness died of cancer (just a matter of weeks) I was writing wastewater permits, my report had been amended to read, "No conclusions can be reached, more investigation is needed.", and the actual superfund site name had been changed.
I can imagine the pressure the authors of the World Bank report must be under to down play the actual facts. Kevin Anderson deserves all the praise anyone can give him.
6:43 AM GMT on November 21, 2012
This is a very interesting comment Pintada. Thanks.
1. Assuming we have almost compete legislative and policy success globally, how much can we reduce our carbon emissions from our power plants, vehicles, and heating systems AND from our agricultural practices?
2. Will this stop the rate of temperature increase within 150 years and if so how much will it increase prior reaching this maximum?
3. If it does not, then what do we HAVE to do to adapt to the consequences. A subset of this question is what do we have to do to
adapt to the bounded increase described in the answer to #2.
Overall I am pessimistic and believe we cannot stop a warming disaster
within the lifetimes of my (as yet unborn for probably another ten years) grandchildren. I fear the answer to #2 is no. (and it will be worse and quicker since #1 is unlikely also)
1. With a rational congress and president, we could reduce our carbon footprint to zero within 20 years. The technology exists and would be "easy" to apply.
2. Yes, it would stop the temperature increases within 150 years. I cant guess at the max temp, but we might just survive. Especially with some well thought out geo-engineering.
3. Adaptation is not possible.
Dude! Go back and listen to Andersons lecture! We have until 2040 - you and I will see the problem solved, or our species wiped out.
At least we should try.
Nevin works hard to explain the truth.
Methane!! Clathrates!!
6:10 PM GMT on November 21, 2012
Chris and I need an agent!
wow sounds like the bengazi report....
Not that there's anything wrong wit dat,mind u.
: )
Posted: 11/21/2012 9:40 am EST Updated: 11/21/2012 1:21 pm EST
In the absence of aggressive government policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, a number of leading organizations, including the United Nations, the World Bank and others, have begun issuing analyses that regard potentially dangerous temperature elevations as not just a possibility should the status quo prevail, but a near certainty even if things start to change.
The latest report, released Wednesday by the United Nations Environment Program, suggested that greenhouse gas emissions levels are currently around 14 percent above where they need to be by the end of the decade in order to avoid what many analysts believe could be a risky level of planetary warming.
That report comes on the heels of a study issued Tuesday by the Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization, which stated that human civilization has pumped roughly 375 billion tonnes, or metric tons, of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age, when the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels began in earnest.
"These billions of tonnes of additional carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will remain there for centuries, causing our planet to warm further and impacting on all aspects of life on earth," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, in a statement issued Tuesday. "Future emissions will only compound the situation."
On Sunday, the World Bank issued a report suggesting that the climate could warm a full 4 degrees by the end of the century -- less than 90 years from now -- even if countries fulfill the modest emissions-reduction pledges they've already made.
A 4-degree uptick in temperatures is significantly higher than what has long been deemed the maximum amount -- 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit -- that average global temperatures could rise while still maintaining a climate similar to that in which human civilization has evolved.
That number, measured against things as they existed before the industrial-scale use of fossil fuels got underway, was not considered absolute. But the best evidence seemed to suggest that keeping the Earth's average temperature from rising much beyond 2 degrees was a worthy goal, not least because larger increases would raise the odds of many unpleasant things: forbidding sea levels, searing heat waves, grinding droughts and the like.
In subsequent years, some prominent scientists argued that even 2 degrees of warming would be disastrous.
But increasing evidence suggests that such distinctions may no longer matter.
Nearly 30 years after the benchmark was proffered, about half the distance to a 2-degree temperature increase, or about 0.8 degrees, has already been achieved. Further, enough carbon dioxide, the chief planet warming gas that arises when coal, oil and natural gas are burned, is already in the atmosphere to raise future temperatures by another 0.8 degrees, even if all the pollution stopped immediately.
