The Role of Short Timers

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 2:03 AM GMT on January 18, 2013

Share this Blog
24
+

The Role of Short Timers

The previous entry described how I start to think about time and addressing the challenges of climate change. My focus was on generational time; that is, the amount of time it takes for one generation to replace the last generation. My message from that was not, “just wait,” but it is important to recognize that the fundamental changes in our behavior and energy systems will require some time.

This entry I will describe the issues that make climate change a problem in the here and now. In the following figure I highlight several items that are important in the short term. For the purpose of this article the short term is less than 10 years.



Figure 1: Thinking about time and climate change: What is important in the short-term?

1) Accumulation of Carbon Dioxide: From a climate scientist’s perspective the traditional short time issue is the “stabilization” of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That is, after we get all of this figured out, what is the amount of carbon dioxide that we have in the atmosphere? I refer back to several blogs I have written on stabilization. The basic idea is that the carbon dioxide we release from fossil fuels stays with us for a very long time; it does not really go away. A number that I quote in one of those blogs is that every year we emit like we are emitting now, we will be encumbered with about nine additional parts per million of carbon dioxide. To put this in perspective, prior to the industrial revolution we had about 280 parts per million and now we have about 400 parts per million. Therefore, actions we take now have consequences on lengths of times that we more commonly associate with geology.

2) Impacts of Extreme Events: We live in a climate that is warming rapidly. The weather is changing in some basic measures, such as, extreme precipitation, the speed at which storms move, the size of storms, the paths they follow, etc. At the same time that the weather changes, sea level is rising; snow and ice are melting. Therefore, we see larger impacts of storms like Superstorm Sandy. (see Cynthia Rosenzweig Interview) In Alaska, we see enormous erosion as shores that were protected by sea ice are left unprotected as the ice melts. We need to anticipate these changes in the impacts of extreme events that come from the fact that the weather is working in a world where many things are changing. This makes sense for preparedness, and it provides us case studies to help us think about the future.

3. Fast Ecosystem Changes: I sat in a meeting this week where people were thinking about how a warming climate and changing weather patterns would impact forests. Extreme events have huge impacts on forests through drought, flooding, fire, and salt-water storm surges. We used to imagine these forests “coming back” in the same climate. But now we have to think about the forests coming back with warmer temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and with new characteristics of extreme weather, for example, an extremely warm spring. Aside from changes to these basic environmental parameters, there are new opportunities for invasive species and disease. The forests might not even come back as forests. For example, with forests currently at the boundary of the prairie, like in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the forest is likely to return as savanna. (see the amazing work of Lee Frelich, for example Climate Change, Invasive, Species and Forests). I don’t say this in the spirit that we will avoid this if we do something now, but that we need to plan now – to borrow a phrase, to plan for the best savanna possible, rather than a scrub land of invasive species.

4. Election Time Scales: In the United States at the federal level, this is two, four, and six years – thereby, effectively two years. Through policy shifts we see expression of issues of energy security and economy. We see amplification of the political interests that are backed by dollars. We see the impact of tax arguments and tax policy – the impact of research and development budgets to promote and to inhibit technology development. At the city and state level, we see, often, the more stable policy development that reflect local and regional values. The decisions we make on these two-year cycles have enormous consequences for how we deal with global, long-term problems. (See arcane note at the end.)

The decisions that we make each and every day influence our long-term response to climate change. The impact varies from how warm it will ultimately be, to how we anticipate and respond to the disruptions of weather and climate, to how we invest in the technologies and opportunities that would allow us to address, more quickly, climate change. My goal is recognize the role of all of these different factors that work at different spans of time, and how do we change the world so that things converge in an accelerated way to address climate change and sustainability.


r

Rood Interview: Saga of Climate Change


Arcane Note: I grew up in the South in a family that was more politically interested than most. I saw the emergence and growth of, for example, Regent University. I remember at the time hearing of Pat Robertson’s vision of training what now has become their motto of “Christian Leadership to Change the World.” I listened to the idea of training journalists, lawyers, educated citizens who would get elected to town councils, school boards, mayors, state legislatures, governors, and ultimately, populating the federal government in both elected and appointed positions. I remember as a much younger man thinking, “That’s a really good strategy.” My personal opinion is that this has one of the most consequential movements in U.S. politics in my life. To add a little substance to my experience here are some articles you might find interesting:

Student Body Right, 2005, C. Hayes
Who’s the Boss, 2007, D. Lithwick
Pat, Bob and Regent University, 2009

My point: With a little organization, consideration of the short-term, and a generation of time, we can make changes that are more consequential than just letting things happen.


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: 77 - 27

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Not to be a shill for Coursera, but since UMichigan is a participant I guess this post is OK.

Anywany, there is a free online course, Climate Literacy: Navigating Climate Conversations, being offered this May.

Here is the abstract:

"Climate Literacy tackles the scientific and socio-political dimensions of climate change. This course introduces the basics of the climate system, models and predictions, human and natural impacts, mitigative and adaptive responses, and the evolution of climate policy."

Sounds like it might be interesting (I am too busy unfortunately to cram anything else in.) I have found that Coursera classes are pretty good and range from very hard to very accessible.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TWEMoran:
Simple math taking annual ice loss and latent heat of fusion into account seems to preclude other outcomes. I'd really like to be shown another possible scenario - this one is far too bleak.

Terry
Indeed.
Pessimist ('pess-uh-mist) - noun 1. A person simultaneously and equally knowledgeable about climate science, simple physics, basic mathematics, and human nature.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Neo and Rookie,
My apologies for addressing you both at once.

I first stepped foot into Dr. Rood's blog a year ago and asked the question, "When are you gonna start talking about solutions?"

The globe is warming. Human activities contribute to that. And the pieces needed to put the solution to this puzzle together go far beyond that. Fossil fuels will not disappear from use any time soon because human survival now depends on them. We use rare earth metals and uranium. Humans need jobs and food and the earth needs to be protected. The big picture, the Earth and Sky, the economics, the global energy demand and use by a burgeoning population, that's what gets left out when AGWists point their fingers at this one or that one - "denialists," "big energy," whatever. Waste of energy. Have you ever listened to anyone who had their finger pointed in your face? I doubt it. The gesture makes most people mad. I know it makes me mad. Angry people don't hear a thing. They usually walk out the door or away from the table. Unless they lose control and punch your lights out.

I suppose you both think you are doing what is needed by pushing the climate science and AGW. That is not what this Earth and its peoples need. They need a new and non-polluting energy source. We have a couple and the technology's been there for decades. But couldn't there be something more? Of course there could.

Beyond monitoring data, soon global warming science will be history. We don't need any more studies to prove how much warming is human-caused vs. solar caused vs. natural. All that is needed now is data gathering. Monitoring. Improve these. Put research dollars to work backing geoscientists, physicists, biochemists, engineers, inventors - those who have the brains to come up with answers this world needs. Improve solar and wind technology for starters. Put money into new energy research not more and more and more studies to prove a point that's already known. Heck, Dr. Rood can always have a job teaching the history of global warming science. I know "climate change" is PC now, but I'm not real good with rules.

