More From the Heartland: Farmers (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:32 AM GMT on July 12, 2013

Share this Blog
20
+

More From the Heartland: Farmers (3)

In the entry before President Obama’s speech, I wrote about farmers and climate change. I referred to a survey of farmer’s opinions on climate change performed by Iowa State University professor, J. Gordon Arbuckle and colleagues. In a 2013 paper in Climatic Change, Arbuckle and colleagues reported that 68% of farmers he surveyed in Iowa believed that the climate was changing. 28% were uncertain and only 5% believed that the climate was not changing. With regard to attribution, 10% felt that climate change was caused by humans, 23% felt it was natural, and about 35% felt it was caused by both human and natural causes. (Summary Article and Press Coverage )

In this blog I want to explore the results of the poll of the farmer’s some more.

Arbuckle’s work is in the standard protocol of social science studies focused on the acceptance and use of science-based knowledge by society. It utilizes the basic framework of how the responses to climate change are organized, specifically, mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps, coupled with enhancement of processes that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, such as storage of carbon dioxide in forests and soils. Adaptation is modification of how we do and build things in response to climate change.

First a little about social science research – In the past 5 years I have worked with several social scientists. The practice of social science has strict protocols. Interview-based research, such as discussed here, poses questions to be explored and answered by input from a set of interviewees. As in natural science, it is required that the research questions can be tested and evaluated. Not only does this require careful design of the research questions, but it also requires design, review and testing of the questions to be asked in the interview. The design of a robust experiment to disentangle questions where there is a strong element of human preference and decision is exceedingly difficult. This includes picking the group of people who are asked to respond to the interview.

The design of Arbuckle’s research had two research questions: “(1) do Iowa farmers support actions aimed at climate change adaptation and mitigation; and, (2) are beliefs and concerns about climate change associated with support for or opposition to those activities."

The interview questions that were designed to unravel the issues of the two research questions focused first on precipitation. As I wrote in the earlier blog, there is already a perceived change in precipitation, especially in the springtime during planting. There is too much water. It is worth noting that this part of the country is a part of the country that has seen less warming than the regions surrounding it – the Midwest warming hole (excellent paper by Kunkel et al. and Rood blog with unfilled promises). Therefore climate change is felt more in this region by changes in precipitation than by warming.

The interview questions were anchored around protecting the land, draining the land, and whether or not there should be mitigation to counter the climate change that is causing the increased precipitation. There was strong support for protecting the land through conservation practices. The support for draining the land was less strong, with more people uncertain about this option. An interesting aside, much of the Midwest corn land has extensive drainage infrastructure, which made what was historically a too wet environment into viable and excellent corn and soybean land. There was far less support for mitigation. However, looking at the mitigation numbers it was about equally split between opposing mitigation, uncertain about mitigation and supporting mitigation. Those opposing was about 3 percentage points higher than those supporting. This suggests that many recognize the changing climate and believe that more resiliency should be built into their land and practices – that is, they are interested in adaptation. They are less convinced of mitigation, which makes sense from many perspectives – but I assert because it is far less easy to see the benefit of mitigation whether or not there is acceptance that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of the warming planet.

Arbuckle’s research then uses a set of questions to investigate farmer’s perception of vulnerability to farming due to climate change and extreme weather. As in the mitigation question those unsure, concerned and unconcerned were split, but in this case the largest group was always in the concerned group with numbers of about 40 percent to 20 percent. About a third of the farmers were uncertain in each category. The largest difference was in the group concerned about the impact of more extreme weather, with 45 percent expressing concern. The farmers were split on whether or not we would find technological or other methods to address climate change.

When all of these questions were put together and analyzed a set of conclusions, some surprising, emerge. Farmers interested in more protection of the land in anticipation of climate change had a high level of concern of increased risk and were older. Farmers interested in improved drainage had a high level of concern, large farms, higher education and felt that climate change was not a major issue because farmers would develop innovative solutions. Interestingly, support for taking adaptive measures did not correlate with whether or not the farmers perceived climate change was attributable to humans. Finally farmers interested in mitigation felt that the climate change was real and had an important contribution from humans, a high level of concern and did not feel that we would innovate our way to solutions.

One of the more robust conclusions from this research is that perceptions of vulnerability due to weather and increased vulnerability due to changes in precipitation and severe weather were a major motivation to take steps to prepare for climate change. This was true whether or not farmers “believed” in climate change. This recognition of vulnerability and increased risk is consistent with my (our) experience in the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Applications Center – people engage when they perceive vulnerability. Surprisingly, older farmers were more concerned than younger farmers about adaptation. With regard to mitigation, those who accepted a human contribution to the changing climate were more supportive of mitigation – makes sense. And worth a mention the combination of those who think that climate change has a human component or is primarily caused by humans is almost 45 percent, and that’s not as low as one might take away from the political and public record.

r

Some good references:

One Gardner’s Struggle

Gardeners Expect Warmer Nights

Climate and Farming

Farming Success in an Uncertain Future (Cornell)

USDA Warns Farmers about Climate Change (and announces plans to set up climate change centers)

Reinventing Farming for a Changing Climate (NPR)

Farm Level Adjustments to Climate Change (USDA)

Climate Change More Expensive to Farmers than Climate Bill

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: 393 - 343

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

We haven't hit the global warming pause button



Recent articles about a global warming 'pause' miss that the planet as a whole is still rapidly warming.

hen you hear the term "global warming," do you think of the warming of air temperatures at the Earth's surface, or the warming of the planet as a whole?

Only about 2 percent of the planet's overall warming heats the atmosphere, so if we focus only on surface air temperatures, we miss 98 percent of the overall warming of the globe. About 90 percent of the warming of the planet is absorbed in heating the oceans. However, until the past few years, our measurements of ocean temperatures (especially of the deep oceans) were somewhat lacking. Our measurements of surface air temperatures were much more accurate, and so when people spoke of "global warming," they tended to focus on air temperatures.

In the 1980s and 1990s when air temperatures were warming in step with the overall warming of the planet, that was fine. However, over the past decade, the warming of surface air temperatures has slowed. At the same time, the overall warming of the planet has continued, and if anything it has accelerated. This has been difficult to reconcile for those who previously focused on surface air temperatures – what do we say about "global warming" now?

The result is a spate of articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, The New Republic, and Der Spiegel, all of which get most of the facts right (including noting the warming of the oceans), but that all begin from the premise that "global warming" has slowed. It would be more accurate to say that global surface air warming has slowed, but the overall warming of the Earth's climate has sped up.

