Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
BFB

Global warming at a standstill

183 posts in this topic

If your saying global environmental destruction is a myth then shame on you !!! :gun:

Environments change, there's no 'right' environment, except for the species that depend on them, and seeing as how environments have changed constantly in the past, I don't worry much about the survivability of organic life as a whole on this planet, species may go extinct, but until the sun eats up the Earth, I don't think there's much to fear for the entirety of our world.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming shifts habitats which for many species with short range migratory patterns will cause problems, especially in a fractured habitat mosaic where migration corridors are cut by man made built environments. Extinctions will be likely.

Of course Global warming is merely a symptom of a more general attack on natural habitats and a general buildup of toxic contaminants in the environment. Already there has been a significant loss of biodiversity since the population explosion of the last 50years really took hold. 40% loss of species diversity across wide habitat types has been recorded, and a general acceleration of species extinctions is been recorded in the scientific literature.

In of itself your statement is marginally true - but it is such a narrow perspective on what is actually happening that it is all but meaningless.

Br Cornelius

there has no species loss due to global warming. the opposite is the case, for instance the polar bears have exploded in numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

global warming if anything results in more moisture released from the oceans, which means more rain which means more soil moisture which is what has been measured - deserts are the result of dry conditions, not warming. deserts are decreasing globally.

You should be getting the message by now that Global warming is very localized in its effects. Southern States becoming deserts and northern states getting torrential rain are entirely complementary. The same process is occurring in Europe.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nature editorial - no evidence global warming has caused extreme weather

http://www.nature.co...weather-1.11428

That editorial doesn't say that at all. Try reading it.

It simply says that attribution of any event is difficult if not impossible. Not the same thing as saying there are clear upward trends.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Environments change, there's no 'right' environment, except for the species that depend on them, and seeing as how environments have changed constantly in the past, I don't worry much about the survivability of organic life as a whole on this planet, species may go extinct, but until the sun eats up the Earth, I don't think there's much to fear for the entirety of our world.

Are you therefore happy that we are causing the 6th great extinction ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be getting the message by now that Global warming is very localized in its effects. Southern States becoming deserts and northern states getting torrential rain are entirely complementary. The same process is occurring in Europe.

Br Cornelius

if that were the case then droughts would be increasing. they are not evidenced as increasing according to the ipcc. there is no evidence on a global scale that what you say is happening. if all you do is pick small areas of the globe, then the theory of destructive AGW cannot be falsified because next week you'll be pointing to namibia or china or wherever some weather event happens, so its just a belief not backed by science. you don;t have enough data to say man caused it. Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That editorial doesn't say that at all. Try reading it.

It simply says that attribution of any event is difficult if not impossible. Not the same thing as saying there are clear upward trends.

Br Cornelius

it amounts to the same thing, there is no evidence man is causing extreme weather events.

next you'll be saying global warming is causing the extreme snow in russia, china and israel.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
global_warming_words.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it amounts to the same thing, there is no evidence man is causing extreme weather events.

next you'll be saying global warming is causing the extreme snow in russia, china and israel.

It doesn't amount to anything like the same thing - it is impossible to attribute any single event to global warming, but the probability of an extreme event is going up progressively - that is established statistical fact as I have demonstrated.

By the way - extreme snow events are a particular case of extreme precipitation events - so yes they are caused by climate change.

As to your last comment - I have shown the trends in the extreme precipitation events by siting scientific papers showing statistically significant trends, I have also shown abundantly that records are been broken on an increasingly frequent basis.

A drought is a very specific event over which a thresh-hold has to be crossed in the lack of rainfall - the periods and intensities of heatwaves are increasing by a statistically significant trend. The two things are not the same thing.

The IPCC obviously didn't get your note saying that they said there has been no increase in extreme weather - since they have just released a report on preparedness for extreme events showing the trends upwards;

Geneva, 28 March 2012 – Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in

the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said today. Climate extremes, or even a series of non-extreme events, in combination with social vulnerabilities

and exposure to risks can produce climate-related disasters, the IPCC said in its Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX).

While some extreme weather and climate events lead to disasters, others do not. Policies to avoid,

prepare for, respond to and recover from the risks of disaster can reduce the impact of these events

and increase the resilience of people exposed to extreme events, the IPCC shows in the report,

published on Wednesday 1 .

At the same time, as the IPCC notes in the report, limits to resilience are faced when thresholds or

tipping points associated with social and/or natural systems are exceeded, posing severe challenges

for adaptation.