Of course I know what Koch Industries does but I would not describe it with hatred or vilify it in any way. And that's the problem I see. Hatred. Hatred of those who control the gathering and distribution of the world's energy. Why hate? Because you are dependent? I'm guessing it will be private industry, and yes, energy concerns, who come up with the answer that will help mankind because... there is an answer.

I'm going to change my question of a year ago and ask "When will the bickering stop and mankind allow itself to come together and create what is needed?"

Ps. I have no more to say about the paper except it's a good example of wasted human energy.
The issues you bring up have been addressed countless times, both here in this forum and elsewhere. I'll summarize my thoughts thusly: discussing the depth and the breadth of, and the reasons behind, and the consequences of, a problem is every bit as necessary as finding solutions to that problem. I've never been sure why some insist that there must be a strict dichotomy: either we talk about it, or we solve it, but we can't do both at once, as though the two halves must exist in isolation from one another. That's always seemed like saying, "I know you're a kleptomaniac, dear, but we're not going to talk about your stealing habits; I just want to discuss which style of padlocks to use."

The past several decades of experience have proven that the moment people such as Rookie and myself stop "pushing" climate science and discussing AGW, the Other Side uses that as an opportunity to move things even further their way. "Hey, they're not talking about the planet warming, so it must not be doing so. More oil and coal, PDQ!" Knowing that, I don't plan to stop until they do.

It may make some "mad" enough to "walk out the door or away from the table" when confronted by those who see things differently than they do, but, well, that's just too bad. Being responsible has always been one of the consequences of living in a connected society. No one is allowed to waltz in and say, "Well, now, see here! We provide something people want! And we provide jobs! How dare you anger us and sully our reputations by questioning the manner in which we do so!" It simply doesn't work that way. People are free to swing their arms all they want, but when their fist connects with my nose--that is, when their destructive and profiteering ways directly threaten me and my children and my grandchildren--it's on, and I care not one whit whether it causes anyone discomfort or makes them want to stomp away from the table like a child denied a candy bar at bedtime.

Climate science and the study of warming will never cease to exist. Either we'll succeed in destroying our civilization--in which case it's the only history that will really matter in the end--or we'll somehow avert a catastrophe, in which case it's the only history that will be studied for centuries to come as subsequent generations look back on how we almost did ourselves in.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Thanks for the kind words.

The demise of Arctic sea ice has held my attention for the past few years. I have no suggestions as to what could be done to alleviate the situation within a time frame that would be meaningful.

What I fear is that in less than a lustrum we will lose the perennial ice cap that has been in place through mankind's civilized history & that the results will shortly thereafter will make any organized response futile.

If the energy now being used annually to melt Arctic ice, were instead used to heating an ice free Arctic Ocean it would be enough to raise the uppermost meter of the ocean by .7C. This pulse of heat will be added to every year & additional heat from albedo changes and increases in GHGs will build on this.

I have no idea how NH weather patterns will react to this new source of sensible heat. I assume that additional moisture in the atmosphere will multiply CO2's effects & that the GIS will retreat far more rapidly than has been forecast.

Simple math taking annual ice loss and latent heat of fusion into account seems to preclude other outcomes. I'd really like to be shown another possible scenario - this one is far too bleak.

Terry
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks Bare, you put words on the screen where I could not find any to say. I applaud what you say.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:
Federal Advisory Committee Draft Climate Assessment Report Released for Public Review


Sorry if this is old but i have like 40 seconds left before disconnect.
Thanks. Looks interesting as does a lot of the info at the parent site including links to the two previous National Climate Assessment Reports - 2000 and 2009.

Says public comment on this draft report will be open till April 12. Okey dokey.

"Following extensive review by the National Academies of Sciences and by the public, this report will be revised by the NCADAC and, after additional review, will then be submitted to the Federal Government for consideration in the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) Report. For more information on the NCA process and background, previous assessments and other NCA information, please explore the NCA web-pages. The NCA is being conducted under the auspices of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and is being organized and administered by the Global Change Research Program."

Could there be hope at the end of the funnel?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Neo and Rookie,
My apologies for addressing you both at once.

I first stepped foot into Dr. Rood's blog a year ago and asked the question, "When are you gonna start talking about solutions?"

The globe is warming. Human activities contribute to that. And the pieces needed to put the solution to this puzzle together go far beyond that. Fossil fuels will not disappear from use any time soon because human survival now depends on them. We use rare earth metals and uranium. Humans need jobs and food and the earth needs to be protected. The big picture, the Earth and Sky, the economics, the global energy demand and use by a burgeoning population, that's what gets left out when AGWists point their fingers at this one or that one - "denialists," "big energy," whatever. Waste of energy. Have you ever listened to anyone who had their finger pointed in your face? I doubt it. The gesture makes most people mad. I know it makes me mad. Angry people don't hear a thing. They usually walk out the door or away from the table. Unless they lose control and punch your lights out.

I suppose you both think you are doing what is needed by pushing the climate science and AGW. That is not what this Earth and its peoples need. They need a new and non-polluting energy source. We have a couple and the technology's been there for decades. But couldn't there be something more? Of course there could.

Beyond monitoring data, soon global warming science will be history. We don't need any more studies to prove how much warming is human-caused vs. solar caused vs. natural. All that is needed now is data gathering. Monitoring. Improve these. Put research dollars to work backing geoscientists, physicists, biochemists, engineers, inventors - those who have the brains to come up with answers this world needs. Improve solar and wind technology for starters. Put money into new energy research not more and more and more studies to prove a point that's already known. Heck, Dr. Rood can always have a job teaching the history of global warming science. I know "climate change" is PC now, but I'm not real good with rules.

Of course I know what Koch Industries does but I would not describe it with hatred or vilify it in any way. And that's the problem I see. Hatred. Hatred of those who control the gathering and distribution of the world's energy. Why hate? Because you are dependent? I'm guessing it will be private industry, and yes, energy concerns, who come up with the answer that will help mankind because... there is an answer.

I'm going to change my question of a year ago and ask "When will the bickering stop and mankind allow itself to come together and create what is needed?"

Ps. I have no more to say about the paper except it's a good example of wasted human energy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
For me, this paper raises more questions than it answers about solar contributions to the global warming equation.

I read this article/study BTG, before the game. (Go Niners!) Anyone who takes time to read it or even reads the quotes (comment 58) Neo pulled from the abstract and conclusion, would notice the "if, could, might and however" in that paper.

Here's some discussion pulled from the paper related to solar forcing:

"When we included solar forcing we found that the solar variability record assumed by the IPCC did not contribute significantly to the fit of historic temperature. This could imply that any effect associated with solar variability is too small to be detected by our simple approach. It might also imply that the shape of solar forcing assumed by the IPCC during the last 250 years is too inaccurate for an effective comparison. However, if the shape of the solar forcing history is accurate, then the impact of solar variability on climate would have to be on the low side of present estimates."