As it is, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are at an all-time high and are projected to continue booming.
Carbon dioxide is, of course, naturally present in the atmosphere -- and necessary for retaining some of the sun's warmth and creating a habitable climate. But all that extra, human-produced carbon dioxide is amplifying the natural greenhouse effect, and driving up the planetary thermostat.
So much so that PricewaterhouseCoopers, the global business consultancy, issued a report earlier this month that makes the 2-degree Celsius threshold appear quaint. That analysis, titled "Too Late for Two Degrees?," suggested that while efforts to reduce the carbon intensity, or the amount of emissions per unit of GDP, of the world's economies are making some modest gains, they are unfolding so slowly as to be negligible.
"Even doubling our current rate of decarbonization, would still lead to emissions consistent with 6 degrees of warming by the end of the century," noted Leo Johnson, a partner in PwC's Sustainability and Climate Change unit, in the report. "To give ourselves a more than 50 percent chance of avoiding 2 degrees will require a six-fold improvement in our rate of decarbonization."
Put another way, the PwC researchers concluded, to have even a modest chance of staying within the 2-degree threshold, the global economy would need to reduce overall carbon intensity by 5.1 percent every year for the next 40 years.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii.
Reductions in overall carbon intensity have occurred -- particularly during times of steep recession, when economies are producing less and, as such, burning fewer fossil fuels. But reductions of 5 percent have never been achieved in any year since World War II, the PwC report noted, much less year after year for decades. And given the fast-expanding and fossil-fuel dependent economies of countries like China and India, such reductions are exceedingly unlikely, the authors suggested.
"Governments and businesses can no longer assume that a 2-degree Celsius warming world is the default scenario," the PwC authors declared. "Any investment in long-term assets or infrastructure, particularly in coastal or low-lying regions, needs to address more pessimistic scenarios. Sectors dependent on food, water, energy or ecosystem services need to scrutinize the resilience and viability of their supply chains."
The findings roughly echoed those of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, which suggested this month in its annual World Energy Outlook that even accounting for the policy commitments already made or contemplated by world governments, energy-related emissions are expected to rise precipitously over the next two decades, pointing to what the organization called a "long‐term average temperature increase of 3.6 degrees Celsius.
"A lower rate of global economic growth in the short term," IEA reported, "would make only a marginal difference to longer‐term energy and climate trends."
Should these bleak scenarios prove accurate, the World Bank said on Sunday, a variety of unpleasant end-of-century outcomes would seem all but unavoidable: Increasingly acidic oceans that will fundamentally alter the aquatic food chain; rapidly rising oceans; freshwater scarcity, diminished agricultural yields; and a variety of other impacts -- most of them landing particularly hard on the world's poorest.
"Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today," said World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim in a statement accompanying the report. "Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest," he said.
So-called non-linear outcomes are also a threat, the World Bank noted:
As global warming approaches and exceeds 2-degrees Celsius, there is a risk of triggering nonlinear tipping elements. Examples include the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet leading to more rapid sea-level rise, or large-scale Amazon dieback drastically affecting ecosystems, rivers, agriculture, energy production, and livelihoods. This would further add to 21st-century global warming and impact entire continents.
To be sure, no scientific model can pinpoint exactly when any particular temperature level will be reached, nor predict with precision just how the planet will respond. And some experts remain hopeful -- albeit increasingly cautiously -- that dramatic action could still forestall the most dire implications of rising temperatures, though they say the window for doing so will not be open for long.
"It is still possible to avoid 2-degree warming, and arguing it is too late could very easily be a self-fulfilling prophecy," said Michael E. Mann, a climatologist and director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. "That having been said, the real issue is whether or not we have the political will."
That sentiment was echoed by Jonathan Koomey, a research fellow at the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University, and the co-author of the first comprehensive analysis of the 2-degree limit back in 1989.
"We tend to underestimate the possibility for change," Koomey said "At certain times, when people perceive a crisis, things can change very, very rapidly."
Koomey pointed, by way of example, to World War II, when initially reluctant automobile factories, under federal orders, converted operations in a matter of months to the manufacture of planes, tanks and other defense products. "People have been able to make very rapid changes," Koomey said, "and I think we have to be very careful in thinking about, or in taking literally, people's assessments of feasibility."
Still, he added, "We have to separate the lessons that this way of thinking can teach us and the realities of politics and interest groups. Urgent action is required."
The climate activist Bill McKibben, who is currently traveling the country in an effort to highlight the hard math that is making the 2-degree benchmark an increasingly fleeting possibility, agreed.
"It would take an incredible effort, but that's what we're trying to spur," he said when asked if the recent proliferation of analyses suggests an inescapably dire future. "Given the damage that 1 degree is doing, we're already at 'dire,'" McKibben said. "We dearly don't want to see what 2 degrees looks like, much less 3."
Reality SUCKS! I am thinking about switching to the side of the denial industry just to escape reality. .... What??? I ask what does it take for the denial industry to be informed enough that it begins to understand it is NOT about ideology. It is about REALITY!!!
The yottajoule (YJ) is equal to 10 to the 24 joules. This is approximately the amount of energy required to heat the entire volume of water on Earth by 1 °Celsius. Which is ironically the amount of heat we have placed in them since the industrial revolution. Ya'll with me yet?
Happy Turkey Day, RickyRood and Ricky readers.
Can we really put Humpty together? - click and drag pieces.
provided by flash-gear.comYou need a bump.
:)
Link
...
VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT OF KEVIN ANDERSON'S CABOT LECTURE:
Real clothes for the Emperor: Facing the challenges of climate change
Scientists and officials are not telling the public the awful truth: we are hurtling toward catastrophic climate change. A review, summary and critique of an earth-breaking speech by Prof. Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre in Britain. Speaking to the Cabot Institute in Bristol November 6th, Anderson told the sold-out crowd our future is not possible.
Transcript [PDF, 125.8 KB]
Powerpoint presentation [PDF, 1.6 MB]
”When I look at this [carbon emissions] data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet”
– Fatih Bihrol (2012) Chief economist at the International Energy Agency
Link
Both idiots think non-science is going on..
...
Got Science? Not at News Corporation
Representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages are overwhelmingly misleading
In 2007, News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch claimed coverage of climate change in his media outlets — which include Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal opinion pages — would improve over time.
Such improvement has not been achieved. A 2012 snapshot analysis shows that recent coverage of climate science in both outlets has been overwhelmingly misleading.
The analysis finds that the misleading citations include broad dismissals of human-caused climate change, rejections of climate science as a body of knowledge, and disparaging comments about individual scientists. Furthermore, much of this coverage denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.
Fox News Channel Coverage of Climate Science
Millions of Americans get information about climate science from the Fox News Channel. In 2011, it was the most popular cable news channel in the United States. During prime time, a median of more than 1.9 million people watched it.
• Ninety-three percent of Fox News Channel's representations of climate science were misleading from February 2012 to July 2012 (37 out of 40 references).
• The most common form of criticism regarding climate science was to broadly dismiss the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring or human-induced.
• Misleading representations also included 10 instances in which a panel member expressed acceptance of climate science findings, but was drowned out by hosts or other panel members responding with multiple misleading claims.
Wall Street Journal Opinion Page Coverage of Climate Science
The Wall Street Journal has a broad readership and enjoys the largest circulation among American newspapers — more than 2 million daily readers. Within the Journal, the opinion section operates separately from the news section.
• Eighty-one percent of letters, op-eds, columns, and editorials in the Wall Street Journal's opinion page were misleading on climate science from August 2011 to July 2012 (39 of 48 references).