“The main message from the report is that we know enough to make good decisions about managing

the risks of climate-related disasters. Sometimes we take advantage of this knowledge, but many

times we do not,” said Chris Field, Co-Chair of IPCC’s Working Group II, which together with Working

Group I produced the report. “The challenge for the future has one dimension focused on improving

the knowledge base and one on empowering good decisions, even for those situations where there is

lots of uncertainty,” he said.

The IPCC released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the report in November 2011. The full

report released today provides the basis for the key conclusions first presented in the SPM. It offers a

greater understanding of the human and economic costs of disasters and the physical and social

patterns that cause them. It enables policy-makers to delve into the detailed information behind the

findings to examine the material on which the IPCC based its assessments.

Teamwork across disciplines

The report is the outcome of cross-disciplinary teamwork between scientists studying the physical

aspects of climate change, scientists with expertise in impacts, adaptation and vulnerability as well as

experts in disaster risk management.

http://www.ipcc-wg2....X-All_FINAL.pdf

You really need to educate yourself about the basics.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't amount to anything like the same thing - it is impossible to attribute any single event to global warming, but the probability of an extreme event is going up progressively - that is established statistical fact as I have demonstrated.

By the way - extreme snow events are a particular case of extreme precipitation events - so yes they are caused by climate change.

As to your last comment - I have shown the trends in the extreme precipitation events by siting scientific papers showing statistically significant trends, I have also shown abundantly that records are been broken on an increasingly frequent basis.

A drought is a very specific event over which a thresh-hold has to be crossed in the lack of rainfall - the periods and intensities of heatwaves are increasing by a statistically significant trend. The two things are not the same thing.

The IPCC obviously didn't get your note saying that they said there has been no increase in extreme weather - since they have just released a report on preparedness for extreme events showing the trends upwards;

http://www.ipcc-wg2....X-All_FINAL.pdf

You really need to educate yourself about the basics.

Br Cornelius

195_180_l.jpg

quotes from the SREX report, on trends:

"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"

"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"

"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

"Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research."

http://rogerpielkejr...asters-and.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin it how you want Little Fish, this is what they actually say about the trends. I have highlighted the parts which support my statement that extreme precipitation events have an upward trend;

There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. It is very likely that

there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of

warm days and nights, at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely that these changes

have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium confidence of a

warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily temperature

extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. Globally, in many

(but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat

waves has increased since the middle of the 20th century. It is likely that there have been statistically significant

increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been

statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends. There is

low confidence that any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust,

after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the

main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks.

........

There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including

increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led

to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence

that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale.

http://www.ipcc-wg2....X-All_FINAL.pdf

In all cases of low confidence it is because historic data is inadequate to draw those conclusions - not because the trends do not exist. Confidence of trends in high quality data areas is consistently high.

The attribution of financial losses is similarly plagued by in adequate study but the number of natural disasters (weather related) recorded by the insurance industry has doubled in the last 20years, the trend in none weather related natural disasters shows no upward trend.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I am more than a little bored showing the empircial evidence that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent as a consequence of climate change. Selectively misquoting the IPCC isn't helping your case Little Fish.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin it how you want Little Fish, this is what they actually say about the trends. I have highlighted the parts which support my statement that extreme precipitation events have an upward trend;

"There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, at the global scale"

how much did we pay for that genius?

so the world has warmed, show me someone who claims the world has not been warming since the little ice age.

"Globally, in many (but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves has increased since the middle of the 20th century. It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends"

why is this bad? plants and animals love rain and warmth, that's why they tend to flourish in wet and warm places and flounder in dry and cold areas.

"likely", meaning they are not sure, it doesn't sound empirical, the satellite record shows global precipitation has decreased since 1979. the only trend I'm seeing is catastrophism decreasing.

"There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale"

based on flawed computer models no doubt.

In all cases of low confidence it is because historic data is inadequate to draw those conclusions - not because the trends do not exist.
no evidence is not evidence.
Confidence of trends in high quality data areas is consistently high.

The attribution of financial losses is similarly plagued by in adequate study but the number of natural disasters (weather related) recorded by the insurance industry has doubled in the last 20years, the trend in none weather related natural disasters shows no upward trend.