More at The Guardian

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Yoboi, I brought one of your posts over from Michelle's blog because this is a better place to discuss it. I understand the issues you are concerned about. But it doesn't help you in any way to say that everybody is lying and trying to scam you unless you understand the underlying facts. That's why you need that debate on AGW that we started to talk about. You need to know the facts about whether it's real or not.

If it's not real, and you can determine that, you will have evidence to use when somebody starts talking about climate change.

But if AGW is real, it will have real consequences, for you and your children and grandchildren, and you need to know about those consequences.

Here's another way to look at it. Even if AGW isn't real, I think you acknowledge that climate is changing and we're getting more weather weirdness than ever before. You said to Zampaz that what you would do in response to changing climate is adapt. When you are learning the facts about AGW, you will also learn about what is changing and what adaptation might be needed. This will be good information for you and your children and grandchildren.


Quoting 82. yoboi:


...the only issue i have is with the fossil fuel industry and the green industry.....my beef is not with people but the industry itself like how they both are pushing misinformation to the public.....and the end result it will be the middle class to the poor that will suffer the most.....I am in that class range as is most of America......I find it very concerning with my future and children and grand children future to how they will be able to afford the most basic supplies to sustain life......
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2451
Quoting 390. yoboi:



well if science does not predict.....why do you post future warming graphs with a margin of error????


Some groups, like the IPCC are focused on the possible issues we will face if the trend continues. They have used the scientific evidence to create possible future scenarios based on the data collected. So far, they have been correct, within the margin of error. However, I showed you where work and research has been done regarding the warming oceans. Why do you take such exception with the science, Yoboi? Why haven't you read the links provided? Why haven't you invested time in personal research to answer these questions you may have? This blog is not google. Instead of coming up with incorrect statements like: "Well your science and peer reviewed papers from the past did not predict the current "hidden" heat", do some research and see that science wasn't attempting to predict "hidden heat", instead science was apt and willing to explain what is occurring through research and experimentation.

You should also know, your statement is incorrect on its face as many climate models showed an increased rate of ocean heat uptake, Link, the information is there, Yoboi, if you refuse to acknowledge it, that is your own issue.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
390. yoboi
Quoting 389. Naga5000:


Science does not predict, Yoboi, it explains based on testing and observation. However, you might be interested to know that oceans absorbing heat has been discussed and studied previously.

"
Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Link, this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security." Link


Yoboi, you are mistaken and confusing the issue at hand. A serious look at what the science actually says and has said on these issues and not what your opinion is would save a lot of problems here. You think this is a big conspiracy, you misrepresent what research in this topic is for, and you refuse to acknowledge or read the scientific evidence, because you think it is a conspiracy. This is the problem Yoboi, you don't want your own belief that this is a lie shattered by facts, so you deflect by saying it's all a lie. It's circular logic and has no place in this discussion. From now on, if you would like to discuss climate change with me, I will require you to present evidence to support your statements.



well if science does not predict.....why do you post future warming graphs with a margin of error????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 387. yoboi:


Well your science and peer reviewed papers from the past did not predict the current "hidden" heat.......Let's keep moving the margin of error with all these predictions......it will get to the point with the margin of error it will take a massive asteroid to hit the earth to prove it wrong.......


Science does not predict, Yoboi, it explains based on testing and observation. However, you might be interested to know that oceans absorbing heat has been discussed and studied previously.

"
Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Link, this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security." Link


Yoboi, you are mistaken and confusing the issue at hand. A serious look at what the science actually says and has said on these issues and not what your opinion is would save a lot of problems here. You think this is a big conspiracy, you misrepresent what research in this topic is for, and you refuse to acknowledge or read the scientific evidence, because you think it is a conspiracy. This is the problem Yoboi, you don't want your own belief that this is a lie shattered by facts, so you deflect by saying it's all a lie. It's circular logic and has no place in this discussion. From now on, if you would like to discuss climate change with me, I will require you to present evidence to support your statements.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
Quoting 380. Birthmark:

1. When did oceans stop being part of the globe?

2. There is no pause in either global warming or the rise of atmospheric temperatures. Anyone making such a claim is either lying, cherry picking, or ignorant.




Very inTeresting, That article, Has global warming stopped? No - it’s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans.
, that the link leads to, doesn't say what Mr. Perfect implies it does.

From the article:

Temperatures still expected to reach predicted 2015 levels with only a five-year delay after 12 of the 14 hottest years on record
Huge amounts of heat – equivalent to the power of 150 billion electric kettles – are being continuously absorbed by the deep ocean, which could explain why global warming has “paused” over the past 10 to 15 years, scientists have concluded in a series of reports to explain why the Earth’s rate of warming has slowed down.

Global average temperatures are higher now than they have ever been since modern records began. However, after a period of rapid temperature increases during the 1980s and 1990s there has been a significant slow-down since the turn of the century, leading some sceptics to claim that global warming has stopped.

A scientific assessment of the planet’s heat balance has found that the most likely explanation for the recent hiatus in global warming is the continual absorption of thermal energy by the huge “heat sink” of the deep ocean many hundreds of metres below the sea surface, according to scientists from the Met Office.

Senior climate scientists said that they had always expected periods when the rate of increase in temperatures would level off for a few years and emphasised that the last decade was still warmer than any previous decade, with 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurring since 2000.

Professor Rowan Sutton, a climate scientist at Reading University, said the temperatures have levelled off in the past, the latest example being in the 1940s and 1950s when sulphate pollutants from the post-war boom in industrial production may have acted as a shield against incoming solar radiation.

“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.

“Climate scientists absolutely expect variations in the rate at which surface temperature will rise….but that is not to say we understand all the details of the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said...


However, measurements from hundreds of ocean floats released over the last decade, which descend and drift to depths of up to 2,000 metres, show that huge amounts of heat from the sea surface is now being transferred to the deep ocean, with unknown consequences for the environment, the scientists said.

In summary, observations of ocean heat content and of sea-level rise suggest that the Earth system has continued to absorb heat energy over the past 15 years, and that this additional heat has been absorbed in the ocean,” says the Met Office report.

The pause, however, is unlikely to change the predictions over the future course of global warming. Temperature increases expected by 2015 will only be delayed by a further five or ten years, the scientists said. Average surface temperatures are still on course to increase by 2C this century, with further rises expected by the end of the century if nothing is done to curb carbon dioxide emissions, they said....

,,,“Observations of ocean heat content and of sea-level rise suggest that the additional heat from the continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has been absorbed in the ocean and has not been manifest as a rise in surface temperature,” the Met Office says in one global warming of its three reports into the global warming pause.

“Radiated forcing by g; afterreenhouse gases has continued unabated; that heat is being held in the system but is not manifest as a rise in global mean surface temperature. Observations of ocean heat content and of sea-level rise suggest that this additional heat has been absorbed by the ocean,” it says.



