Any doubts about Climate Change?

https://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/u...069/IPCC~0.jpg

Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
Summary for Policymakers: http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima...d27Sep2013.pdf

____________________________

15 Things You Should Know About The New IPCC Report On Climate Science

1) It’s happening and we’re doing it:

2) 95-100 percent certain:

3) Warmest 30 years:

4) Pause? What pause?:

5) Acidifying oceans:

6) Global pollution ceiling:

7) Seas rising and warming:

8) One of the most scrutinized documents on the planet:

9) Massive amounts of data:

10) Summary for policymakers:

11) ‘Yet another wakeup call’:

12) Most comprehensive ever:

13) Senators should pay attention:

14) Deniers can’t pick a response: As Penn State’s Distinguished Professor of Meteorology Michael Mann points out, climate deniers haven’t settled on a specific narrative to attack the report. Some think the report shows a smaller threat and less certainty, some think the report is too mild to mention, while some think that consensus is a bad thing. Yet the report contains more certainty, contains a seriously unmild set of predictions, and after analyzing large streams of data, has a robust consensus on a complex issue.

15) Blistering pace: To put the report’s findings in perspective, Stanford scientists Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field found that the current pace of warming is happening 10 times faster than any time over the last 65 million years.

____________________________

IPCC: Climate Change Report Highlights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYzGm-aG8F4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Landreth

____________________________

15 Things You Should Know About The New IPCC Report On Climate Science


3) Warmest 30 years:


5) Acidifying oceans:


7) Seas rising and warming:

---

Point 5; Acidifying oceans.
Since global warming creates warmer seas, currents such as the Gulf Stream are also warming and slowing down, so unable to absorb as much atmospheric CO2 as before, resulting in less carbonic acid formation, resulting in more alkaline oceans.

So if global warming is a fact, reduced oceanic absorbtion of CO2 may be expected and consequently a more alkaline ocean.

Can anyone explain how the IPCC concludes that oceans are becoming acidic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Landreth

____________________________

15 Things You Should Know About The New IPCC Report On Climate Science


3) Warmest 30 years:


5) Acidifying oceans:


7) Seas rising and warming:

---

Point 5; Acidifying oceans.
Since global warming creates warmer seas, currents such as the Gulf Stream are also warming and slowing down, so unable to absorb as much atmospheric CO2 as before, resulting in less carbonic acid formation, resulting in more alkaline oceans.

So if global warming is a fact, reduced oceanic absorbtion of CO2 may be expected and consequently a more alkaline ocean.

Can anyone explain how the IPCC concludes that oceans are becoming acidic?

---

You dun read so gud do ya? https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/05/3032.jpg

Acidifying oceans: The lower the pH, the more acidic something is. The pH levels of the ocean surface dropped by 0.1 since the start of the industrial era, “corresponding to a 26% increase in hydrogen ion concentration.” There’s been that big of an increase with a change of 0.1 because the scale is logarithmic.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
The oceans are more acidic now than they’ve been at any time in the last 300 million years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Can anyone explain how the IPCC concludes that oceans are becoming acidic?

---

With litmus paper. Duh.....

^ and ^^, you both can't answer the question.

“High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison” (hereinafter pH2011).

As the name suggests, they took a look at the actual variations of pH in a host of different parts of the ocean. They show 30-day “snapshots” of a variety of ecosystems. The authors comment:

These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100.

First, they show the 30-day snapshot of both the open ocean and a deepwater open ocean reef:


https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/10/541.jpg

Figure 2. Continuous 30-day pH measurements of open ocean and deepwater reef. Bottom axis shows days. Vertical bar shows the amount of the possible pH change by 2100, as estimated in the pH2011 study.

I note that even in the open ocean, the pH is not constant, but varies by a bit over the thirty days. These changes are quite short, and are likely related to rainfall events during the month........these slightly (and temporarily) neutralize the ocean surface, and over time mix in to the lower waters. Over Kingman reef, there are longer lasting small swings.



https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/10/542.jpg

Figure 3. Thirty day “snapshots” of the variation in pH at two tropical coral reefs. Bottom axis shows days.



There are a couple of things of note in Figure 3. First, day-to-night variations in pH are from the CO2 that is produced by the reef life as a whole. Also, day-to-night swings on the Palmyra reef terrace are about a quarter of a pH unit … which is about 60% more than the projected change from CO2 by the year 2100.

Moving on, we have the situation in a couple of upwelling areas off of the California coast:



https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/10/543.jpg

Figure 4. Thirty day pH records of areas of oceanic upwelling. This upwelling occurs, among other places, along the western shores of the continents.

Here we see even greater swings of pH, much larger than the possible predicted change from CO2. Remember that this is only over the period of a month, so there will likely be an annual component to the variation as well.



Figure 5 shows what is going on in kelp forests.

Figure 5. pH records in kelp forests


https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/10/544.jpg

Again we see a variety of swings of pH, both long- and short-term. Inshore, we find even larger swings, as shown in Figure 6.



Figure 6. Two pH records from a near-shore and an estuarine oceanic environment.


https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/10/545.jpg

Again we see large pH changes in a very short period of time, both in the estuary and the near-shore area.



My conclusions from all of this?

First, there are a number of places in the ocean where the pH swings are both rapid and large. The life in those parts of the ocean doesn’t seem to be bothered by either the size or the speed these swings.

Second, the size of the possible pH change by 2100 is not large compared to the natural swings.

Third, due to a host of buffering mechanisms in the ocean, the possible pH change by 2100 may be smaller, but is unlikely to be larger, than the forecast estimate shown above.

Fourth, I would be very surprised if we’re still burning much fossil fuel ninety years from now. Possible, but doubtful in my book. So from this effect as well, the change in oceanic pH may well be less than shown above.

Fifth, as the authors commented, some parts of the ocean are already experiencing conditions that were not forecast to arrive until 2100 … and are doing so with no ill effects.


As a result, I’m not particularly concerned about a small change in oceanic pH from the change in atmospheric CO2. The ocean will adapt, some creatures’ ranges will change a bit, some species will be slightly advantaged and others slightly disadvantaged. But CO2 has been high before this. Overall, making the ocean slightly more neutral will likely be beneficial to life, which doesn’t like alkalinity but doesn’t mind acidity at all.

Finally, let me say that I love scientific studies like this, that actually use real observations rather than depending on theory and models. For some time now I’ve been pointing out that oceanic pH is not constant … but until this study I didn’t realize how variable it actually is. It is a measure of the “ivory tower” nature of much of climate science that the hysteria about so-called “acidification” has been going on for so long without an actual look at the actual ocean to see what difference a small change towards neutrality might actually make.


NOTE: For those hard-core scientists that still want to call adding a small amount of acid to a basic solution “acidifying” the basic solution, and who claim that is the only correct “scientific terminology”, I recommend that you look at and adopt the scientific terminology from titration. That’s the terminology used when actually measuring pH in the lab. In that terminology, when you move towards neutral (pH 7), it’s called “neutralization”.

Read more;
The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface, and warmer than any period since 1850, and probably warmer than any time in the past 1,400 years.

---

sure, nobody would argue with that, there is lots of proof

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Since 1950, the report's authors say, humanity is clearly responsible for more than half of the observed increase in temperatures.

---

but that has little or no proof, merely conjecture and postulate

even if humanity was responsible for some of the warming, in the end it will make little difference

if we are in a warming stage, it will get warmer; if it is just a short term blip, then the climate may get cooler. Either way, nobody will be around to make measurements

London – October 3rd 2013: An international panel of marine scientists is demanding urgent remedies to halt ocean degradation based on findings that the rate, speed and impacts of change in the global ocean are greater, faster and more imminent than previously thought.

Results from the latest International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO)/IUCN review of science on anthropogenic stressors on the ocean go beyond the conclusion reached last week by the UN climate change panel the IPCC that the ocean is absorbing much of the warming and unprecedented levels of carbon dioxide and warn that the cumulative impact of this with other ocean stressors is far graver than previous estimates.

Decreasing oxygen levels in the ocean caused by climate change and nitrogen runoff, combined with other chemical pollution and rampant overfishing are undermining the ability of the ocean to withstand these so-called ‘carbon perturbations’, meaning its role as Earth’s ‘buffer’ is seriously compromised.

Professor Alex Rogers of Somerville College, Oxford, and Scientific Director of IPSO said: “The health of the ocean is spiraling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.”

The findings, published in the peer review journal Marine Pollution Bulletin, are part of an ongoing assessment process overseen by IPSO, which brings together scientists from a range of marine disciplines. The body’s previous 2011 report, which warned of the threat of ‘globally significant’ extinctions of marine species, received global media attention and has been cited in hearings at the United Nations, US Senate and European Parliament as well as the UK Parliament,....

Among the latest assessments of factors affecting ocean health, the panel identified the following areas as of greatest cause for concern:

Acidification: If current levels of CO2 release continue we can expect extremely serious consequences for ocean life, and in turn food and coastal protection; at CO2 concentrations of 450-500 ppm (projected in 2030-2050) erosion will exceed calcification in the coral reef building process, resulting in the extinction of some species and decline in biodiversity overall.

Warming: As made clear by the IPCC, the ocean is taking the brunt of warming in the climate system, with direct and well-documented physical and biogeochemical consequences. The impacts which continued warming is projected to have in the decades to 2050 include: reduced seasonal ice zones, including the disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice by ca. 2037; increasing stratification of ocean layers, leading to oxygen depletion; increased venting of the GHG methane from the Arctic seabed (a factor not considered by the IPCC); and increased incidence of anoxic and hypoxic (low oxygen) events.

The IUCN’s Professor Dan Laffoley said: “What these latest reports make absolutely clear is that deferring action will increase costs in the future and lead to even greater, perhaps irreversible, losses. The UN climate report confirmed that the ocean is bearing the brunt of human-induced changes to our planet. These findings give us more cause for alarm – but also a roadmap for action. We must use it. “

much more: http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/...2013-FINAL.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

As a result, I’m not particularly concerned about a small change in oceanic pH from the change in atmospheric CO2. The ocean will adapt, some creatures’ ranges will change a bit, some species will be slightly advantaged and others slightly disadvantaged. But CO2 has been high before this. Overall, making the ocean slightly more neutral will likely be beneficial to life, which doesn’t like alkalinity but doesn’t mind acidity at all.

---

Here's the guy who is not particularly concerned about rising pH in the ocean.

<B>

Quote:

---

Willis Eschenbach

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/10/700.jpg


Willis Eschenbach

Credentials

• California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974).
• B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. (1975).

Background

Willis Eschenbach has worked as a Construction Manager at Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji Sport Fishing guide in Alaska and more recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil.
He is a blogger at climate change skeptic blog Watts Up With That (WUWT), and his work is often referenced by Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit.
http://www.desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach

---

Here's what the sane world of science has to say:

Quote:

---

The acidity of global surface waters has increased by 30% in just the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected through the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems.
Endorsed by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) stated the following.

"The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer."
- The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009

As surface waters become more acidic, it becomes more difficult for marine life like corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on them.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming.htm

---

Now, back to that doctor and the heart attack analogy.... Kinda makes you think, doesn't it.
</B>

Any conclusions on this yet?


10,000 Walrus Come Ashore in Northwest Alaska - ABC News


https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif


An estimated 10,000 walrus unable to find sea ice over shallow Arctic Ocean water have come ashore on Alaska's northwest coast.

Scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Friday photographed walrus packed onto a beach on a barrier island near Point Lay, an Inupiat Eskimo village 300 miles southwest of Barrow and 700 miles northwest of Anchorage.

The walrus have been coming to shore since mid-September. The large herd was spotted during NOAA's annual arctic marine mammal aerial survey, an effort conducted with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the agency that conducts offshore lease sales.

An estimated 2,000 to 4,000 walrus were photographed at the site Sept. 12. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that manages walrus, immediately took steps to prevent a stampede among the animals packed shoulder to shoulder on the rocky coastline. The agency works with villages to keep people and airplanes a safe distance from herds.

Young animals are especially vulnerable to stampedes triggered by a polar bear, a human hunter or a low-flying airplane. The carcasses of more than 130 mostly young walruses were counted after a stampede in September 2009 at Alaska's Icy Cape.

The gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed.