Wonder what Dr. Rood might have to say about the relevance of what is presented.


Here is what I see on this, Barefoot. Should the solar contributions be significantly higher than the IPCC assumed it to be then what impact would this have on the poles during the winter seasons and with night time temperatures? Unless there is something in the atmosphere to capture some of the solar energy before it is returned to space then the winter time polar cooling and night time cooling should be on par with historical temperature data. Neapolitan keeps up with these records far better than I do. Perhaps he has the data to show us temperature trends on these two aspects?

Our moon lacks any atmosphere to trap the daytime heating of the sun. As a result of this our moon almost instantly begins to lose the daytime heating back into space. Our moon can range from 170C during the day to -153C during the night. As the sun drops below the moon's horizon the temperature will drop by 250C in a matter of a few moments. Source

Another aspect that I keep in mind is that if solar forcing has increased then the CO2 would only serve to trap more of this heat. The net effect is that we would see even more warming than we would have observed had we not contributed to the increased levels of CO2. There is no way to slice the pie that would remove CO2 as greenhouse gas. There is no way to slice the pie that omits our contributions towards increasing the CO2 levels. There is no way that you could slice the pie that omits our destruction of the natural carbon sinks. No matter how you slice the pie, the Laws of Physics can not be removed that shows we are the significant contributor to our warming climate without rewriting the Laws Of Physics.

Nymore, you are quite welcome to take this opportunity to show the science that would bring into question any of this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
For me, this paper raises more questions than it answers about solar contributions to the global warming equation.

I read this article/study BTG, before the game. (Go Niners!) Anyone who takes time to read it or even reads the quotes (comment 58) Neo pulled from the abstract and conclusion, would notice the "if, could, might and however" in that paper.

Here's some discussion pulled from the paper related to solar forcing:

"When we included solar forcing we found that the solar variability record assumed by the IPCC did not contribute significantly to the fit of historic temperature. This could imply that any effect associated with solar variability is too small to be detected by our simple approach. It might also imply that the shape of solar forcing assumed by the IPCC during the last 250 years is too inaccurate for an effective comparison. However, if the shape of the solar forcing history is accurate, then the impact of solar variability on climate would have to be on the low side of present estimates."

Wonder what Dr. Rood might have to say about the relevance of what is presented.
First, thank you for commenting on the content of the article itself, something someone else has failed to do at least half a dozen times today.

Second, it may pay to remember that the BEST project was funded in very large part by one of the nation's largest polluters and lovers of fossil fuel, Koch Industries, a corporation deeply involved over the years with all manner of denialist initiatives. And Dr. Mueller--head of the project--was himself a denialist until this project showed him just how wrong he'd been. So it's no surprise that any statement or article emanating from the group will be couched in lots of quantifying and qualifying terms. (FWIW, political input is also the major reason the IPCC reports are so watered down.) Dr. Rood is aware of that, so he might very well comment on that fact.

I interpret the passages you cited, as well as the ones I did, to say, "If the many hundreds of climate scientists who produced the IPCC reports are correct--and we've no reason whatsoever to believe they are otherwise--our results corroborate almost every other major study in concluding that solar forcing indeed plays a very small role in the observed warming. We must admit that it's possible that both we and they may all be wrong, but nothing says they are."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting Neapolitan:
By your absolute refusal to say one thing--anything--about the science in the article so you can instead fixate on the journal/publisher, we're left to assume that's all you've got.

No surprise, that.

Anyway, if you truly don't have "...great confidence it could stand on it own two feet", why not draw up a paper of your own refuting the BEST results? But some advice if you do: your article's conclusion will need to say more than "BEST is wrong because Anthony Watts says so".
No A first rate Journal with expert reviewers says it is. You can accept that or not. You will not accept it because you want to believe it whether it is true or not because you like what it says. How scientific is that?
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
For me, this paper raises more questions than it answers about solar contributions to the global warming equation.

I read this article/study BTG, before the game. (Go Niners!) Anyone who takes time to read it or even reads the quotes (comment 58) Neo pulled from the abstract and conclusion, would notice the "if, could, might and however" in that paper.

Here's some discussion pulled from the paper related to solar forcing:

"When we included solar forcing we found that the solar variability record assumed by the IPCC did not contribute significantly to the fit of historic temperature. This could imply that any effect associated with solar variability is too small to be detected by our simple approach. It might also imply that the shape of solar forcing assumed by the IPCC during the last 250 years is too inaccurate for an effective comparison. However, if the shape of the solar forcing history is accurate, then the impact of solar variability on climate would have to be on the low side of present estimates."

Wonder what Dr. Rood might have to say about the relevance of what is presented.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:


Well respected huh. Scitechnol was started in 2008 and is published by OMNICS. Which is a org that gets paid by the authors after it is accepted for publication. Which has led many to call it a commercial rather than an academic publisher. Lets see what else they publish under the Scitechnol org. Journals such as Tourism Research and Hospitality, Fashion Tech. and Textile Engineering, Business and Hotel Management among others. These are some hard hitting cutting edge scientific journals.

What would be so time sensitive about Best? I am sure they could have gotten a review in another trusted journal if it was that important. I don't think JGR would turn them down for lack of space, after all it is not like Joe bag of donuts sent in a manuscript.

All in all this org has gone from one journal in 2008 to hundreds now. I wonder why? Oh that is right it is how they get paid.

If a article published by them was something you did not agree with you would be shouting at the top of your lungs about this org.

Fwiw the article may be true or not. But having been rejected by a well respected org and being published in a second or third rate journal does not give me great confidence it could stand on it own two feet.
By your absolute refusal to say one thing--anything--direct and substantive about the science in the article in lieu of instead fixating on the journal/publisher, we're left to assume that's all you've got.

No surprise, that.

Anyway, if you truly don't have "...great confidence it could stand on it own two feet", why not draw up a paper of your own refuting the BEST results? But some advice if you do: your article's conclusion will need to say more than "BEST is wrong because Anthony Watts says so".
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting Neapolitan:
Scitechnol--the publisher of GIGS--has been around for many years, and has published tens of thousands of articles over hundreds of issues of its hundreds of publications. That's respect.I was involved last year with a paper submitted to and rejected by Nature. Not because of any technical flaws, but simply because Nature is--as JGR is--a very popular journal, and thus receives far more articles than it can possibly publish in a given time. And since the article with which I was involved was time-sensitive--as are the BEST results--the decision was made to publish elsewhere.It's not, of course, a strawman argument when, during a discussion of a climate science study, to wonder whether a very vocal contrarian will finally abide by a public promise made regarding that very study. (A far better example of a strawman argument would be, say, diverting focus from an article in a journal to talk only about that journal's age. Now that's a diversion.)

Now: do you have anything to say about the actual study? If so, I'd be happy to read it. But if you're only interested in trying (and failing) to score points? Well, I've got better things to do.