• Most of the misleading editorials, op-eds, columns, and letters attempted to broadly undermine the major conclusions of climate science. Instances of attacks on individual scientists, mocking the science, and cherry picking data were all equally common.
• Denigration of climate science was routine. Instances included accusations that scientists were fudging data and claims that they are motivated by financial self-interest.
Examples of Misleading References to Climate Science
“The green energy stuff—I mean, that’s—that’s all a hoax and a fraud based on another hoax and fraud, global warming.” (Fox News Channel, 3/23/12)
“We are in the middle of what you might call a global warming bubble. It is a failure of the global warming theory itself and of the credibility of its advocates…” (Wall Street Journal column, 3/9/2012)
“The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade…” (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 5/27/12)
“I thought we were getting warmer. But in the ‘70s, it was, look out, we’re all going to freeze.” (Fox News Channel, 4/11/12)
Coverage of Climate Action Also Overwhelmingly Negative
• Although the analysis focused primarily on representations of climate science, it also found that both outlets placed heavy emphasis on negative coverage of climate action aimed at reducing global warming emissions, including personal lifestyle decisions as well as government policies.
Source: The Union of Concerned Scientists
Where do those FOX blathering boneheads get all that misinformation and report on it? No wonder why Romney lost the election... If Romney picked Marko Rubio he would have won the Latino vote across the country and dummy FOX NEWS didn't supported that. Romney's stupidity on climate change and his thinking clean coal is clean energy also cost him many votes. Let me tell you FOX NEWS you cost him his election due to your own stupidity. America is smarter than you FOX NEWS.It is time for you to wake up and learn some science instead of listening to NON-SCIENCE and then report on it........BTW I still voted for Romney but for different reasons...It was a very hard decision for me.......In retrospect my vote was a mistake..
The idiots referred to climate change as non-science..... "How To Stand Up To Al Gore" title.... "Their Baseless Global Warming Adgenda" "Fair And Balanced" for skeptics I suppose but not for America....No wonder why Romney lost....What fools FOX NEWS is........Obama is sitting in his white house chair smoking a cigarette,having a beer and laughing at their stupidity....
Link
..
Given that FOX News viewers score lower on questions about current events than people that view no news at all ( Link ), it seems reasonable to infer that Fox News is presenting a distorted vision of reality. And if you really want reasons as to why Fox would lie to it's viewers I would say:
1) Rupert Murdoch. When he's not preoccupied with organizing the hacking of the voice mail of kidnap victims, he keeps very busy directing the US outlets of his media empire - read the Wall Street Journal and Fox News - to present his version of hyper-right-wing reality to the American people. He's certainly not the first to use his considerable financial resources to try to influence American public opinion in a way that fits his ideology and he certainly won't be the last.
2) Not unrelated to #1 but by simply telling the ideologically-driven, extreme right wing faction of American politics - read Tea Party - exactly what they want to hear ensures Fox News of a pretty substantial audience, at least by cable news standards. There's a sucker born every minute - why not take advantage?
391.03ppm
Atmospheric CO2 for October 2012
TANYA MUZUMDAR | WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2011
Dr. Jeff Masters, co-founder and director of meteorology at Weather Underground, has built a site that wraps his mind around the tragicomedy of whatever the atmosphere throws at us. Masters co-founded the Internet's first weather site back in 1995, and today Wunderground.com is visited by 17 million people worldwide (13 million in the U.S.) each month, ranking second only to Weather.com in U.S. web traffic. It's the 77th-most visited site in the U.S., according to Quantcast, and depending on turns of the weather, has been ranked as high as 52nd, Masters says.
Needless to say, after posting his conclusions, bundles of hate mail get dropped into his lap. But the evidence, Masters believes, is unmistakable.