Br Cornelius

insurance claiming has become an industry unto itself in recent times, higher claims don't mean more damage, it just means more claims.

the world has been warming since the little ice age, warming would be expected to increase evaporation so its logical to expect that rainfall has increased in a warming world, but the global satellite measurements have shown rainfall has decreased globally since 1979 perhaps because in a warming world the atmosphere holds more moisture. "extreme event"- catastrophy has been downgraded into a nebulous phrase. all this however overlooks the central question of attribution of cause, to quote pielke, "What about scientists who do not dispute the "importance of global warming" but can't find the signal in the extremes that they study?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Met office says;

Perhaps the most troubling statistic showed that extreme rainfall, classed as the sort of heavy downpour that occurs once every 100 days on average, is now occurring about once every 70 days, making floods a more frequent phenomenon. The Met Office said the long-term trend towards wetter weather is likely to continue as global air temperatures rise.

Professor Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the Met Office, said: “The trend towards more extreme rainfall events is one we are seeing around the world, in countries such as India and China, and now potentially here in the UK.

http://www.telegraph...treme-rain.html

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Fish - low confidence is a statistical term which accounts for the inadequacies in data. Where data is strong there is high confidence that there are clear trends in extreme weather events - that is clearly what the IPCC is stating. Only when they attempt to bring in all data to make a statement about global trends does the confidence fall due to the weakness of some of the data. They clearly and repeatedly state that there are strong upward and downward trends in extreme weather events in areas of good data, and say the balance is towards more extreme precipitation events.

The satellite data accounts for 30yrs of rainfall - the surface instrumental data in well monitored areas goes back between 100 and 200 years, this is the main data on which trends are calculated. Fixating on the satellite record which is only just statistically significant for calculating any trend misses the wealth of evidence that is out there.

This picture clearly shows whats going on and also why overall global confidence is low;

201211.gif

Remember also that they clearly state that this is just the start of emerging trends with the main shifts to extreme weather events occurring towards the end of the century - that not very reassuring to those recovering from the last two years rash of flooding events across the globe.

If pielke isn't seeing these trends he aint looking hard enough because they are obvious to every one else.

Try understanding what you have actually read.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not prepared to read and assimilate the scientific papers and government agency reports analyzing regional weather trends you are frankly wasting my time.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

global warming if anything results in more moisture released from the oceans, which means more rain which means more soil moisture which is what has been measured - deserts are the result of dry conditions, not warming. deserts are decreasing globally.

The Town of Glencoe, less than fifteen miles from where I sit, will run out of water by late February. There has been no appreciable rain since last spring. Three 5000-gallon trucks are making five round trips a day trying to fend off the problem. Glencoe is only one of several dozen small towns in this area that are about to exhaust their reservoirs. This has never happened before.

Global warming will have different effects in different places. While the net effect will be more rainfall, in general, wet places will get wetter while dry ones get dryer. Oklahoma is getting dryer. That extra water is going where it isn't needed.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Town of Glencoe, less than fifteen miles from where I sit, will run out of water by late February. There has been no appreciable rain since last spring. Three 5000-gallon trucks are making five round trips a day trying to fend off the problem. Glencoe is only one of several dozen small towns in this area that are about to exhaust their reservoirs. This has never happened before.

Global warming will have different effects in different places. While the net effect will be more rainfall, in general, wet places will get wetter while dry ones get dryer. Oklahoma is getting dryer. That extra water is going where it isn't needed.

Doug

you can't be saying that global droughts are increasing because glencoe had a drought?

ipcc draft ar5 - "The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"

no amount of woe and flagellation will change the above statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't be saying that global droughts are increasing because glencoe had a drought?

ipcc draft ar5 - "The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"

no amount of woe and flagellation will change the above statement.

Try assimilating the bits that matter, Doug specifically addressed your comment before you made it;

Global warming will have different effects in different places. While the net effect will be more rainfall, in general, wet places will get wetter while dry ones get dryer. Oklahoma is getting dryer. That extra water is going where it isn't needed.