There is nothing nothing in the Independent article that suggests global warming is slowing. After all, the oceans are 77% of the earth's surface and receives 77% of incoming energy, it is obvious that oceans should retain more energy.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
387. yoboi
Quoting 386. Naga5000:


This isn't about the carbon tax, Yoboi. The scenario you gave is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory is not welcome here we are discussing science. The carbon tax doesn't explain the added energy, unless the threat of a carbon tax acts as a greenhouse gas.


Well your science and peer reviewed papers from the past did not predict the current "hidden" heat.......Let's keep moving the margin of error with all these predictions......it will get to the point with the margin of error it will take a massive asteroid to hit the earth to prove it wrong.......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 385. yoboi:


He has always stated that he thinks man causes a small amount of warming.......not the doom & gloom preached by many to push a carbon tax on the working class and poor people of the world....


This isn't about the carbon tax, Yoboi. The scenario you gave is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory is not welcome here we are discussing science. The carbon tax doesn't explain the added energy, unless the threat of a carbon tax acts as a greenhouse gas.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
385. yoboi
Quoting 384. Naga5000:


Funny how Dr. Spencer is focusing on the Northern Hemisphere alone and ignoring the globe. It's easy when you cherry pick Yoboi. The Medieval Warm Period was not a Global event, but a regional one. Let's look at Northern Hemisphere and Global temps.



Hmm, when you don't cherry pick like Dr. Spencer, you come up with some astounding results.

Also, when you say "not according to Dr. Spencer" in response to my post, are you saying Dr. Spencer does not believe in the most basic universally agreed principle of the Greenhouse Effect?


He has always stated that he thinks man causes a small amount of warming.......not the doom & gloom preached by many to push a carbon tax on the working class and poor people of the world....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 383. yoboi:





Link

Not according to Dr Spencer with the recent senate epw hearings......


Funny how Dr. Spencer is focusing on the Northern Hemisphere alone and ignoring the globe. It's easy when you cherry pick Yoboi. The Medieval Warm Period was not a Global event, but a regional one. Let's look at Northern Hemisphere and Global temps.



Hmm, when you don't cherry pick like Dr. Spencer, you come up with some astounding results.

Also, when you say "not according to Dr. Spencer" in response to my post, are you saying Dr. Spencer does not believe in the most basic universally agreed principle of the Greenhouse Effect?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
383. yoboi
Quoting 378. Naga5000:


You need to provide evidence, Yoboi. Real evidence. Sure the arctic melted before, but ask yourself why. The answer is natural forcings, which are at work right now, but do not account for the entirety of change in energy we are seeing. Natural forcings are indeed taken into account, but if they cannot explain the totality of energy increase, where is the added energy coming from?

Well, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that we are adding into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. But what does CO2 have to do with increases seen in the climate system? Great question.

"The sun is responsible for virtually all energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Direct overhead sunlight at the top of the atmosphere provides 1366 W/m2; however, geometric effects and reflective surfaces limit the light which is absorbed at the typical location to an annual average of ~235 W/m2. If this were the total heat received at the surface, then, neglecting changes in albedo, the Earth's surface would be expected to have an average temperature of -18 C (Lashof 1989). Instead, the Earth's atmosphere recycles heat coming from the surface and delivers an additional 324 W/m2, which results in an average surface temperature of roughly 14 C [1].

Of the surface heat captured by the atmosphere, more than 75% can be attributed to the action of greenhouse gases that absorb thermal radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. The atmosphere in turn transfers the energy it receives both into space (38%) and back to the Earth's surface (62%), where the amount transferred in each direction depends on the thermal and density structure of the atmosphere This process by which energy is recycled in the atmosphere to warm the Earth's surface is known as the greenhouse effect and is an essential piece of Earth's climate. Under stable conditions, the total amount of energy entering the system from solar radiation will exactly balance the amount being radiated into space, thus allowing the Earth to maintain a constant average temperature over time. However, recent measurements indicate that the Earth is presently absorbing 0.85 0.15 W/m2 more than it emits into space (Hansen et al. 2005). An overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that this asymmetry in the flow of energy has been significantly increased by human emissions of greenhouse gases"






Link

Not according to Dr Spencer with the recent senate epw hearings......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 370. no1der:
Rubbish. 

Let me get this straight... just because UNEP works with a publisher to make actual, paper versions of its reports available for those that still want them, you're trying to suggest that this is some shady online 'book'? You confuse 'publishing' with 'printing'. See http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/  as in JohnL's post 368.

http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/mbb/sum11.ht ml is an update of that dataset, out to 2011. The included Fig. 2 extends Fig. 5.9 of the previous.




Please tell us again what you were saying about a 'slight' acceleration late 20thC? And what happened in the early 21st? I assume you know how to read a slope off a graph.





In the RealClimate link I posted previously, Mauri Pelto describes the WGMS:

For global temperature time series we have GISTEMP, NCDC and HadCRUT. Each has worked hard to assimilate global temperature data into reliable and accurate indices of global temperature. The equivalent for alpine glaciers is the World Glacier Monitoring Service’s (WGMS) record of mass balance and terminus behavior. Beginning in 1986, WGMS began to maintain and publish the collection of information on ongoing glacier changes that had begun in 1960 with the Permanent Service on Fluctuations of glaciers. This program in the last 10 years has striven to acquire, publish and verify glacier terminus and mass balance measurement data from alpine glaciers the world over on a timely basis. Spearheaded by Wlfried Haeberli with assistance from Isabelle Roer, Michael Zemp, Martin Hoelzle, at the University of Zurich, their efforts have resulted in the recent publication, “Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures” published jointly with UNEP. This publication summarizes the information collected and submitted by the national correspondents of WGMS portraying the global response of glaciers to climate change, as well as the regional response.


In other words, WGMS is the curator of global glacial monitoring data and their joint publication with UNEP
should be given the same acceptance as any of the other datasets, such as GISTEMP, NCDC and HadCRUT.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Quoting 371. yoboi:


but but but the "past" peer reviewed papers never predicted this pause....

What pause is that? Please provide data, not blog "science." TIA.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 369. MisterPerfect:
Trust me, I'm a Doctor.

Has global warming stopped? No - it’s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans

1. When did oceans stop being part of the globe?

2. There is no pause in either global warming or the rise of atmospheric temperatures. Anyone making such a claim is either lying, cherry picking, or ignorant.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 364. Snowlover123:


Someone posted that glacier change and arctic sea ice decline were evidence of continued anthropogenic global warming. I'm not saying that it disproves some contribution of anthropogenic global warming, but that there isn't an anthropogenic signal in the glacier record. As Birthmark posted, most of the temperature increase occurred before 1950, which is roughly consistent with the glacier record.

