Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14021 - 14040 of total 26937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:46pm PT
Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the past 30 years (ad 1971–2000), the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 27, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
Is indeed what "Policy Makers" Globally will be looking at KMAN. This report is the one your PRESIDENT is already making comments related to future Policy Making.


Right you are. He and his staff will be looking at both the summary, and at the full report (which they already have).

Hey, did you see this? This is what the President will be looking at:


STOCKHOLM, 27 September
-
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident in most regions of the globe, a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

...

Warming in the climate system is unequivocal and since 1950 many changes have been observed throughout the climate system that are unprecedented over decades to millennia. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850, reports the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Working Group I assessment report, Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis, approved on Friday by member governments of the IPCC in Stockholm, Sweden.

“Observations of changes in the climate system are based on multiple lines of independent evidence. Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased,” said Qin Dahe, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

Thomas Stocker, the other Co-Chair of Working Group I said: "Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2°C for the two high scenarios,” said Co-Chair Thomas Stocker. “Heat waves are very likely to occur more frequently and last longer. As the Earth warms, we expect to see currently wet regions receiving more rainfall, and dry regions receiving less, although there will be exceptions,” he added.

...

“As the ocean warms, and glaciers and ice sheets reduce, global mean sea level will continue to rise, but at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years,” said Co-Chair Qin Dahe.

The report finds with high confidence that ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010.


So you and your right-wing blogs can try to pick it apart all you want, but you gotta realize, you're arguing with physical science.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:49pm PT
Can't wait to see how many of these we will see in the next 2-3 Years.

It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment 2
refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:51pm PT
holy sh#t chief

a PARAGRAPH!

surely there must be more!

you must have found that in the Daily Koss, therefore a LIE
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:53pm PT
Just curious, when you guys search for this crap, is it a general search on climate change, or do you atively seek data that supports your POV?

Would you or do you take the time or bother to acknowledge research and data that conflicts with your opinion?

I mean, lets face it- the only point you all agree on is that not everything published is correct. Oops, probably not even that.

Its like when during an argument with my ex i claimed she shared similar traits with an ex girlfriend, after which the ex wife would not acknowlege the exgirlfriend as even human.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 27, 2013 - 02:53pm PT
The Chief, you pick a report that's almost four years old.

Why not talk about what's being released today?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 27, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
jonnyrig, I generally go with what 95+% of the climate scientists have to say.

Why should I put chips on the wing-nut fringe who are sponsored by those with deep fossil-fuel pockets?
command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
Desperate times in climate alarmism


A more accurate description of all this Climate Armageddon storm and fury
would be another
(native American) Lakota phrase, tatonka chesli,
meaning “big bull excrement.”

Indeed, Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister, Tony Abbot, has said
claims that humans are causing dangerous climate change are “complete crap.”


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/26/desperate-times-in-climate-alarmism/




mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
hahahaaaa... 1 paragraph in a 900+ document didn't adhere to the strict standards... the mistake was acknowledged and corrected... god damn, this conspiracy runs deep!
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:58pm PT
Why not talk about what's being released today?

Ah, I did.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

The post above is an addendum to CTA their asses after the AR4 stated the Glaciers in the Himalaya's would disappear by 2030ish.

Remember!


Can't wait to see how many of these we will see in the next 2-3 Years.

It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment 2
refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf[/quote]
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Sep 27, 2013 - 03:04pm PT
holy sh#t chief
a PARAGRAPH!
surely there must be more!


Actually, there is less. Here are the 3 volumes of AR4, zooming in on the volume, page, paragraph and two sentences containing that Himalayan glacier mistake (from this ST post last year).









So that's it folks, now you've seen the real glaciergate. Two grammatically incoherent and mutually contradictory sentences that are false in many ways, credited to a WWF report but not really from there either; they're just a mess. These two sentences don't agree with each other or anything else in the 2,823 page AR4, and the glacier scientists sure wish one of them had reviewed this paragraph and caught the obvious confusion.

If anyone is curious just how those two sentences did get in there, the definitive forensic analysis has been done by a couple of hard-working Yale sleuths.


http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 27, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
So The Chief, if I pointed to references in AR4 that turned out to be true, would you take notice? Or how about if things are actually worse today than as they were as published in AR4? What then?

Don't bother answering.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Sep 27, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
science marches on:
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021908905_apeuclimatechange.html

meanwhile The Chuff and Rong keep blowing hot air (maybe it's their fault..... alone?)
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
The Hiatus.

The Hiatus.


Down played and revised in the past week per Nations whining about the original verbiage stating it's existence in the "Complete" report that will released on Monday.


The Hiatus will indeed be the Himalayan Glacier projection of this report. But a far worse spear in the IPCC's side than that ever was.




monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 27, 2013 - 03:08pm PT
Yes, the 'hiatus'.