Pacific walrus spend winters in the Bering Sea. Females give birth on sea ice and use ice as a diving platform to reach snails, clams and worms on the shallow continental shelf.

As temperatures warm in summer, the edge of the sea ice recedes north. Females and their young ride the edge of the sea ice into the Chukchi Sea. However, in recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water 10,000 feet deep or more where walrus cannot dive to the bottom.

Walrus in large numbers were first spotted on the U.S. side of the Chukchi Sea in 2007. They returned in 2009, and in 2011, scientists estimated 30,000 walruses along one kilometer of beach near Point Lay.

Remnant ice kept walrus offshore in 2008 and again last year.
The goal of the marine mammals survey is to record the abundance of bowhead, gray, minke, fin and beluga whales plus other marine mammals in areas of potential oil and natural gas development, said NOAA Fisheries marine mammal scientist Megan Ferguson in an announcement.

"In addition to photographing the walrus haulout area, NOAA scientists documented more bowhead whales, including calves and feeding adults in the Beaufort Sea this summer compared to 2012," said Ferguson. "We are also seeing more gray whale calves in the Chukchi Sea than we have in recent years."

Environmental groups say the loss of sea ice due to climate warming is harming marine mammals and oil and gas development would add to their stress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

As a result, I’m not particularly concerned about a small change in oceanic pH from the change in atmospheric CO2. The ocean will adapt, some creatures’ ranges will change a bit, some species will be slightly advantaged and others slightly disadvantaged. But CO2 has been high before this. Overall, making the ocean slightly more neutral will likely be beneficial to life, which doesn’t like alkalinity but doesn’t mind acidity at all.

---

Here's the guy who is not particularly concerned about rising pH in the ocean.

<B>

Quote:

---

Willis Eschenbach

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/10/700.jpg


Willis Eschenbach

Credentials

• California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974).
• B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. (1975).

Background

Willis Eschenbach has worked as a Construction Manager at Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji Sport Fishing guide in Alaska and more recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil.
He is a blogger at climate change skeptic blog Watts Up With That (WUWT), and his work is often referenced by Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit.
http://www.desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach

---

Here's what the sane world of science has to say:

Quote:

---

The acidity of global surface waters has increased by 30% in just the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected through the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems.
Endorsed by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) stated the following.

"The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer."
- The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009

As surface waters become more acidic, it becomes more difficult for marine life like corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on them.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming.htm

---

Now, back to that doctor and the heart attack analogy.... Kinda makes you think, doesn't it.
</B>

---

To start with, Willis Essenbach didn't write Watt's theory or opinion on oceanic pH levels.

---
Secondly, oceanic pH levels vary constantly between 7.1 < 8.4 aprox.

Oceanic [B]acidity levels increase[/B] as CO2 is increasingly absorbed.

A cool ocean absorbs CO2 more efficiently than a warming one.

Increase in sea temperatures results in less CO2 being absorbed by the oceans, as is now being established.

The result is a decline in oceanic absorbtion of atmospheric, thus a decline in acidification rate of oceans.

---
From your above post;
"The acidity of global surface waters has increased by 30% in just the last 200 years.

This rate of acidification is projected through the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems."

Well, well, if ......."this rate of acidification is projected".... right, you can then exterpolate the data given to get a real panic going, a disaster must be imminent!!!! :rolleyes:

True, global surface water pH levels have increased, but deep ocean (< 4 miles deep) pH levels, being denser are more saline and thus more alkaline than surface water which is less saline, thus less alkaline, so tending closer to acidic, between 7.1 < 8.4 pH.

If the oceanic pH level tended above or below the 7.1 < 8.4 pH mark, oceanic life as we know it would die out, an arragonite sea would be the result, where molluscs etc form shells from arragonite, not calcite (which contains carbon), this being an extinction phase sea condition, which we're entering now, similar to the PETM the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 65 million years ago.

---
Also from your post above:
""The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer."

The current rapid change in pH is largely due to increased anthropogenic causes of increased atmospheric and environmental Carbon and CO2 over the last two centuries, resulting in a rapid increase in surface water acidification which fluctuates seasonally, depending primarily on rain fall patterns and volumes of fresh water running into the oceans, so diluting them.

When sea temperatures were colder, (at the start of the industrial revolution, two hundred years ago or so), absorbtion of CO2 was more rapid, increasing oceanic acidification, so decreasing pH levels until finally it's dropped to 8.14 pH.

The change rate from 8.25 > 8.14 pH represents the 30% change in pH that your post refers to.
---
From your reference above:
"As surface waters become more acidic, it becomes more difficult for marine life like corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival,..."


Naturally, and in an acidified ocean, deposition and sedimentation of carbonates and further dissolution of existing carbonates leads to a higher alkaline level, thus denser deep sea water, so colder, increasing the speed of the thermohaline cycle again and bringing on another climate change, but in reverse to the current one.

But then, that's just my point of view. :)
In summary, the seas will NEVER become acidic, it's too full of SALT.

^^ Some would say that it's all created by Al Gore and his spin doctors,....tell that to the walrus! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

To start with, Willis Essenbach didn't write Watt's theory or opinion on oceanic pH levels.

---

Almost forgot

Quote:

---

Anthony Watts isn't too bright. So far HotWhopper has observed that he's:


flunked grade school arithmetic

• flunked climatology 101 - he doesn't even understand temperature anomalies
• and now he's flunked ocean chemistry (archived here).

Anthony writes on his anti-science blog, wattsupwiththat:
...What they fail to note is that the oceans still haven’t turned acidic at the end of their model projections.
The world's oceans are acidifying but they are not "turning acidic". That would be extremely difficult because the ocean is a buffered solution. I came across an article that explains the chemical reactions in the ocean in terms most high school students should understand. It explains how the pH of the ocean is falling and the ocean is losing calcium carbonate.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/anthony-watts-flunks-ocean-chemistry-at.html

---

So? Did you know that Dubya Bush got his university degree on a "C",...and good golly, he even became the President the Commander in Chief of America!
Shoot the messenger seems to be your only scientific thinking in the climate debate, so I hazard a guess that you're an American.

Never mind, it still stands, as Watts says too,

The oceans can't become acidic, they are inherently alkaline, just way too much sodium chloride dissolved in the water, and the warmer the climate, the warmer the seas so that less CO2 can be absorbed, so a lower rate of increase in acidification of oceans, both at the surface and through to deep ocean levels.

"

what we have to look forward to if we don't act http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/Publi...Mora%20038.pdf

https://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/u.../temp_soon.jpg

Climate scientists sometimes talk about something called "climate departure" as a way of measuring when climate change has really changed things. It's the moment when average temperatures, either in a specific location or worldwide, become so impacted by climate change that the old climate is left behind. It's a sort of tipping point. And a lot of cities are scheduled to hit one very soon.

The cities marked by dark red dots are projected to hit climate departure really, really soon. Bad news: Many of these are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Lagos, Africa's largest city, with a population 21 million and rising, is already vulnerable to flooding. It's got only 16 years before it hits climate departure. Also vulnerable are Caribbean cities such as Kingston, Jamaica, which passes the tipping point in 2023.

The light red cities have a bit more time but are some of the most worrying cases, including megacities in China and India, not to mention the major urban centers of the Middle East. Food insecurity and drought are difficult issues in many of these areas. The fact that these cities pass climate departure so soon is a scary reminder of how rapidly they're going to feel the effects of climate change.

_________________________

Ecological and societal disruptions by modern climate change are critically determined by the time frame over which climates shift beyond historical analogues. Here we present a new index of the year when the projected mean climate of a given location moves to a state continuously outside the bounds of historical variability under alternative greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Using 1860 to 2005 as the historical period, this index has a global mean of 2069 (±18 years s.d.) for near-surface air temperature under an emissions stabilization scenario and 2047 (±14 years s.d.) under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario. Unprecedented climates will occur earliest in the tropics and among low-income countries, highlighting the vulnerability of global biodiversity and the limited governmental capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change. Our findings shed light on the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions if climates potentially harmful to biodiversity and society are to be prevented.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture12540.html

No water in the Middle East? Where will we get our terrorists?

^^ It's actually slightly worse than that map since:

1. If the economies of Europe and the US recover, it's likely that emissions will exceed the RCP85 pathway which that map is based on (prior to the financial crisis, growth in emissions was certainly above that level).

2. The historical data on which this is based already includes the influence of ACC. As it says in the paper "the climate surpasses the bounds of historical variability about 18.5 years earlier under RCP45, and 11.5 years earlier under RCP85 when using historical simulations that excluded anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing (historicalNat experiment) compared with those that included it (historical experiment). We did not use the historicalNat experiment in our main results because it was available for only 17 out of 39 Earth System Models in CMIP5 (Extended Data Table 1) and this would have sacrificed the robustness obtained by using all available models."

Quote:

---

what we have to look forward to if we don't act

---

The alternative scenario delays this by about 20 years. That is based on CO2e of (I think) about 560ppm by 2100. In the absence of either an economic cataclysm or some very surprising news about fossil fuel reserves, that's an extremely optimistic forecast so this is really what we have to look forward to, whatever we do.

Well, you can't argue with Science or else you'll be accused of being a Science-Denier! :)

An unbiased economic scorecard shows that global warming provides a net 1.3% GDP gain so far.

“It will come as a big surprise that climate change from 1900 to 2025 has mostly been a net benefit, rising to increase welfare about 1.5% of GDP per year. Why? Because global warming has mixed effects and for moderate warming, the benefits prevail. The increased level of CO₂ has boosted agriculture because it works as a fertilizer and makes up the biggest positive impact at 0.8% of GDP. Likewise, moderate warming avoids more cold deaths than it incurs extra heat deaths. It also reduces the demand for heating more than increases the costs of cooling, totaling about 0.4%.”

Global Warming? Number of 100 Degree Days In USA During 2013 Lowest In 100 Years:

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

11:50 AM | 2013 – a year with minimal extreme weather events in the US « The SI Weather

But we're sure as the Science is in that this is a sure sign of MMGW! :)

Paging Al Gore! :rofl:

^ Cherry pick much? :chitown:

Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science.

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/10/3805.jpg

Have y'all noticed media stories start slowly to change their line on climate change, from “Not So Serious After All” to “Benefits of Global Warming,” and eventually to “Never Mind.”? Looks like we're in Phase Two right now.

Yep, all of a sudden that "Science is In" thing, isn't so "In" anymore.

To wit:

Why Climate Change Is Good For The World

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

"Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth."

Why climate change is good for the world » The Spectator

Al Gore and the OZ Carbon Credit Tax deal-thing are going to be so disappointed...:rolleyes:

Back in the real world-
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Senator Bernie Sanders Statement on Global Warming


“Global warming is the most serious environmental crisis facing the world today. It demands bold action to preserve our planet for our children and grandchildren. I applaud the president for saying he will take steps to limit heat-trapping pollution from coal-fired power plants and boost renewable energy production. These steps will help not only the environment but the economy too by creating many, many jobs. But let’s be clear: much more must be done.
“The president must support a tax on carbon and methane emissions to show the world that the United States is prepared to transform our energy system and be an international leader on climate change. The president must demand that Congress work with him to dramatically improve energy efficiency and to greatly increase our utilization of solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy. "

^
Bernie Sanders - extreme left-wing kook, is definitely not 'back in the real world'! :rofl:

Senator Bernie Sanders, the beloved Independent from Vermont, is a refreshing voice in the US Senate. Plain speaking Bernie is the longest serving Independent in the US Congress. He's what a politician SHOULD be- No TV ads, no fancy consultants no big corporate donors. The staunchly progressive Vermont senator talks about real issues and listens to voters.

Senator Sanders focus has been on the shrinking middle class and widening income gap in America that is greater than at any time since the Great Depression. Other priorities include reversing global warming, universal health care, fair trade policies, supporting veterans and preserving family farms.

No wonder Rethuglikkkans and Teanderthals hate this guy.

Global Warming is Real - YouTube

Hold on to your seats for a minute.

Turns out Al Gore is full of shit! :rofl:

Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.’

Tornadoes: ‘lowest total in several decades’

Number of wildfires: ‘On pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years’

Extreme Heat: The number of 100 degree days may ‘turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records’

Hurricanes: ‘We are currently in the longest period (8 years) since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)’ ( last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma in 2005)

New Study: ’2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’ | Climate Depot