It's funny that you are arguing that the reason for the lack of acceleration is a precipitation change, when the Oerlemans study directly connects the declining glaciers to rising temperatures. I agree that there is an influence from precipitation, but again, there still is no discernable anthropogenic signature in the glacier record.

What a nonsensical post that was! You apparently would have us throw out the instrumental record of temperature and replace it with a glacier proxy! LOL

Any particular reason why you think that less than a couple of hundred glaciers is superior to thousands of thermometers? LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 377. yoboi:



did the artic melt before???? did the oceans only appear the past few yrs???? why is it only absorbing heat now????? why because they have to come up with something because they made a bad prediction.....It's hidden, it's trapped, It's all mans fault this time around......the way I see it ... if you can't predict the heat you must accept defeat.....


You need to provide evidence, Yoboi. Real evidence. Sure the arctic melted before, but ask yourself why. The answer is natural forcings, which are at work right now, but do not account for the entirety of change in energy we are seeing. Natural forcings are indeed taken into account, but if they cannot explain the totality of energy increase, where is the added energy coming from?

Well, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that we are adding into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. But what does CO2 have to do with increases seen in the climate system? Great question.

"The sun is responsible for virtually all energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Direct overhead sunlight at the top of the atmosphere provides 1366 W/m2; however, geometric effects and reflective surfaces limit the light which is absorbed at the typical location to an annual average of ~235 W/m2. If this were the total heat received at the surface, then, neglecting changes in albedo, the Earth's surface would be expected to have an average temperature of -18 C (Lashof 1989). Instead, the Earth's atmosphere recycles heat coming from the surface and delivers an additional 324 W/m2, which results in an average surface temperature of roughly 14 C [1].

Of the surface heat captured by the atmosphere, more than 75% can be attributed to the action of greenhouse gases that absorb thermal radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. The atmosphere in turn transfers the energy it receives both into space (38%) and back to the Earth's surface (62%), where the amount transferred in each direction depends on the thermal and density structure of the atmosphere This process by which energy is recycled in the atmosphere to warm the Earth's surface is known as the greenhouse effect and is an essential piece of Earth's climate. Under stable conditions, the total amount of energy entering the system from solar radiation will exactly balance the amount being radiated into space, thus allowing the Earth to maintain a constant average temperature over time. However, recent measurements indicate that the Earth is presently absorbing 0.85 0.15 W/m2 more than it emits into space (Hansen et al. 2005). An overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that this asymmetry in the flow of energy has been significantly increased by human emissions of greenhouse gases"

Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
377. yoboi
Quoting 374. Naga5000:
Yoboi, did you know that heat is energy? And if the oceans absorb more of this heat energy it doesn't mean global warming has stopped? Or that despite the "pause" in global temperature increase we are still above average? And that in order to get a real view you need to focus on all aspects of climate, including land temperature, ocean temperature, melting of sea ice and glaciers? Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to warm the deep layer of ocean?



did the artic melt before???? did the oceans only appear the past few yrs???? why is it only absorbing heat now????? why because they have to come up with something because they made a bad prediction.....It's hidden, it's trapped, It's all mans fault this time around......the way I see it ... if you can't predict the heat you must accept defeat.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I just noticed this on Dr. Burt's blog:


Temperatures at Norilsk, Russia have peaked at 32.0°C (89.6°F) today (Monday, July 22), the warmest ever observed at this large city in the Russian Arctic at 69° 20'N latitude, almost as far north as Barrow, Alaska, and one of the warmest temperatures ever measured at such a northerly latitude on earth (Umiat, Alaska at 69° 22'N reached 92°F (33.3°C) on July 14, 1993 according to the WRCC database). However, sites just a bit south of Norilsk (Snezhnogorsk at 68° 6'N) reached 34°C (93.2°F).
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
Yoboi, did you know that heat is energy? And if the oceans absorb more of this heat energy it doesn't mean global warming has stopped? Or that despite the "pause" in global temperature increase we are still above average? And that in order to get a real view you need to focus on all aspects of climate, including land temperature, ocean temperature, melting of sea ice and glaciers? Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to warm the deep layer of ocean?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
373. yoboi
Quoting 372. Naga5000:


But but but there is still no evidence AGW is false, despite your beliefs. You can't just will something into existence.



You should read some of the comments from the link that he posted.....it will show you what people think about this.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 371. yoboi:


but but but the "past" peer reviewed papers never predicted this pause....


But but but there is still no evidence AGW is false, despite your beliefs. You can't just will something into existence.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
371. yoboi
Quoting 369. MisterPerfect:
Trust me, I'm a Doctor.

Has global warming stopped? No - it’s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans


but but but the "past" peer reviewed papers never predicted this pause....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Rubbish. 

Let me get this straight... just because UNEP works with a publisher to make actual, paper versions of its reports available for those that still want them, you're trying to suggest that this is some shady online 'book'? You confuse 'publishing' with 'printing'. See http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/  as in JohnL's post 368.

http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/mbb/sum11.ht ml is an update of that dataset, out to 2011. The included Fig. 2 extends Fig. 5.9 of the previous.




Please tell us again what you were saying about a 'slight' acceleration late 20thC? And what happened in the early 21st? I assume you know how to read a slope off a graph.


Quoting 365. Snowlover123:


I don't believe that is a peer reviewed paper to my knowledge. It seems to be a book.

It was published via UNEP/Earthprint, which describes itself as "the world's leading online bookstore."

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also, the book's Glacier dataset since 1945 doesn't seem to be in bad disagreement with Oerlemans' glacier record. You can see that in 1945-1965, the Glaciers appear to have melted the fastest. There doesn't appear to be a dramatic acceleration that departs from the long term trend in Figure 5.9. There is a slight acceleration in the late-20th Century, but it matches the long term trend nicely still. Would be nice to see the dataset before 1945, but it gives us a rough approximation on how unusual the late-20th Century rate of glacier recession is.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here is all you'll ever want to know about glaciers and more:

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures

There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people. Data gaps exist in some vulnerable parts of the globe undermining the ability to provide precise early warning for countries and populations at risk. If the trend continues and governments fail to agree on deep and decisive emission reductions at the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, it is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges in the 21st century.