Well respected huh. Scitechnol was started in 2008 and is published by OMNICS. Which is a org that gets paid by the authors after it is accepted for publication. Which has led many to call it a commercial rather than an academic publisher. Lets see what else they publish under the Scitechnol org. Journals such as Tourism Research and Hospitality, Fashion Tech. and Textile Engineering, Business and Hotel Management among others. These are some hard hitting cutting edge scientific journals.

What would be so time sensitive about Best? I am sure they could have gotten a review in another trusted journal if it was that important. I don't think JGR would turn them down for lack of space, after all it is not like Joe bag of donuts sent in a manuscript.

All in all this org has gone from one journal in 2008 to hundreds now. I wonder why? Oh that is right it is how they get paid.

If a article published by them was something you did not agree with you would be shouting at the top of your lungs about this org.

Fwiw the article may be true or not. But having been rejected by a well respected org and being published in a second or third rate journal does not give me great confidence it could stand on it own two feet.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Neapolitan,
The Stoat pointed out that The Watties are criticising the paper for being published in the first issue of a new journal of no known provenance, %u201CGeoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview%u201D. I wonder where nymore got his information. Not that anything he posts is woth anything.

Stoat is very unimpressed with the paper, in his opinion, it is not new science, it only reinforces what we already knew.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Your respected journal as you say in line number one is what a week old with one article published. How much respect could they have garnered in this time period. It was rejected by a journal with a history over 115 years long.
Scitechnol--the publisher of GIGS--has been around for many years, and has published tens of thousands of articles over hundreds of issues of its hundreds of publications. That's respect.
Quoting nymore:
I have another question why not fix it and send it back to JGR after all they are the ones who rejected it.
I was involved last year with a paper submitted to and rejected by Nature. Not because of any technical flaws, but simply because Nature is--as JGR is--a very popular journal, and thus receives far more articles than it can possibly publish in a given time. And since the article with which I was involved was time-sensitive--as are the BEST results--the decision was made to publish elsewhere.
Quoting nymore:
Then you try to bring in a strawman argument about Watts who has nothing to do with JGR or this new journal.
It's not, of course, a strawman argument when, during a discussion of a climate science study, to wonder whether a very vocal contrarian will finally abide by a public promise made regarding that very study. (A far better example of a strawman argument would be, say, diverting focus from an article in a journal to talk only about that journal's age. Now that's a diversion.)

Now: do you have anything to say about the actual study? If so, I'd be happy to read it. But if you're only interested in trying (and failing) to score points? Well, I've got better things to do.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting Neapolitan:
Attempts to besmirch a respected journal are, as usual, just another silly attempt to avoid speaking on and addressing the actual subject of the article. That's a typical denialist tactic, of course, so it's to be expected. But, still, it would be so refreshing to see a discussion of the science rather than the tired and typical, "Look, a squirrel!" nonsense to which we've all become accustomed.

Yes, JGR rejected the paper on its first go around last year. Anyone familiar with the peer-review process-that is, who knows more about it than they can pick up from a WUWT smear job--knows that initial rejections and requests for resubmission are a necessary and vital part of the peer-review process. That is, after all, why papers are peer-reviewed in the first place; it's not about rubber-stamping whatever comes over the transom.

A greater question: will denialist do-boy Anthony Watts now make good on this March 2011 promise: "...I’m prepared to accept whatever result [the BEST team produces], even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results"? Or will he keep catering to his dwindling following of sycophants by continuing to dismiss the growing mountain of scientifically-valid studies that run counter to his ideology?

FWIW, my money is on the latter...



Your respected journal as you say in line number one is what a week old with one article published. How much respect could they have garnered in this time period. It was rejected by a journal with a history over 115 years long. I have another question why not fix it and send it back to JGR after all they are the ones who rejected it. Then you try to bring in a strawman argument about Watts who has nothing to do with JGR or this new journal. It is fun to watch you squirm though.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting nymore:


It appears your article was already REJECTED by The Journal of Geophysical Research last year, it was submitted to them but never published. It is now published in a journal that is brand new with only this article in it. The organization that owns this new journal has previously published an article linking Stonehenge to Global Warming. It seems to have a good peer review process. LOL
Attempts to besmirch a respected journal are, as usual, just another silly attempt to avoid speaking on and addressing the actual subject of the article. That's a typical denialist tactic, of course, so it's to be expected. But, still, it would be so refreshing to see a discussion of the science rather than the tired and typical, "Look, a squirrel!" nonsense to which we've all become accustomed.

Yes, JGR rejected the paper on its first go around last year. Anyone familiar with the peer-review process-that is, who knows more about it than they can pick up from a WUWT smear job--knows that initial rejections and requests for resubmission are a necessary and vital part of the peer-review process. That is, after all, why papers are peer-reviewed in the first place; it's not about rubber-stamping whatever comes over the transom.

A greater question: will denialist do-boy Anthony Watts now make good on this March 2011 promise: "...I’m prepared to accept whatever result [the BEST team produces], even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results"? Or will he keep catering to his dwindling following of sycophants by continuing to dismiss the growing mountain of scientifically-valid studies that run counter to his ideology?

FWIW, my money is on the latter...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting Neapolitan:
Coming as absolutely no surprise to the intellectually honest:(Source)

This is also from the paper's conclusion:

"Our analysis does not rule out long-term trends due to natural causes; however, since all of the long-term (century scale) trend in temperature can be explained by a simple response to greenhouse gas changes, there is no need to assume other sources of long-term variation are present." (See: Occam's Razor)

So, there you have it. Again. It's not the sun, and it's not poorly-sited stations. But if you think those facts will silence the illogical and repeatedly-debunked blather coming from Willie Soon and Anthony Watts, think again...


It appears your article was already REJECTED by The Journal of Geophysical Research last year, it was submitted to them but never published. It is now published in a journal that is brand new with only this article in it. The organization that owns this new journal has previously published an article linking Stonehenge to Global Warming. It seems to have a good peer review process. LOL

I think we can add Joe Romm to those sources who can not be trusted.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Severe droughts in Amazon linked to climate change

January 17, 2013

PASADENA, Calif. - An area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of California continues to suffer from the effects of a megadrought that began in 2005, finds a new NASA-led study. These results, together with observed recurrences of droughts every few years and associated damage to the forests in southern and western Amazonia in the past decade, suggest these rainforests may be showing the first signs of potential large-scale degradation due to climate change. [...]
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Coming as absolutely no surprise to the intellectually honest:
Koch-Funded Study Finds 2.5F Warming Of Land Since 1750 Is Manmade, 'Solar Forcing Does Not Appear To Contribute'

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) has finally published its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming. This Koch-funded reanalysis of millions of mean monthly temperature observations from around the world, 'New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011,' concludes:

"solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy.
(Source)

This is also from the paper's conclusion:

"Our analysis does not rule out long-term trends due to natural causes; however, since all of the long-term (century scale) trend in temperature can be explained by a simple response to greenhouse gas changes, there is no need to assume other sources of long-term variation are present." (See: Occam's Razor)

So, there you have it. Again. It's not the sun, and it's not poorly-sited stations. But if you think those facts will silence the illogical and repeatedly-debunked blather coming from Willie Soon and Anthony Watts, think again...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Black Carbon #2 contributor to man made global warming??? What about methane?


Link


BTW my tunnels prevent this also.....




..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Interactive map that will draw a temp graph for "your" location on the planet.

Link

YOUR WARMING WORLD

The heat is on for the planet as a whole, but what has been happening where you live? Click a place on the map to find out, or enter a location in the search box in the top right-hand corner.

The initial map shows average temperatures over the past 20 years; use the drop-down menu to see maps for earlier periods
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting no1der:
How much time do we have?



I agree completely. Whatever time we may have had for action, has long passed.%uFFFD
Even getting our CO2 emissions to a plateau, never mind a reduction, requires a complete realignment of our baseline energy production away from the burning of fossil carbon. Even with all available commitment and resources this is a process that will require decades that we don't have. Locked-in forcings will bring us to civilization-level threats (4-6C warming) before we can make meaningful progress toward reducing CO2 emissions.
Geo-engineering seems hopeless - any effort there is confounded by a similarity between the energy required to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, and the energy that was derived while putting the CO2 there in the first place.
Too much of the public presentation has been about atmospheric temperatures and the as-yet-minor sea level rise. This has allowed endless quibbling and digression and delay. Watching with horror the free-fall of the Arctic system and the changes in the oceanic ecosystems, perhaps it's now clear that much more emphasis should have been placed on the oceans, i.e. what happens to the other 80% of the GHG-retained energy.
It's been said that you are sure of having passed a tipping point only when you hear the giant crashing sound. The Arctic system has definitely tipped over, and as the ice retreats for good, %uFFFDwe now watch anxiously as methane bubbles rise from the shelves. Our survival as a species may be mapped on the pressure-temperature stability diagram of the CH4-H2O system.
In the US, we make a big deal of the 2012 drought and high temperatures in the midwest while ignoring their most significant and ominous effect - loss of about half the corn and wheat crops due to weather phenomena that will only grow more frequent%uFFFDgoing forward. Elsewhere in the world in recent years, for example Russia has had major wheat crop losses to drought, and Pakistan and SE Asia have lost a lot of their rice crops to flooding.%uFFFD
How long until a year in which there are major and simultaneous climate-driven crop losses in the majority of the worlds cereal-growing regions? That's the tipping point for our civilization, and it's hard to imagine how that will not come in our own lifetimes.


Geo-engineering seems hopeless - As I see it there is only one way to prevent it.....

Link














....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
How much time do we have?



Quoting TWEMoran:

I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Rood's comments about organizing given a generation of time simply because I don't believe we have a generation left before things are so messed up that organization will become an improbably.
[...]

Don't be overly concerned about your grandchildren - worry about how you and your children will survive.

Terry
I agree completely. Whatever time we may have had for action, has long passed. 
Even getting our CO2 emissions to a plateau, never mind a reduction, requires a complete realignment of our baseline energy production away from the burning of fossil carbon. Even with all available commitment and resources this is a process that will require decades that we don't have. Locked-in forcings will bring us to civilization-level threats (4-6C warming) before we can make meaningful progress toward reducing CO2 emissions.
Geo-engineering seems hopeless - any effort there is confounded by a similarity between the energy required to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, and the energy that was derived while putting the CO2 there in the first place.
Too much of the public presentation has been about atmospheric temperatures and the as-yet-minor sea level rise. This has allowed endless quibbling and digression and delay. Watching with horror the free-fall of the Arctic system and the changes in the oceanic ecosystems, perhaps it's now clear that much more emphasis should have been placed on the oceans, i.e. what happens to the other 80% of the GHG-retained energy.
It's been said that you are sure of having passed a tipping point only when you hear the giant crashing sound. The Arctic system has definitely tipped over, and as the ice retreats for good,  we now watch anxiously as methane bubbles rise from the shelves. Our survival as a species may be mapped on the pressure-temperature stability diagram of the CH4-H2O system.
In the US, we make a big deal of the 2012 drought and high temperatures in the midwest while ignoring their most significant and ominous effect - loss of about half the corn and wheat crops due to weather phenomena that will only grow more frequent going forward. Elsewhere in the world in recent years, for example Russia has had major wheat crop losses to drought, and Pakistan and SE Asia have lost a lot of their rice crops to flooding. 
How long until a year in which there are major and simultaneous climate-driven crop losses in the majority of the worlds cereal-growing regions? That's the tipping point for our civilization, and it's hard to imagine how that will not come in our own lifetimes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TWEMoran:
New to this forum & very impressed by Xulonn & a few others.

I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Rood's comments about organizing given a generation of time simply because I don't believe we have a generation left before things are so messed up that organization will become an improbably.

AGW isn't something for the next generation to deal with, we're dealing with it now. When Arctic ice is no longer capable of capturing energy the latent heat of fusion will be released into the Arctic ocean & this will change NH weather drastically.

With things at their present levels we'll be releasing enough energy each year to raise the entire top meter of the Arctic Ocean by ~.7C each year. The cumulative effects, added to the increases now being experienced as well as the additional energy that albedo changes and methane releases will bring add up to massive disruptions in far less than a generation.

Don't be overly concerned about your grandchildren - worry about how you and your children will survive.

Terry


My beliefs also.... Bravo....How do you think we can reverse the trend?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting TWEMoran:
New to this forum & very impressed by Xulonn & a few others.

I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Rood's comments about organizing given a generation of time simply because I don't believe we have a generation left before things are so messed up that organization will become an improbably.

AGW isn't something for the next generation to deal with, we're dealing with it now. When Arctic ice is no longer capable of capturing energy the latent heat of fusion will be released into the Arctic ocean & this will change NH weather drastically.

With things at their present levels we'll be releasing enough energy each year to raise the entire top meter of the Arctic Ocean by ~.7C each year. The cumulative effects, added to the increases now being experienced as well as the additional energy that albedo changes and methane releases will bring add up to massive disruptions in far less than a generation.

Don't be overly concerned about your grandchildren - worry about how you and your children will survive.

Terry
Hey, Terry. Good to see you here; I've enjoyed your comments over at Neven's blog.

FWIW, I agree with much of what you've written here, and I've said as much myself. Some have gotten angry with me for doing so, calling me defeatist, but I prefer to think of myself as more a realistic activist. That is, you'll never catch me throwing up my hands and saying, "Well, that's that; let's just quit." So long as there's a fight to be fought and even a slender chance of civilization surviving this self-induced mess, I'll be out there promoting energy alternatives, conservation, and common sense. But neither will you catch me engaging in pollyanaish whitewashing of the truth, I am absolutely not convinced that increased extraction and usage of natural gas is the cure to our ills; that politicians really do sense the urgency and are doing everything within their power (behind the scenes, natch) to help us avoid catastrophe; that some technological miracle is waiting in the wings to save us from ourselves by slashing through the climatic Gordian knot in one awesome THWACK!

No.

The sad bottom line is that more than 3.4 million tonnes of CO2 are being belched into the environment each and every hour of each and every day. 3.4 million tonnes. And that amount is increasing. Big though our atmosphere may be, it's difficult at this remove to imagine solar and wind and tidal and hydro and the rest ramping up quickly enough to offset the nearly 1,000 tonnes a second of atmospheric carbon we're producing.

But the fight continues. And, as you've said, not just for my children and possible future grandchildren, but for myself...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Federal Advisory Committee Draft Climate Assessment Report Released for Public Review


Sorry if this is old but i have like 40 seconds left before disconnect.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New to this forum & very impressed by Xulonn & a few others.

I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Rood's comments about organizing given a generation of time simply because I don't believe we have a generation left before things are so messed up that organization will become an improbably.

AGW isn't something for the next generation to deal with, we're dealing with it now. When Arctic ice is no longer capable of capturing energy the latent heat of fusion will be released into the Arctic ocean & this will change NH weather drastically.

With things at their present levels we'll be releasing enough energy each year to raise the entire top meter of the Arctic Ocean by ~.7C each year. The cumulative effects, added to the increases now being experienced as well as the additional energy that albedo changes and methane releases will bring add up to massive disruptions in far less than a generation.

Don't be overly concerned about your grandchildren - worry about how you and your children will survive.

Terry
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomballTXPride:




With that dangerous line of thinking, ANY weather event can be construed as evidence of AGW/CC. These can include heat, cold, even abnormal looking cumulus clouds on a fair summer afternoon.

Many will question that mindset because the alarmist could never be wrong and always have the upper hand in squashing all questions regarding AGW.

Very dangerous path for alarmists to go down. That is a slippery slope if I've even seen one.






And that's a surprisingly nonsensical post. Or maybe you were trying to be silly?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomballTXPride:





Likely not contributed to CO2 really at all. I began to think there could be a slight correlation within the last decade but now almost certainly convinced that these two factors are not in step with one another.





You're free to believe anything you like...especially if you ignore the evidence.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There might be hope after all.

Link

How 19-year-old activist Zack Kopplin is making life hell for Louisiana’s creationists
George Dvorsky

For Zack Kopplin, it all started back in 2008 with the passing of the Louisiana Science Education Act. The bill made it considerably easier for teachers to introduce creationist textbooks into the classroom. Outraged, he wrote a research paper about it for a high school English class. Nearly five years later, the 19-year-old Kopplin has become one of the fiercest — and most feared — advocates for education reform in Louisiana. We recently spoke to him to learn more about how he's making a difference.


Facing opposition

His efforts, needless to say, have not gone unnoticed — particularly by his opponents. He's been called the Anti-Christ, a stooge of "godless liberal college professors," and was even accused of causing Hurricane Katrina. Kopplin cooly brushes these incidents aside, saying they're just silly distractions.

.
.
.


It's simply not science

And indeed, Kopplin is a passionate defender of scientific inquiry, and vociferously rejects the notion that creationism and evolution should be taught side-by-side.

.
.
.


Changes needed

Kopplin is also concerned about the future, and how unprepared the United States has become.

"We don't just deny evolution," he says, "We are denying climate change and vaccines and other mainstream science. I'm calling for a Second Giant Leap to change the perception of science in the world."


he says. "But as as of right now, America has a science problem."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomballTXPride:

With that dangerous line of thinking, ANY weather event can be construed as evidence of AGW/CC. These can include heat, cold, even abnormal looking cumulus clouds on a fair summer afternoon.
Many will question that mindset because the alarmist could never be wrong and always have the upper hand in squashing all questions regarding AGW.
Very dangerous path for alarmists to go down. That is a slippery slope if I've even seen one.
Wow!! A huge, giant straw man. Pardon the revelation of harsh reality, Ainslie, but such ignorant and irrelevant rants with absolutely no coherence or connection to the reality of hard, peer-reviewed science reek of desperation. Aren't you a bit embarrassed to make yourself look so silly by talking about things like "abnormal looking cumulus clouds." in response to a report on the science that links cold abnormal cold weather events to AGW/CC?

If you confuse cannot distinguish between science and "lines of thinking" you are wasting your time at a science blog/forum. Unless you are simply trying to sow FUD - and failing miserably.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1416
Quoting georgevandenberghe:
Quoting eugene1245:
At a recent European conference, the accusation was made, and I agree, that climatologists aren't telling the whole truth and we will be facing chaos by 2050. A major investment firm is predicting, to their clients, chaos by 2035. If the Arctic folks are right, it will be way sooner. But my neighbor gives the typical attitude, I'll be dead by then, my kids can deal with it. Have fun!!



*************************************

I've sometimes wondered about this too perhaps becoming deranged in opposite sign from the derangement of the deniers. I'd like to see comment on two questions.

1. Is the warming indeed happening much faster than predicted and will the magnitude be MUCH larger >6C within 50 years?
2. Will all of the methods we advocate to mitigate it, be ineffective (although still a good idea) because so much warming is already baked in and tipping points have been reached..



You might find this article a bit interesting.
http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-br utal-logic-of-climate-change/
Link

That makes the notion of “adapting” to 4 degrees C a bit of a farce. Infrastructure decisions involve big money and long time horizons. By the time we’ve built (or rebuilt) infrastructure suited to 4 degrees C, it will be 5 degrees C [9 degrees F]. And so on. A climate in which conditions are changing that fast just isn’t suitable for stable human civilization (or for the continued existence of a majority of the planet’s species).

Oh, and by the way: According to the International Energy Agency, we’re currently on course for 6 degrees C [10.8 degrees F]. That is, beyond any reasonable doubt, game over.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I added the bold. Annex1 nations are the US and any body with money.

Link
What would it mean for the U.S. and other developed countries to peak their emissions in 2015 and decline them by something on the order of 10 percent a year thereafter?

It’s safe to say that no carbon tax is going to do that. It’s tough to imagine any “market mechanism” that could ratchet things so quickly, at least on its own. We won’t get there through innovation or new technology, even if we spend a trillion a year for the next few years. We won’t get there by tweaking our current system. The only conceivable way to produce that level of reductions is a full-scale, all-hands-on-deck mobilization, what William James called “the moral equivalent of war.”

The vast bulk of the reductions available in the near-term are on the demand side. Of course this means driving efficiency as fast as possible while taking measures (like raising prices and setting standards) to avoid the rebound effect. But it also means (gasp!) conservation. Actually, “conservation” is too polite a word for it. It means shared sacrifice. Climate campaigners have sworn until they’re blue in the face that reducing emissions is compatible with robust economic growth. And it’s true! But reducing emissions enough? Maybe not, at least not for the next little while.

