Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

and in Yorkshire I put the heater on for a while this evening ..

Where did our summer go? Polar air sweeping down from Canada causes downpours and unusually cold weather across U.S.

Massive southern dip in jet stream forcing cold air down from Arctic Circle down into central United States
Overnight temperatures as low as 4C felt as far south as Kentucky and as far west as Kansas and Nebraska
Cold weather caused by Typhoon Neoguri, which hit Japan last week and disrupted North Pacific jet stream
Yesterday a midday high of just 18C broke a 130-year-old record for Minnesota's coldest ever July 14

Polar air from Canada causes downpours in US and unusually cold weather | Mail Online

The world already is nearly five times as dangerous and disaster prone as it was in the 1970s, because of the increasing risks brought by climate change, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organisation.
The first decade of the 21st century saw 3,496 natural disasters from floods, storms, droughts and heat waves. That was nearly five times as many disasters as the 743 catastrophes reported during the 1970s – and all of those weather events are influenced by climate change.

The bottom line: natural disasters are occurring nearly five times as often as they were in the 1970s. But some disasters – such as floods and storms – pose a bigger threat than others. Flooding and storms are also taking a bigger bite out of the economy. But heat waves are an emerging killer.

Eight ways climate change is making the world more dangerous | Environment | theguardian.com


Link to World Meteorological Organistaion report.


http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/drr/tr...las_120614.pdf

Originally Posted by blue

Yesterday a midday high of just 18C broke a 130-year-old record for Minnesota's coldest ever July 14

Love reading this thread.

It's always full of good news. Lower heating costs for all.
Yay!

Potential heat death for millions in the equatorial regions. Thailand mostly abandoned. Yay! Chinese interesting times ahead...

Great idea from Skeptical Science to bring awareness to the subject of Global Warming. For the next 97 hours Skeptical Science will be publishing a statement and playful, hand-drawn caricature of 97 climate scientists (not science/Global Warming denying trolls) addressing one of the most significant and harmful myths about climate change.

97 hours of climate experts

''Consensus is central to politics but irrelevant to science where logic and data prevail''
as stated below , much more likely that the climate is driven by cosmic rays.


Global warming just eco-religion? - Daily Inter Lake: Opinion

Global warming just eco-religion?

....liberals like Bill Baum believe the global warming hoax because their environmental religion requires it.
Baum hangs his June 29 rebuttal of my March 7 talk on a second hoax perpetuated to support the global warming hoax, namely, that 97 percent of scientists believe human CO2 causes significant global warming.



Consensus is central to politics but irrelevant to science where logic and data prevail. A simple Internet search of “97 percent of scientists” finds a dozen articles that prove the oft-quoted 97-percent claim is an urban myth.
The primary source of this hoax comes from a report by Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland. Cook claims to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles.
Cook’s report says 97.1 percent of the reviewed abstracts conclude “humans are causing global warming.” Well, by how much? Everyone agrees there is a very small effect. So this statement means nothing. Cook made the mistake of including in his 97 percent, papers by well-known skeptical scientists.
In 2013, Legates et al published a recount of Cook’s data that shows only 64, or 0.5 percent, of 11,944 papers published since 1991 say “most” warming since 1950 was manmade.
Here’s a short summary of my talk on March 7:
In the last 600 million years, our solar system passed through four spiral arms of our Milky Way. Earth’s average temperature was 22C when outside our galaxy’s spirals arms but decreased when inside each spiral arm, where cosmic rays are stronger.
From 450 to 420 million years ago, Earth passed through the Perseus spiral arm and average temperature dropped to 12C even while CO2 concentration was at 4,500 ppm, 11 times today’s CO2 concentration. These temperature drops during high CO2 contradict the global warming hypothesis. Upon exiting the Perseus spiral arm, Earth’s temperature returned to 22C.
From 320 to 270 million years ago, Earth passed through the Norma spiral arm and the temperature again dropped to 12C, rising again to 22C when Earth exited this spiral arm.
150 to 130 million years ago, the earth passed through the Crux-Scutum spiral arm and the temperature dropped to 16C at the end of the 100 million year Triassic-Jurassic age.
For the last 20 million years, Earth has been in the Orion Spur spiral arm and temperature dropped to 12C to 16C.
This shows CO2 has little effect on Earth’s temperature but cosmic rays cause temperature to drop by increasing cloud cover.
Shortening our time scale, we live in the fifth 12,000-year warm period of the last 420,000 years and we have pretty much used up our 12,000 years. We are living in the fourth mini-warm period of the last 3,000 years where each succeeding warm period has been cooler.
In 1820, Earth began its recovery from the Little Ice Age. This natural warming has continued with superimposed ocean cycles to today. Glaciers began to shorten in 1820, about 140 years before humans began to emit significant CO2.
Humans caused only 3 percent of the CO2 increase since 1958. Nature caused 97 percent. Even if we stopped all human CO2 emissions, we would have no effect on climate.
Natural CO2 emissions and absorptions are each 40 times human emissions, and the small difference determines whether CO2 rises or falls.
Nature easily compensates for human emissions. Claims that human CO2 emissions have “tipped” some “natural balance” is a doctrine of eco-religion but has no basis in physics.
AIRS satellite data show warmer oceans, not humans, produce most CO2 emissions, and America’s vegetation absorbs more CO2 than its humans emit. Industrialized countries are more CO2 friendly than Third World countries.
RSS satellite data show no global warming for 17 years. The Central England Temperature Record shows no warming for 25 years.
All 73 climate models way over-predict actual temperature increase, and the models to not agree among themselves. The scientific method requires we reject the global warming hypothesis because its predictions do not match data.
Montana’s average temperature has decreased by 0.6F per decade since 1997. Glacier Park Superintendent Jeff Mow’s politically derived claim that human CO2 caused his glaciers to melt has no scientific support.
New analyses prove temperature drives CO2 change. CO2 does not drive temperature. Game over for global warming. (For details see my website PolyMontana.com.)
Our biggest threat comes not from human CO2 emissions but from people who believe what is not so.
Berry, of Bigfork, has a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics and is a former National Science Foundation program manager for weather modification.