Commentary by MS Pelto at RealClimate

For global temperature time series we have GISTEMP, NCDC and HadCRUT. Each has worked hard to assimilate global temperature data into reliable and accurate indices of global temperature. The equivalent for alpine glaciers is the World Glacier Monitoring Service’s (WGMS) record of mass balance and terminus behavior. Beginning in 1986, WGMS began to maintain and publish the collection of information on ongoing glacier changes that had begun in 1960 with the Permanent Service on Fluctuations of glaciers. This program in the last 10 years has striven to acquire, publish and verify glacier terminus and mass balance measurement data from alpine glaciers the world over on a timely basis. Spearheaded by Wlfried Haeberli with assistance from Isabelle Roer, Michael Zemp, Martin Hoelzle, at the University of Zurich, their efforts have resulted in the recent publication, “Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures” published jointly with UNEP. This publication summarizes the information collected and submitted by the national correspondents of WGMS portraying the global response of glaciers to climate change, as well as the regional response.



The health of an alpine glacier is typically determined by monitoring the behavior of the terminus and/or its mass balance. Glacier mass balance is the difference between accumulation and ablation (melting and sublimation) and can be altered by climate change caused variations in temperature and snowfall. A glacier with a sustained negative balance is out of equilibrium and will retreat. A glacier with sustained positive balance is out of equilibrium, and will advance to reestablish equilibrium. Glacier advance increases the area of a glacier at lower elevations where ablation is highest, offsetting the increase in accumulation. Glacier retreat results in the loss of the low-elevation region of the glacier. Since higher elevations are cooler, the disappearance of the lowest portion of the glacier reduces total ablation, increasing mass balance and potentially reestablishing equilibrium. If a glacier lacks a consistent accumulation it is in disequilibrium (non-steady state) with climate and will retreat away without a climate change toward cooler wetter conditions (Pelto, 2006; Paul
et al., 2007).



More incuding charts showing global changes in glacial mass.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Quoting 364. Snowlover123:


Someone posted that glacier change and arctic sea ice decline were evidence of continued anthropogenic global warming. I'm not saying that it disproves some contribution of anthropogenic global warming, but that there isn't an anthropogenic signal in the glacier record. As Birthmark posted, most of the temperature increase occurred before 1950, which is roughly consistent with the glacier record.

It's funny that you are arguing that the reason for the lack of acceleration is a precipitation change, when the Oerlemans study directly connects the declining glaciers to rising temperatures. I agree that there is an influence from precipitation, but again, there still is no discernable anthropogenic signature in the glacier record.


I'm not arguing that there is no temperature rise; I'm the one who first posted about Figure 3 from the Oerlemans paper to refute your assertion that global temps weren't accelerating. You're both promoting and arguing against Oerlemans at the same time.

Warming temperatures = warmer air = more moisture held = more precipitation = negative feedback on glacier shrinkage. This is high-school earth science stuff. Oerlemans' reconstruction of global temperatures in the 20th century is well in-line with other models, despite (perhaps, even, taking into account) these negative feedbacks producing a "lack of acceleration" (your terminology, not mine) during the 20th century, as you disingenously tried to point out by cherry-picking Figure 1 from that paper.

That paper does not say what you want it to say, no matter how many times you try. You're better off going back to your cosmic-ray fantasy; that at least has a better chance of confusing the issue, since there are probably fewer people with enough working knowledge of cosmology or astrophysics to sort through your fallacies; earth science is a lot easier.

And I'll make the biggest issue more explicit - you're jumping from glaciers to temperatures to anthropogenic forcings, ignoring that the last is not at all addressed by the paper. In fact, the evidence in that paper is consistent with AGW. Your argument is based on Underpants Gnome logic; you have no connection between your premise and your conclusion, other than assumption. And before we could even consider your conclusion as valid, you'd have to give us an alternative explanation for the obvious contradictions of the laws of physics and thermodynamics regarding atmospheric CO2, as well as alternative theories for fluid dynamics, aqueous and atmospheric chemistry, and about a dozen other branches of science that are going to require significant revision as a result of this breach. Be sure to show your work, please.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
366. yoboi
Quoting 329. zampaz:
Yoboi;
The climate is getting warmer.
The North pole is melting.
Sea Level is rising.
What would you do about it?



What would I do about it????? very simple learn to adapt.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 354. no1der:
Why all the focus on Oerlemans (2005)?%uFFFF

If you're looking for a much larger dataset, see%uFFFFZemp et al.(2008)



I don't believe that is a peer reviewed paper to my knowledge. It seems to be a book.

It was published via UNEP/Earthprint, which describes itself as "the world's leading online bookstore."

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also, the book's Glacier dataset since 1945 doesn't seem to be in bad disagreement with Oerlemans' glacier record. You can see that in 1945-1965, the Glaciers appear to have melted the fastest. There doesn't appear to be a dramatic acceleration that departs from the long term trend in Figure 5.9. There is a slight acceleration in the late-20th Century, but it matches the long term trend nicely still. Would be nice to see the dataset before 1945, but it gives us a rough approximation on how unusual the late-20th Century rate of glacier recession is.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting 362. schistkicker:



You're arguing that alpine glacial shrinkage rates are evidence that CO2 isn't the driving force behind climate change, and you're citing a paper that doesn't make the claim you're putting forth. Fact is, the budget of an alpine glacier is dependent on two things - the temperature AND precipitation rates. It's rate of accumulation (at the head) vs. rate of ablation (at the toe), with rate of movement as a secondary factor as well. That's entirely independent of temperature/CO2-- the link you're trying to make, which seems more like a bait-and-switch (look, I'm comparing glacier lengths over time, therefore temperature, therefore CO2!!!), just isn't there to be made from the dataset you're using. Especially when the paper you're citing itself supports global temperature models - that's why it's cited 450 times. I'm not sure you've actually read this paper; if you have, you certainly don't understand it.


Someone posted that glacier change and arctic sea ice decline were evidence of continued anthropogenic global warming. I'm not saying that it disproves some contribution of anthropogenic global warming, but that there isn't an anthropogenic signal in the glacier record. As Birthmark posted, most of the temperature increase occurred before 1950, which is roughly consistent with the glacier record.

It's funny that you are arguing that the reason for the lack of acceleration is a precipitation change, when the Oerlemans study directly connects the declining glaciers to rising temperatures. I agree that there is an influence from precipitation, but again, there still is no discernable anthropogenic signature in the glacier record.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting 362. schistkicker:



You're arguing that alpine glacial shrinkage rates are evidence that CO2 isn't the driving force behind climate change, and you're citing a paper that doesn't make the claim you're putting forth. Fact is, the budget of an alpine glacier is dependent on two things - the temperature AND precipitation rates. It's rate of accumulation (at the head) vs. rate of ablation (at the toe), with rate of movement as a secondary factor as well. That's entirely independent of temperature/CO2-- the link you're trying to make, which seems more like a bait-and-switch (look, I'm comparing glacier lengths over time, therefore temperature, therefore CO2!!!), just isn't there to be made from the dataset you're using. Especially when the paper you're citing itself supports global temperature models - that's why it's cited 450+ times. I'm not sure you've actually read this paper; if you have, you certainly don't understand it.


Yes! That is a point I was trying to make about glaciers. Thank you! You said it much more eloquently than I could have.

As I said, SL123, if I can pick apart your talking points then you are in serious trouble with the others here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 348. Snowlover123:


Seriously? I linked you to Oerlemans 2005, which is where the data came from. The question still remains. Why hasn't there been a dramatic acceleration in the rate of glacier recession in the late-20th century despite large increases in CO2?

This isn't nitpicking. It's looking at a reasonably good global glacier dataset that many use as evidence for anthropogenic global warming. The question is where is the anthropogenic signature in the glacier record? The most reasonable conclusion is that as of now, there is none.



You're arguing that alpine glacial shrinkage rates are evidence that CO2 isn't the driving force behind climate change, and you're citing a paper that doesn't make the claim you're putting forth. Fact is, the budget of an alpine glacier is dependent on two things - the temperature AND precipitation rates. It's rate of accumulation (at the head) vs. rate of ablation (at the toe), with rate of movement as a secondary factor as well. That's entirely independent of temperature/CO2-- the link you're trying to make, which seems more like a bait-and-switch (look, I'm comparing glacier lengths over time, therefore temperature, therefore CO2!!!), just isn't there to be made from the dataset you're using. Especially when the paper you're citing itself supports global temperature models - that's why it's cited 450+ times. I'm not sure you've actually read this paper; if you have, you certainly don't understand it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark: **and aren't they and you fear-mongering? Or perhaps you think that if a solution costs a lot of money, the problem can't exist? Or maybe the cost makes the science wrong? lol**

From the Free Dictionary: denial
Psychiatry A primitive%u2013ego defense%u2013mechanism by which a person unconsciously negates the existence of a disease or other stress-producing reality in his environment, by disavowing thoughts, feelings, wishes, needs, or external reality factors that are consciously intolerable.

Most of the denial is the cost, but that's only part of the picture. A lot of it is based in the very fear he points out that we have- perhaps his way of dealing with the fear is to deny there is any thing to be afraid of.

This, of course, does not excuse the antisemitism tossed about. There is no excuse for that. I ignored this member long ago- guess I haven't missed a single thing!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Due to Global Warming, End Is Virtually Certain for NYC, Boston, Miami, Holland

Posted: 07/20/2013 2:10 pm


A new article in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), is headlined "The Multimillennial Sea-Level Commitment of Global Warming," and it reports that because of carbon emissions that are virtually certain, on the basis of the lack of policy-response to global warming thus far, sea levels are now set to rise anywhere from around 8 inches to 7 feet within 100 years, and around 5 yards to 10 yards within 2,000 years. The projections are clearer (within a narrower range) for the longer time-frame than for the shorter one. That's because even if the short-term consequences of heat-rise turn out to be relatively slight, the longer-term consequences are clearer, and will be considerably larger, as delayed impacts kick in.

An interview with the article's lead author, Anders Levermann, was aired on the PBS radio program "Living On Earth," during the week starting July 19th. Levermann noted that, as the lead author of the coming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he can reveal that it will be "focusing on the next 100 years," and that because of uncertainties that are yet to be resolved in such short-term predictions, "the sea level projections that we obtain for different climate scenarios range from 20 centimeters and [to] two meters." However, beyond that, "two thousand years is what we looked at," and, "We expect sea level rise of two meters of each degree of global warming that we cause." The interviewer asked, "That's on the order ... of about 7.5 feet," and Dr. Levermann answered, "Yes." That's 7.5 feet for each and every degree Centigrade of temperature-rise.

So, the question is: How many degrees will the atmosphere heat up? Recently (on 26 May 2013), the journal Nature Climate Change headlined "Uncertainty in Temperature Projections Reduced," and reported, "increased probability of exceeding a 2 ºC global-mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 ºC threshold." Therefore, by merely the end of the present century, there will be at least a 2-degree Centigrade, or around a 4-degree Fahrenheit, temperature-rise. This makes almost inevitable at least a fifteen-foot sea-level rise within no more than 2,000 years.

The "Living On Earth" report also included a map showing "Areas at risk of sea level rise," and the map indicated that the submersion will be the most devastating along the East Coast, from the middle of Delaware down to the tip of Florida; and also along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. All coastal cities there, plus the coasts around NYC and Boston, will be submerged enough, within 2,000 years, so that, not only will they be deeply flooded, but even minor coastal storms will make them uninhabitable for anyone who might otherwise still be living there.

Economists discount the welfare of future generations, and therefore the welfares of our descendants 2,000 years into the future, and even just 100 years from now, are treated as virtually worthless, in today's economic cost-benefit analyses.

Economist Richard S.J. Tol noted in his May 2010 "The Economic Impact of Climate Change," in Perspectiven der Wirtschaftspkolitik, that, "The discount rate is the most important source of variation in the estimates of the social costs of carbon. This is not surprising as the bulk of the avoidable impact of climate change is the distant future." He went on to say, "Implicitly, the policy problem is phrased as 'how much are we willing to pay to buy a better climate for our children?' Alternatively, the policy problem could be phrased as 'how much compensation should we pay our children for deteriorating their climate?'"

Lawrence Summers and Richard J. Zeckhauser titled their September 2008 NBER working paper "Policymaking for Posterity," and objected there to the way that the profession was valuing future generations. They noted the extreme impact that current discounting has upon these calculations: "At even a relatively modest 3 percent discount rate, a dollar of benefits a century from now is worth less than 6 cents today. ... At the discount rate of 7 percent mandated for use in certain US government contexts by the OMB, the distant future becomes nearly irrelevant, as $100 a century from now is valued less than 10 cents today." But their "distant future" was actually just a finger-snap in the context of human history. So, in an important sense, we are already near the end of history as the human species has known it.

The reason why future generations are being discounted like that, is that, in current microeconomic theory, people are treated like property, because microeconomic theory started in the 1700s, when the slave trade was very big, and the aristocracy wouldn't have financed or otherwise advanced the careers, or the publications, of any economists whose works made a theoretical distinction between people and property. Furthermore, financial economics requires future values of investments to be discounted by the expected future inflation rate. Consequently, since people are indistinguishable from property, our descendants are treated like property, and they are discounted for inflation, just as if they were property instead of people. The standpoint of today's investors is the standpoint of economic theory, and future people are being treated only as investments.