This is the stark conclusion drawn by Anderson and Bows: “The logic of such studies suggests (extremely) dangerous climate change can only be avoided if economic growth is exchanged, at least temporarily, for a period of planned austerity within Annex 1 nations and a rapid transition away from fossil-fuelled development within non-Annex 1 nations.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Not quite, CycloneBuster. I stand by my statement. Any warming (nothing significant in the past century to warrant any concern) could not be attributed to C02 in any way.

Any questions??


FYI, It's "CO2", and not "C02". You are not the sage you think you are, Tomball...


Quoting iceagecoming:
Yep, short time ago, BBC called for barbeque summers and mild winters, looks like that call hit the dust bin.

[...]

17 January 2013 Last updated at 17:42

Britain's icy blast set to last
John Hammond By John Hammond BBC Weather

Winter's bitter grip is tightening. Earlier in the week, some eastern areas of the UK were buried under a heavy fall of snow, but many of us had escaped the worst...until now.

[...]


Oh bother. As soon as Dr. Rood posts a new blog entry, I see the denialists are ready to pounce all over it. NeapolitanFan, Iceagecoming, TomballTXPride (what, no Ossqss? And here I was hoping to be entertained by another Carl Sagan video taken out of context). Each of you are at the ready with your constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech, even though the theater isn't quite on fire?

You have each been presented on numerous occasions by both Dr. Rood as well as other commenters in this blog the scientific evidence behind human-induced climate change. The basic physics, chemistry, and mathematics have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that (1) that CO2 increases in the atmosphere have trapped excess solar radiation at the surface of our planet in the form of heat, (2) these CO2 increases are the primary result of human activities via the burning of fossil fuels, and (3) the increase in trapped solar radiation is causing our planet to warm at an accelerated rate leading to faster-than-normal climate changes across the globe. None of these facts are in doubt, and each are backed by substantial peer-reviewed data that has survived countless reviews and raking over the coals by politicians and pundits.

Put simply, there is no further excuse for continued global warming denialism by any rational individual once exposed to the truth found within this forum.

Therefore, the conclusion can be only one of two answers: (1) you are not rational individuals, or (2) you are rational but not interested in learning anything new and instead are here to inject falsehoods into the conversation for (a) personal amusement or (b) profit. Anything else would be a waste of energy regardless of selfish or altruistic tendencies.

While I do not expect you to honor the request, I'm imploring you to cease and desist. What you are doing is not funny, it's not informative, and it's not even effective. It falls on proverbial "deaf ears" to the regulars in this blog, and only serves to dissuade visitors from asking common, reasonable questions about climate science. Or perhaps, that's your purpose? To make this blog less visitor-friendly? Your words serve only to confuse the subject, muddle the conversation, and hinders the flow of real information through perpetuation of disinformation (lies by any other name) handed down via talking points from FoxNews, WUWT, WeatherBell Analytics, The Heartland Institute, the Marshall Institute, and Lord know where else. Personally, I don't really care where it comes from, I only know that it's FALSE.

End of rant.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
LoL,

Utter gibberish .

Dats a re-tort?

When are you going,if ever, post a Science related link to your opines?

We have blog space.

Pretzel?


Crunch..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I grew up in the South in a family that was more politically interested than most. I saw the emergence and growth of, for example, Regent University. I remember at the time hearing of Pat Robertson's vision of training what now has become their motto of Christian Leadership to Change the World.


I have to seriously disagree when I heard and saw that Man make this comment,numerous times.

That thinking is scarier than the Co2 rise rate,

...almost.

Religious conservatives claim Katrina was God's omen, punishment for the United States
Research September 13, 2005


In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some religious conservatives have speculated that the storm was sent by God as an omen or as a punishment for America's alleged sins. Media Matters for America has documented such statements from three religious conservative media figures: Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, and Charles Colson.

Pat Robertson: Katrina linked to legalized abortion

On the September 12 broadcast of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, host Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former Republican presidential candidate, linked Hurricane Katrina and terrorist attacks to legalized abortion:

ROBERTSON: You know, it's just amazing, though, that people say the litmus test for [Supreme Court nominee John G.] Roberts [Jr.] is whether or not he supports the wholesale slaughter of unborn children. We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America. I was reading, yesterday, a book that was very interesting about what God has to say in the Old Testament about those who shed innocent blood. And he used the term that those who do this, "the land will vomit you out." That -- you look at your -- you look at the book of Leviticus and see what it says there. And this author of this said, "well 'vomit out' means you are not able to defend yourself." But have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster?

Could they be connected in some way? And he goes down the list of the things that God says will cause a nation to lose its possession, and to be vomited out. And the amazing thing is, a judge has now got to say, "I will support the wholesale slaughter of innocent children" in order to get confirmed to the bench. And I am sure Judge Roberts is not going to say any such thing. But nevertheless, that's the litmus test that's being put on, the very thing that could endanger our nation. And it's very interesting. Read the bible, read Leviticus, see what it says there.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
here is some interesting info

Summary

1) There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012.

2) There is a cyclical variation in the ACE of 6 and 12 months’ length

3) The contribution of ACE from the Eastern and Western Pacific is approximately 56% of the total ACE

4) The contribution of ACE from the Atlantic Ocean is approximately 13% of the total ACE

5) The minimum and maximum values of ACE per month are respectively 1.8 and 266.4

6) The average value of ACE per month is 61.2

7) The minimum and maximum values of ACE per year are respectively 416.2 and 1145.0

8) The average value of the ACE per year is 730.5

9) The total of ACE for 2012 through September is 540.8.

10) There is a correlation of ACE between some oceans



Even if we know that the sea surface temperatures have been increasing, this is not manifested in a corresponding increase in ACE. This is a paradox.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting goosegirl1:



Can you provide a link to the source of your information? That's a pretty bold statement to make all by yourself.


I think TomballTXPride source is from WUWT or Dr.Seuss farmers almanac.......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting iceagecoming:
Yep, short time ago, BBC called for barbeque summers and mild winters, looks like that call hit the dust bin.
Good call, IAC. Glad to see that you recognize the AGW/CC can cause cold events and more snow as well as warm events and other phenomena.

See this UK Independent link to today's article entitled "Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists" for an excellent education on the subject with respect to the U.K. A small snippet of the article is below:

Photobucket
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1416
Quoting georgevandenberghe:
Quoting eugene1245:
At a recent European conference, the accusation was made, and I agree, that climatologists aren't telling the whole truth and we will be facing chaos by 2050. A major investment firm is predicting, to their clients, chaos by 2035. If the Arctic folks are right, it will be way sooner. But my neighbor gives the typical attitude, I'll be dead by then, my kids can deal with it. Have fun!!



*************************************

I've sometimes wondered about this too perhaps becoming deranged in opposite sign from the derangement of the deniers. I'd like to see comment on two questions.

1. Is the warming indeed happening much faster than predicted and will the magnitude be MUCH larger >6C within 50 years?
2. Will all of the methods we advocate to mitigate it, be ineffective (although still a good idea) because so much warming is already baked in and tipping points have been reached..



I believe that you would find it difficult to discover a scientist to make a bold and public statement that they could not absolutely support with the science. The science absolutely supports that adding CO2 into the atmosphere will result in a warming of the climate beyond the natural variations of the climate or at least prevent further cooling than would otherwise be expected. There is not anything in the science that would show, with absolute certainty, that the climate would be 6 degrees Celsius warmer in the year 2100 than it was in the year 1880. The possibility and even a probability may exist for this to be the case, but it cannot be expressed as an absolute certainty, I would think.

"1. Is the warming indeed happening much faster than predicted and will the magnitude be MUCH larger >6C within 50 years?"

I am not a scientist, but by what I understand, the earlier climate models runs has the warming within the range of possibilities that has been observed. I believe that what was underestimated is how small a warming it would take before we started to observe such drastic changes in the weather patterns.

As for the second part of your question, "MUCH larger" is a relative term. Since you capitalized the word "much", then I would venture to guess that you would mean by more than a degree of Celsius warmer over the 6C. I would think that any climatologist that would make that claim would need to show the science that would support it. I have not heard, but I do not hear all, that any climatologist made a claim that we reach 6C warming within the next 50 years.

"2. Will all of the methods we advocate to mitigate it, be ineffective (although still a good idea) because so much warming is already baked in and tipping points have been reached."

I believe we have passed the point to where any attempts to mitigate the warming would keep us under 2C of warming. I still believe that mitigation attempts today would be to keep the warming from exceeding our capacity to adapt to the warming.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting TomballTXPride:
Not quite, CycloneBuster. I stand by my statement. Any warming (nothing significant in the past century to warrant any concern) could not be attributed to C02 in any way.
Any questions??
How does it feel standing next to something that is utterly and completely wrong according to hard science? Could you point me to some real, hard, peer-reviewed science that supports your utter falsehood? Because I searched and couldn't find anything except denialist b.s.!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1416
Quoting TomballTXPride:

Likely not contributed to CO2 really at all. I began to think there could be a slight correlation within the last decade but now almost certainly convinced that these two factors are not in step with one another.
The above quoted post contains utter and complete falsehoods that have been thoroughly debunked at science-based AGW/CC sites such as WU/CC, skepticalscience.com and realclimate.org. Please go to those sites for specifics and an education if you don't really understand AGW/CC and the true picture.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1416
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Almost nonexistent sea level rise is something with which warmists continue to threaten us. Temperatures have risen in the past and declined. They will continue to do so. Temperature rise cannot be correlated with CO2 increase whatsoever.

Link
The above quoted post contains utter and complete falsehoods that have been completely and thoroughly debunked at science-based AGW/CC sites such as WU/CC, skepticalscience.com and realclimate.org. Please go to those sites for specifics and an education if you don't really understand AGW/CC and the true picture.

My observation: Neapolitanfan is an avid AGW/CC denialist who frequents this WU/CC blog/forum. He/she repeats well-known myths and disproven or non-peer-reviewed science and never appears to have looked at the "big picture, e.g. other indicators of AGW/CC.

Photobucket

Photobucket

NeapolitanFan's link is to wattsupwiththat.com. Beware of any links to that site which is run by Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts,) a blogger, weathercaster, non-scientist, and paid AGW denier who runs it. He is a slick talker - and writer extremely skilled in the tools of propaganda. Watts has no college or university degree in meteorology or in anything else. His status as a "meteorologist" is nothing more than a self-proclamation based on his having been a TV weatherman at a small station. He has no credibility in climate science. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com. Mr. Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, a right-wing "think-tank" which itself is funded by polluting industries and is absolutely anti-science regarding anything that goes against their agenda and harms the profits of its funders.

For more information on this Anthony Watts and his fraudulent AGW/CC website fraud, go to skepticalscience.com and sourcewatch.org, and type anthony watts into the search box.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1416
Yep, short time ago, BBC called for barbeque summers and mild winters, looks like that call hit the dust bin.





17 January 2013 Last updated at 17:42


Britain's icy blast set to last
John Hammond By John Hammond BBC Weather

Winter's bitter grip is tightening. Earlier in the week, some eastern areas of the UK were buried under a heavy fall of snow, but many of us had escaped the worst...until now.




Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting georgevandenberghe:
1. Is the warming indeed happening much faster than predicted and will the magnitude be MUCH larger >6C within 50 years?
I believe that warming will accelerate once the Arctic Ocean is ice-free, however I am not qualified to comment as to how much warming will occur over the next few decades or centuries. We must assume that within the next century or two there will be more volcanic eruptions on the scale of Pinatubo or more which will pause warming for a very brief period of time, depending on the magnitude of the eruptions.
Quoting georgevandenberghe:
2. Will all of the methods we advocate to mitigate it, be ineffective (although still a good idea) because so much warming is already baked in and tipping points have been reached..

Since it will require cooperaton from multiple governments to achieve any meaningful mitigation, I'm afraid that actions will not be taken in time to avoid catastrophic changes for the worse. We must keep in mind that any plan of action, once agreed upon and funded, will take years to fully implement.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Not quite, CycloneBuster. I stand by my statement. Any warming (nothing significant in the past century to warrant any concern) could not be attributed to C02 in any way.

Any questions??





Can you provide a link to the source of your information? That's a pretty bold statement to make all by yourself.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1224
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Not quite, CycloneBuster. I stand by my statement. Any warming (nothing significant in the past century to warrant any concern) could not be attributed to C02 in any way.

Any questions??




So how is it that you know more than NOAA about this?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting eugene1245:
At a recent European conference, the accusation was made, and I agree, that climatologists aren't telling the whole truth and we will be facing chaos by 2050. A major investment firm is predicting, to their clients, chaos by 2035. If the Arctic folks are right, it will be way sooner. But my neighbor gives the typical attitude, I'll be dead by then, my kids can deal with it. Have fun!!



*************************************

I've sometimes wondered about this too perhaps becoming deranged in opposite sign from the derangement of the deniers. I'd like to see comment on two questions.

1. Is the warming indeed happening much faster than predicted and will the magnitude be MUCH larger >6C within 50 years?
2. Will all of the methods we advocate to mitigate it, be ineffective (although still a good idea) because so much warming is already baked in and tipping points have been reached..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
You seem extremely well-versed on this issue. You should definitely write your dissertation on it (sans unnecessary line feeds, of course).Oh, thank you for posting this! Because I know when I want honest interpretations of the dangers of fossil fuels, I listen most intently to the words of people who derive their primary income from the fossil fuel industry, especially non-climatologists. After all, for what earthly reason would they ever be less than truthful?


Neapolitan, how dare you doubt the verisimilitude of recent graduates of the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for the Advancement of Ignorance. Surely they are equally, if not more qualified than Dr. Rood or Dr. Masters to comment on the subject of Climate Change.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180

Viewing: 77 - 27

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.