99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study

There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, our new research shows.
Published in the journal Climate Risk Management today, our research is the first to quantify the probability of historical changes in global temperatures and examines the links to greenhouse gas emissions using rigorous statistical techniques.
Our new CSIRO work provides an objective assessment linking global temperature increases to human activity, which points to a close to certain probability exceeding 99.999%.
Our work extends existing approaches undertaken internationally to detect climate change and attribute it to human or natural causes. The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report provided an expert consensus that:

It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

Decades of extraordinary temperatures

July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. The last time the global average surface temperature fell below that 20th-century monthly average was in February 1985, as reported by the US-based National Climate Data Center.
This means that anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month.
We developed a statistical model that related global temperature to various well-known drivers of temperature variation, including El Niño, solar radiation, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gas concentrations. We tested it to make sure it worked on the historical record and then re-ran it with and without the human influence of greenhouse gas emissions.
Our analysis showed that the probability of getting the same run of warmer-than-average months without the human influence was less than 1 chance in 100,000.
We do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, which has the advantage that it provides independent validation of the results.
Detecting and measuring human influence

Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence.
We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined.
Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.
There was less than 1 chance in 100,000 of observing 11 or fewer such events without the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions.
The problem and the solution

Why is this research important? For a start, it might help put to rest some common misunderstandings about there being no link between human activity and the observed, long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.
Our analysis – as well as the work of many others – shows beyond reasonable doubt that humans are contributing to significant changes in our climate.
Good risk management is all about identifying the most likely causes of a problem, and then acting to reduce those risks. Some of the projected impacts of climate change can be avoided, reduced or delayed by effective reduction in global net greenhouse gas emissions and by effective adaptation to the changing climate.
Ignoring the problem is no longer an option. If we are thinking about action to respond to climate change or doing nothing, with a probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced, we certainly shouldn’t be taking the chance of doing nothing.


https://theconversation.com/99-999-c...ew-study-29911

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Yes that is a real and present thread. But it will cause spiralling global warming. An ice age may be a local event in europe as a result. But that is just a minor inconvenience in comparison what happens all over the world in that scenario and it is not a cooling.

Yes it will. Very severe and very quickly. Can you imagine 130 F in populated areas? How long are those temps survivable? The point about the ice age that follows is that the methane dissipates fairly quickly about 30 years and its gone. After 30 years of extreme temps and weather the human race will be decimated and there will be no significant greenhouse gasses to keep the planet from going into another ice age.

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

Yes it will. Very severe and very quickly. Can you imagine 130 F in populated areas? How long are those temps survivable? The point about the ice age that follows is that the methane dissipates fairly quickly about 30 years and its gone. After 30 years of extreme temps and weather the human race will be decimated and there will be no significant greenhouse gasses to keep the planet from going into another ice age.