Coal and oil companies, and many other industries, favor existing economic theory as it stands, and do not want it to change. Though the slave traders are almost entirely gone now, the aristocracy still wants to discount future generations, because this permits those investors to make profits today off of people who haven't yet been born -- and who aren't even around to complain about being abused. But they will be around ultimately; and a few ecologically minded economists, who are a small minority among professional economists (a profession that's very dependent upon international corporations for their career-success), are trying to change the way these cost-benefit calculations are done. However, this situation simply can't change unless microeconomic theory itself is fundamentally changed, and few economists have any interest at all in doing that, because international corporations don't want it.

So, somewhere in time between, say, the years 2100 and 4200, such cities as Boston, NYC, etc., will be uninhabitable. They will be past history. It's an interesting thought, perhaps - but just a curiosity that's heavily discounted, so it's not actually being given much thought. Perhaps it's not given even as much thought as the beef that a person consumes, which had been a cow a few days before. After all, that beef has a taste, which is enjoyed now. The future is "just the future" -- and it's discounted at compounded annual rates.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129904
We still won't know what the effect of the Vortex is until about 36-48 hours or so.

AMSR2 is showing the recent flatlining of the ice.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Gasland Part 2 (2012)
Synopsis from IMDB
A documentary that declares the gas industry's portrayal of natural gas as a clean and safe alternative to oil is a myth, and that fracked wells inevitably leak over time, contaminating water and air, hurting families, and endangering the earth's climate with the potent greenhouse gas, and methane.

IMDB Info Link

Download

Edit:
I just finished watching this video.
The conclusion breaks my heart.
Not so much for the loss of the environment,
but for the loss of democracy in America.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
In the Movie after about 7:00 you can see the floe breaking up, rushing water, and other parts of the installation departing on separate chunks of ice.
Quoting 356. Birthmark:
I thought the picture from buoy 8 was pretty interesting today.



Link


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I thought the picture from buoy 8 was pretty interesting today.



Link

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
As for Oerlemans 2005, this is what the graph looks like from a reputable site:



This is a case in point of why I can dismiss crap from OISM out of hand. It's crap.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Why all the focus on Oerlemans (2005)? 

If you're looking for a much larger dataset, see Zemp et al.(2008)
Quoting 348. Snowlover123:


Seriously? I linked you to Oerlemans 2005, which is where the data came from. The question still remains. Why hasn't there been a dramatic acceleration in the rate of glacier recession in the late-20th century despite large increases in CO2?

This isn't nitpicking. It's looking at a reasonably good global glacier dataset that many use as evidence for anthropogenic global warming. The question is where is the anthropogenic signature in the glacier record? The most reasonable conclusion is that as of now, there is none.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 348. Snowlover123:


Seriously? I linked you to Oerlemans 2005, which is where the data came from. The question still remains. Why hasn't there been a dramatic acceleration in the rate of glacier recession in the late-20th century despite large increases in CO2?

This isn't nitpicking. It's looking at a reasonably good global glacier dataset that many use as evidence for anthropogenic global warming. The question is where is the anthropogenic signature in the glacier record? The most reasonable conclusion is that as of now, there is none.

You used the part of Oerlemans that you liked, and disregarded the larger part. That, my young friend, is nitpicking, cherrypicking, call it whatever you like...as long as you don't call it science.
Quoting 351. Snowlover123:


So I should post a map that's two days old just because it has a higher concentration?

To be fair, I was mostly referring to the Beaufort, but I was unaware that the concentration maps did that.

Fair enough. But yes, one day maps shouldn't be disregarded, but they shouldn't be taken at face value, either.

All that aside, Beaufort is clearly running behind 2012's melt to date. I don't think anyone says otherwise.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 350. Snowlover123:
Rookie, The data comes from Oerlemans 2005. It's a peer reviewed publication that was published in Science. It's gotten close to 450 citations or so. It's generally considered to be a pretty good proxy for Global Glacier change. I'll use an analogy. When someone is reconstructing past global climate, they don't take readings of oxygen 18 isotope ratios at every single spot possible in the world. That would be ridiculous. They take one or two proxies for a region, and use that as a rough approximation for the climate in that broad region. Other regions are done the same way. Yet, I don't see you questioning paleoclimate reconstructions, or accusing them of cherry picking the sites they use for the reconstruction. Oerlemans did exactly that, except with glacier changes. That's not cherry picking.

Your comment about the Oregon Petition has nothing to do with the Oerlemans data, and is a red herring.

Just because OISM uses the Oerlemans data doesn't mean the Oerlemans data is incorrect. That's a pretty silly argument to make.



I fully understand that samples are not taken at every conceivable place they can be taken. Representative data is fine, if it is truly representative. Taking oxygen 18 isotope ratios from areas around the world is completely different from picking a few glaciers from around the world. The atmosphere is fairly well mixed globally and thus air samples of a region are far more representative of the air around the globe than are samples of glaciers that can be quite unique from other areas of the planet. .... This reminds me of the denial industry taking issue with the glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro showing signs of decline. The denial industry would shout that "of course it is melting! It is on the Equator!" Using this logic, the glacier should have never existed there at all. It is all about altitude for this glacier and not its distance, or lack of, from the Equator. Land masses and land features can be quite unique around the world. As I have said, the atmosphere is fairly well mixed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 343. Birthmark:

Cherry picking just gets to be a way of life, doesn't it? I ask because here's the image from 19JUL2012, two days before the image you posted.




A couple of days can exhibit a large change in CT's graphics. Radical differences are usually not showing anything real.

{Edit to add: This is probably a good time to reiterate that daily images and numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. One should look over three or four days data/images to get a fair assessment of the situation.}


So I should post a map that's two days old just because it has a higher concentration?

To be fair, I was mostly referring to the Beaufort, but I was unaware that the concentration maps did that.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Rookie, The data comes from Oerlemans 2005. It's a peer reviewed publication that was published in Science. It's gotten close to 450 citations or so. It's generally considered to be a pretty good proxy for Global Glacier change. I'll use an analogy. When someone is reconstructing past global climate, they don't take readings of oxygen 18 isotope ratios at every single spot possible in the world. That would be ridiculous. They take one or two proxies for a region, and use that as a rough approximation for the climate in that broad region. Other regions are done the same way. Yet, I don't see you questioning paleoclimate reconstructions, or accusing them of cherry picking the sites they use for the reconstruction. Oerlemans did exactly that, except with glacier changes. That's not cherry picking.

Your comment about the Oregon Petition has nothing to do with the Oerlemans data, and is a red herring.

Just because OISM uses the Oerlemans data doesn't mean the Oerlemans data is incorrect. That's a pretty silly argument to make.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting 345. Birthmark:

Seriously? You're going to present a graphic from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine as scientific evidence? LOL

IOW, without a real source I'll just assume that that's typical OISM propaganda with no basis in reality. (Is OISM still run by that dead guy?) LOL

Quoting 345. Birthmark:

Seriously? You're going to present a graphic from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine as scientific evidence? LOL

IOW, without a real source I'll just assume that that's typical OISM propaganda with no basis in reality. (Is OISM still run by that dead guy?) LOL




Seriously? I linked you to Oerlemans 2005, which is where the data came from. The question still remains. Why hasn't there been a dramatic acceleration in the rate of glacier recession in the late-20th century despite large increases in CO2?