"The planet is warming. Pretty much nobody disputes that. Even the skeptics," he argues. "And it is warming in ways that can only be the case if human caused emissions of heat-trapping gases are responsible. Warming is greater at the poles than on the rest of the planet. There's cooling in the stratosphere going on which you wouldn't expect to see if it were some other cause. The spring is coming earlier each year, species are moving northwards in response to the warming, and the nighttime and wintertime warming is more than the daytime and summertime warming. All these factors are consistent with what you'd expect to see from a warming planet that's due to human effect."
I think the folks finally know that sounding an alarm that cannot be backed up doesn't work. Dr. Masters and Rood know that for certain.
Until the message that is attempted to be conveyed can be truly validated in a manner that means something to the populous, you waste our time.
The fact that the globe has not warmed in over 16 years, and yet CO2 has risen, fails the moment for the activists. Plane and simple.
If you want to get peoples attention, no matter how many millions you think are paying attention, you must do the math to make your point.
Here is a sample of what was recently done to help with the true understanding that is necessary to help people make decisions on such.
Yep, it was fair and balanced. Unlike what we get here.
Enough said, enjoy your weekend and pay attention to the numbers folks.
Some things never change. Such as your countless links to junk science.
Who is Ross McKitrick? Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist. There you have it folks. Would Anthony Watts invite a true climatologist to his show to discuss the AGWT? Me thinks not. That would not work out well for his general theme of psuedo-science based "knowledge".
"Plane and simple." - Yeah, you are right. Your habitual posts of non science based and ideologically driven thinking simply will not fly. Is that not yet plain enough for you to see? ... Fly back and visit, when you can gather some actual science to share with us.
"The fact that the globe has not warmed in over 16 years, and yet CO2 has risen, fails the moment for the activists." - Let me see if I can offer you an analogy that you might more easily understand? When an alcoholic has not had a drink in 16 years, the person is still an alcoholic. The problem still persists even though it is being masked by the lack of alcohol being consumed.
Added -
I thought you would have been back by now, Ossqss. I am sure that you would want to show how an economist relates the costs of action by us now to mitigate AGW. Any economist that would be worth listening to would also show the associated future costs of inaction by is now. But, as we both know, Anthony Watts would not have had him as a featured guest if he had brought this up. So, is Ross McKitrick an economist that should be listened to, or is he just someone else with an agenda to hide the real truth?
Unlike your baseless nonsense, I am using facts and the facts is that UCS’s analysis finds that:
Ninety-three percent of Fox News Channel's representations of climate science were misleading from February 2012 to July 2012 (37 out of 40 references).
TYPES OF ARGUMENTS USED TO MISLEAD ON CLIMATE SCIENCE
Fox News Channel hosts and guests often made multiple arguments against climate science in the same segment. The most common form of criticism regarding climate science on Fox News Channel was to broadly dismiss the scientific conclusion that climate change is occurring or human-induced. Instances of disparaging scientists were not found in this six-month snapshot, although such instances have occurred on Fox News Channel in the past (Fox News 2012). Disparaging and mocking climate science was relatively common in this sample, including suggestions that climate change is a hoax. But fewer instances of cherry-picking were found. In addition, 10 citations were included in which a panel member expressed acceptance of climate science findings but was drowned out by hosts or other panel members who responded with multiple misleading claims.
Frequency of types of misleading representations made about climate science among 37 misleading citations on Fox News Channel February to July 2012
Source: Is News Corp. Failing Science?
Better if the scissors were bucks.....
Tomball:
The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists is located here:
Is News Corp. Failing Science?
And the article that summarizes it is available at LiveScience here:
Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds
You should do some research on your own before you call someone "inept".
1. Fox has not gained the knowledge concerning climate change. The knowledge is easily enough obtained.
or
2. Fox is knowledgeable about the science and has made a conscious effort to lie about.
Once you have checked what Fox reports as to their claims on climate change and what the actual science shows us, then you will be able to decide, for yourself, if Fox is lying or is just uneducated on the subject at hand. This way you will need not feel compelled to accept anyone's determination on this. You will be able to determine this for yourself.
Viewing: 1 - 51
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index