Is that from the book? If yes it is another bullshit part of it. True that methane will disappear over time as it is consumed by the biosphere and the extreme spike of warming will end. But that would not cause an ice age. When indstrial CO2 emission ceases the best that would happen over time is that the atmospheric CO2 level declines slowly as the oceans and plants suck it up. Pre industrial levels won't cause an Ice Age. Other external influences might but there are irreversable effects. No ice at the north pole means the ocean will absorb sun heat in the summer that an ice cap would reflect back into space. So once the north polar ice cap has gone it will not come back.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

So once the north polar ice cap has gone it will not come back.

So how have previous ice ages started if not by a quick warming followed by a rapid cooling?

Are you saying the earth will just keep getting hotter and hotter indefinitely? Would the earth turn into another Venus? Why hasn't it happened already when other factors caused rapid climate warming (solar, volcanic, meteoric, etc) in previous eras?

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

Are you saying the earth will just keep getting hotter and hotter indefinitely? Would the earth turn into another Venus? Why hasn't it happened already when other factors caused rapid climate warming (solar, volcanic, meteoric, etc) in previous eras?

The earth will find a new equilibrium. It will even be survivable by humans, no doomsday, no problem. But maybe not for a technical civilization. Back to a sustainable number of people, maybe a few hundred thousand or a few millions.

Research of climate history has found that the last few 10s of thousands of years had an unusually stable climate. It is speculated that this has made development of large early cultures and the eventual rise of our technological society possible.

We are going to end this phase, it seems. Of course, sooner or later it would have ended anyway but we are pushing the end forward.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study

There is less than...

<snip>

Here's a 99.999999% certainty: most people don't give a fart.

Originally Posted by JetsetBkk

Here's a 99.999999% certainty: most people don't give a fart.

If true that would have one advantage, less methane.

Otherwise it is a pity, when people don't care about impending desaster.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by JetsetBkk

Here's a 99.999999% certainty: most people don't give a fart.

If true that would have one advantage, less methane.

Otherwise it is a pity, when people don't care about impending desaster.

The problem is, most people I talk to simply don't believe there is going to be a disaster. They now distrust the "experts" and scientists. They are more worried about Ukraine, ebola, IS, etc.

Originally Posted by JetsetBkk

The problem is, most people I talk to simply don't believe there is going to be a disaster. They now distrust the "experts" and scientists.

Then stop talking to idiots.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by JetsetBkk

The problem is, most people I talk to simply don't believe there is going to be a disaster. They now distrust the "experts" and scientists.

Then stop talking to idiots.

It's not easy. There is so much obfuscation spread that for the average person it's hard to look through. Much easier to see the bullshit when you have been interested for a while. And then there are always the conspiracy theorists. For them it is sufficient proof to be wrong if the government or government agencies say it.

I find it hard to keep up.
So it wasn't Co2 after all but methane, and it's going to kill us all before nightfall ?

Have any alarmists admitted they got it wrong on Carbon dioxide ?

No one listens to the boy who cries wolf anymore ...

Originally Posted by blue

I find it hard to keep up.
So it wasn't Co2 after all but methane, and it's going to kill us all before nightfall ?

Have any alarmists admitted they got it wrong on Carbon dioxide ?

No one listens to the boy who cries wolf anymore ...

Sigh!

For you in simple words. CO2 is causing global warming. That results in thawing of the permafrost, mainly in Siberia, maybe Alaska. The permafrost is sealing a huge amount of organic material and methane that are going to be released as a result, greatly accelerating global warming, because methane is an even much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

Methane is retained in the atmosphere for a shorter period than CO2, because it is easier consumed in biological processes. But it will stay in the atmosphere long enough to cause spiraling up global warming before that source is exhausted and the methane consumed.

The 97 hours of the consensus project is over and now it's time to let everyone know about another climate change awareness project.

September 21st, 2014 there will be a march in New York (and some other places around the world) to bring more awareness to Climate Change where the UN will be holding a Climate Summit on the 23rd of September (world leaders will be in town).

I think I read they are expecting 200,000 people, in New York.

'Disruption' is a movie by and for the climate movement. You can watch it online in the link provided.

The 97 hours of consensus project created some attention and hopefully this march on September 21st will also bring some much needed attention to the subject.

There’s no debate