This isn't nitpicking. It's looking at a reasonably good global glacier dataset that many use as evidence for anthropogenic global warming. The question is where is the anthropogenic signature in the glacier record? The most reasonable conclusion is that as of now, there is none.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Why Coastal Cities Are Doomed

A new article in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), is headlined "The Multimillennial Sea-Level Commitment of Global Warming," and it reports that because of carbon emissions that are virtually certain, on the basis of the lack of policy-response to global warming thus far, sea levels are now set to rise anywhere from around 8 inches to 7 feet within 100 years, and around 5 yards to 10 yards within 2,000 years. The projections are clearer (within a narrower range) for the longer time-frame than for the shorter one. That's because even if the short-term consequences of heat-rise turn out to be relatively slight, the longer-term consequences are clearer, and will be considerably larger, as delayed impacts kick in.

An interview with the article's lead author, Anders Levermann, was aired on the PBS radio program "Living On Earth," during the week starting July 19th. Levermann noted that, as the lead author of the coming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he can reveal that it will be "focusing on the next 100 years," and that because of uncertainties that are yet to be resolved in such short-term predictions, "the sea level projections that we obtain for different climate scenarios range from 20 centimeters and [to] two meters." However, beyond that, "two thousand years is what we looked at," and, "We expect sea level rise of two meters of each degree of global warming that we cause." The interviewer asked, "That's on the order ... of about 7.5 feet," and Dr. Levermann answered, "Yes." That's 7.5 feet for each and every degree Centigrade of temperature-rise.

So, the question is: How many degrees will the atmosphere heat up? Recently (on 26 May 2013), the journal Nature Climate Change headlined "Uncertainty in Temperature Projections Reduced," and reported, "increased probability of exceeding a 2 ºC global-mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 ºC threshold." Therefore, by merely the end of the present century, there will be at least a 2-degree Centigrade, or around a 4-degree Fahrenheit, temperature-rise. This makes almost inevitable at least a fifteen-foot sea-level rise within no more than 2,000 years.

The "Living On Earth" report also included a map showing "Areas at risk of sea level rise," and the map indicated that the submersion will be the most devastating along the East Coast, from the middle of Delaware down to the tip of Florida; and also along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. All coastal cities there, plus the coasts around NYC and Boston, will be submerged enough, within 2,000 years, so that, not only will they be deeply flooded, but even minor coastal storms will make them uninhabitable for anyone who might otherwise still be living there.

Economists discount the welfare of future generations, and therefore the welfares of our descendants 2,000 years into the future, and even just 100 years from now, are treated as virtually worthless, in today's economic cost-benefit analyses.


more at HuffingtonPost.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 963
Quoting 337. Snowlover123:


The tiny little "dive" that you focused so much on at around 2000 turned out to be nothing unusual.



The question still remains, why haven't we seen a large acceleration in the rate of Glacier Retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age, despite an exponential increase in anthropogenic forcing?


Where did you find this graphic, SL123? Was it from here? Why did you not also include the description of the graphic?

"Figure 2: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier mass and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6). This melting trend lags the temperature increase by about 20 years, so it predates the 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in the figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend."

Wow! This is sample of 169 glaciers. It does not even say that it is a representation of the glaciers from around the world. These glaciers may be from one region only. I have no way of knowing this since the description of the graphic does not tell us. Still, 169 glaciers are quite a few glaciers. Just how many glaciers are there around the planet? Wow! It is calculated that there are about 171,000 glaciers around the world and this does not even include the Antarctic and Greenland. So these 169 glaciers that your graphic depicts represents slightly less than one in a thousand of the world's glaciers. That is 1/1000. Your graphic does not really tell us anything does it, SL123? Do you suspect that there just might be a little bit of cherry picking going here? I do. Why do I suspect this? Well, the website does have the "Petition Project" there as well. What is the "Petition Project", you may ask? Well here is what the website says it is:

"Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


Does this petition look familiar to anyone else here? Didn't little Anthony Watts have a field day with this petition a while back? Did it not get exposed that many of the signatures belong to people that had no scientific credentials that dealt with climate change? Many of them were not even in related fields of study. Oh! That is right! It was this "new and improved" petition that little Anthony Watts played with for so long.

You have a problem here, SL123. When I can pick apart your posts so easily can you imagine what the others here can do with the rest of the data(?) points you offer us? You need to go play at Yahoo's website. The denial industry talking points that you use here are the norm over there.

Now, here is the real nail biter, SL123. How does any of this show any flaws in the AGWT? The Laws of Physics? The Laws of Chemistry? The Laws of Thermodynamics? None of your psuedo-science based misleading and misdirecting posts do this do they, SL123? Break it down for us.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 337. Snowlover123:


The tiny little "dive" that you focused so much on at around 2000 turned out to be nothing unusual.



The question still remains, why haven't we seen a large acceleration in the rate of Glacier Retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age, despite an exponential increase in anthropogenic forcing?

Seriously? You're going to present a graphic from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine as scientific evidence? LOL

IOW, without a real source I'll just assume that that's typical OISM propaganda with no basis in reality. (Is OISM still run by that dead guy?) LOL

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
You know, this is my first time on this particular blog, and I see I picked an interesting day to start. I followed the infamous link discussed. Agree that it's a conspiracy/hate/whackadoodle site.

The link I followed from a previous post led to a 'climate change scam' article. But the graphic was, IMHO, downright hilarious. Dozens of interconnected boxes. Impossible to really follow, as it's essentially nonsensical. Sort of reminded me of Beck's flow charts, if he swapped out the blackboard for a whiteboard, used every marker color available, and had no time constraint. The graphic may be a keeper though, to post on my 'wall of shame'. It may be a classic...

Brian - happy to see your verification w/ SPLC, one of my favorite organizations.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 335. Snowlover123:


You can see how terrible the Pacific side of the Arctic looked in 2012 compared to now.

This image was made by a meteorologist on another board.


Cherry picking just gets to be a way of life, doesn't it? I ask because here's the image from 19JUL2012, two days before the image you posted.




A couple of days can exhibit a large change in CT's graphics. Radical differences are usually not showing anything real.

{Edit to add: This is probably a good time to reiterate that daily images and numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. One should look over three or four days data/images to get a fair assessment of the situation.}
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 393 - 343

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog 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.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.