There is reason to believe that the Lower states of the USA will experience disproportionate rises in drought occurrence which are not revealed by the analysis used by the IPCC for the AR5;

Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models

Aiguo Dai

Historical records of precipitation, streamflow and drought indices all show increased aridity since 1950 over many land areas1, 2. Analyses of model-simulated soil moisture3, 4, drought indices1, 5, 6 and precipitation-minus-evaporation7 suggest increased risk of drought in the twenty-first century. There are, however, large differences in the observed and model-simulated drying patterns1, 2, 6. Reconciling these differences is necessary before the model predictions can be trusted. Previous studies8, 9, 10, 11, 12 show that changes in sea surface temperatures have large influences on land precipitation and the inability of the coupled models to reproduce many observed regional precipitation changes is linked to the lack of the observed, largely natural change patterns in sea surface temperatures in coupled model simulations13. Here I show that the models reproduce not only the influence of El Niño-Southern Oscillation on drought over land, but also the observed global mean aridity trend from 1923 to 2010. Regional differences in observed and model-simulated aridity changes result mainly from natural variations in tropical sea surface temperatures that are often not captured by the coupled models. The unforced natural variations vary among model runs owing to different initial conditions and thus are irreproducible. I conclude that the observed global aridity changes up to 2010 are consistent with model predictions, which suggest severe and widespread droughts in the next 30–90 years over many land areas resulting from either decreased precipitation and/or increased evaporation.

http://www.nature.co...633.html#/ref18

Here is the conclusion of one of the studies on which the IPCC report will be drawn;

In summary, our results emphasise the large uncertainty in the quantification and

projection of drought on the regional scale. However, the large uncertainty range must

not be mistaken for low drought risk, since projections for all regions include the

possibility of increasing drought, even in cases where the average projections point

towards wetter conditions. This is particularly critical as some of these regions are vital

for global food production.

http://www.hydrol-ea...-2012-print.pdf

The trend in drought indeed seems to be weak at present but again this is largely a consequence of historic data inadequacies. Its not so much that they don't expect changes in drough frequency and intensity (since the models predict them), its more a case that they do not feel confident in predicting them with any certainty.

Not so for extreme precipitation events though.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about Global Warming the past couple days..I came up with these three tidbits of info..

1: Bejing China pollution off the index

2. Warmest year in USA

3. Oregon usually considered a rainforest zone along with Washington...No rain yet and February. Now we often get Indian summers but those end in Late October at the latest not Jan/Feb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't be saying that global droughts are increasing because glencoe had a drought?

This time, try reading the post: "Global warming will have different effects in different places."

You got it backwards. Glencoe (In fact, all of Oklahoma.) is in a drought because climate appears to have changed. I say "appears" because we don't yet have the requisite 30 years of data. But, back to 1996, weather does seem to be different than before 1977. It has been noticeable in this area since 2008.

ipcc draft ar5 - "The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"

no amount of woe and flagellation will change the above statement.

Again, read the post. A downpour over the ocean means nothing at all to land-based life forms (I assume you are one.), but it is averaged into the precip figures. One area can receive a lot less precip (like Oklahoma) while the world as a whole is receiving more. Apparently, no amount of anything is going to get the idea through to you.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings All:

NCDC has released its temperature summaries, updated to December 31st.

The hottest year on the record, so far, since 1880 was 2010 with a temperature of 0.66 degrees C. above the 1951-1980 average. Here are the hottest 15.

1. 2010: +0.66

2. 2005: +0.65

3. 2007: +0.62

4. 1998: +0.61

5. 2002: +0.60

6. 2009: +0.59

7. 2006: +0.59

8. 2003: +0.59

9. 2012: +0.56

10. 2011: +0.54

11. 2004: +0.52

12. 2001: +0.52

13. 2008: +0.49

14. 1997: +0.45

15. 1995: +0.42

Note that the much-maligned high temp of 1998 has been beaten three times. 2012 turned out to be about 0.04 degrees cooler than I had predicted. Twelve out of the warmest thirteen years have occurred since 2000.

Just for entertainment, I decided to look up the coldest years on record. They are:

1. 1909: -0.47

2. 1910: -0.46

3. 1917: -0.44

4. 1911: -0.44

5. 1908: -0.43

6. 1903: -0.43

7. 1907: -0.42

8. 1912: -0.41

9. 1913: -0.39

10. 1893: -0.36

11. 1916: -0.36

12. 1980: -0.33

13. 1894: -0.33

14. 1887: -0.32

15: 1892: -0.32

16. 1898: -0.32

17. 1918: -0.32

18. 1929: -0.32

Lets see what happens in 2013.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since global warming is fundamentally a taxation and grant scheme, it certainly is not at standstill. If the figures do not match the warmers` fiction, they´ll adjust them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is important about the average temperature from 51-80? Why is that the baseline? I'm curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.