Look very closely, it's there.



It's also here too, right?

command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Sep 27, 2013 - 03:16pm PT
We believe in the scientific method.
Hypotheses, assertions, models and scary scenarios must be supported by
actual evidence, data and observations – before we acquiesce to demands
that we hogtie our energy system, economy, jobs and living standards.

Up to now you climate wing-nuts have presented no such evidence.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/26/desperate-times-in-climate-alarmism/





rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 27, 2013 - 03:28pm PT
You miss the point Fortmental and others. What I get out of Otto et al and other recent reassessments is that the direct response (TCR) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is trending downwards, however slightly. What they do from here with equilibrium climate sensitivity is consider a raft of positive feedbacks, but not negative feedbacks, to reach ECS. The reassessed TCR is a good start. When the very real negative feedbacks of aerosols, GCR induced cloud increases, oceanic oscillations, fluxes in solar wind and the possibility of prolonged periods of reduced TSI, etc, etc,, begin to be factored in the ECS will come down as well. Eventually, after the demise of IPCC and other alarmist organizations, the consensus will reach equilibrium with reality.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Sep 27, 2013 - 03:37pm PT
The IPCC SPM is our top story today, but science continues on many other fronts as well. I just picked up the 13 Sep issue of Science and noticed these articles:

Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict
A rapidly growing body of research examines whether human conflict can be affected by climatic changes. Drawing from archaeology, criminology, economics, geography, history, political science, and psychology, we assemble and analyze the 60 most rigorous quantitative studies and document, for the first time, a striking convergence of results. We find strong causal evidence linking climatic events to human conflict across a range of spatial and temporal scales and across all major regions of the world. The magnitude of climate’s influence is substantial: for each one standard deviation (1σ) change in climate toward warmer temperatures or more extreme rainfall, median estimates indicate that the frequency of interpersonal violence rises 4% and the frequency of intergroup conflict rises 14%. Because locations throughout the inhabited world are expected to warm 2σ to 4σ by 2050, amplified rates of human conflict could represent a large and critical impact of anthropogenic climate change.

Channelized ice melting in the ocean boundary layer beneath Pine Island Glacier, Antarctica
Ice shelves play a key role in the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheets by buttressing their seaward-flowing outlet glaciers; however, they are exposed to the underlying ocean and may weaken if ocean thermal forcing increases. An expedition to the ice shelf of the remote Pine Island Glacier, a major outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that has rapidly thinned and accelerated in recent decades, has been completed. Observations from geophysical surveys and long-term oceanographic instruments deployed down bore holes into the ocean cavity reveal a buoyancy-driven boundary layer within a basal channel that melts the channel apex by 0.06 meter per day, with near-zero melt rates along the flanks of the channel. A complex pattern of such channels is visible throughout the Pine Island Glacier shelf.

Marine taxa track local climate velocities
Organisms are expected to adapt or move in response to climate change, but observed distribution shifts span a wide range of directions and rates. Explanations often emphasize biological distinctions among species, but general mechanisms have been elusive. We tested an alternative hypothesis: that differences in climate velocity—the rate and direction that climate shifts across the landscape—can explain observed species shifts. We compiled a database of coastal surveys around North America from 1968 to 2011, sampling 128 million individuals across 360 marine taxa. Climate velocity explained the magnitude and direction of shifts in latitude and depth much more effectively than did species characteristics. Our results demonstrate that marine species shift at different rates and directions because they closely track the complex mosaic of local climate velocities.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 27, 2013 - 03:41pm PT
MONO.. WTF is this?
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Sep 27, 2013 - 04:04pm PT
the only point you all agree on is that not everything published is correct.

This doesn't even make any sense.

Scientific papers are correct given the data analyzed. Predictions are limited and qualified as such and may prove incorrect when new data comes in. The denialsphere only point to data taken out of context then re-interpreted through blogs funded by oil/gas/Christian/conservative/libertarian money.

You miss the point Fortmental and others. What I get out of Otto et al and other recent reassessments is that the direct response (TCR) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is trending downwards, however slightly. What they do from here with equilibrium climate sensitivity is consider a raft of positive feedbacks, but not negative feedbacks, to reach ECS. The reassessed TCR is a good start. When the very real negative feedbacks of aerosols, GCR induced cloud increases, oceanic oscillations, fluxes in solar wind and the possibility of prolonged periods of reduced TSI, etc, etc,, begin to be factored in the ECS will come down as well. Eventually, after the demise of IPCC and other alarmist organizations, the consensus will reach equilibrium with reality.

This is like the claim made that arctic ice disappearance is trending downward. You DO realize that you are saying the same thing, don't you?
Messages 14021 - 14040 of total 26937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews