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's record-setting pace

22 posts in this topic

The pace of global warming over the last century has been about twice as rapid over land than over the oceans and will continue to be more dramatic going forward if emissions are not curbed. According to an analysis of 27 climate models by Carnegie's Chris Field, if we continue along the current emissions trajectory, we are likely facing the most rapid large climate change in the last 65 million years. This will clearly pose great challenges for a variety of terrestrial ecosystems.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-02-global-record-setting-pace.html#jCp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Field has - in a nutshell - undertaken a synergy/synopsis of current "Climate Change Literature" (whatever THAT is) and current Climate Models.

I would suggest that this sounds like a synopsys of unsupported theories, backed by uncalibrated computer models.

Can anyone give me a SINGLE example of a climate prediction - either by a scientist or arising from a computer model - that has subsequently been demonstrated to be correct ?

I think you will find that - over the last 20 years - every single prediction has failed, and failed so spectacularly as to be humerous.

Granted, 20 years is a very short timeframe, but WHERE IS THE SCIENCE ? How can we continue to give credence to these alarmist headline predictions when NOTHING underpinning them appears to conform to the scientific method ?

So I'll return to my question: can ANYONE highlight ANY prediction that subsequently came true ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Field has - in a nutshell - undertaken a synergy/synopsis of current "Climate Change Literature" (whatever THAT is) and current Climate Models.

I would suggest that this sounds like a synopsys of unsupported theories, backed by uncalibrated computer models.

Can anyone give me a SINGLE example of a climate prediction - either by a scientist or arising from a computer model - that has subsequently been demonstrated to be correct ?

I think you will find that - over the last 20 years - every single prediction has failed, and failed so spectacularly as to be humerous.

Granted, 20 years is a very short timeframe, but WHERE IS THE SCIENCE ? How can we continue to give credence to these alarmist headline predictions when NOTHING underpinning them appears to conform to the scientific method ?

So I'll return to my question: can ANYONE highlight ANY prediction that subsequently came true ?

Not a single statement you made is true.

Climate change is based on observed surface and ocean warming which has continued over the last twenty years - well within the predicted range of the model predictions. The rate of warming fits exactly with the range of warming predicted by the IPCC in their various assessment reports.

What are you smoking ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone give me a SINGLE example of a climate prediction - either by a scientist or arising from a computer model - that has subsequently been demonstrated to be correct ?

The IPCC Assessment Reports contain several scenarios each. Actual temperature rise has consistently fallen between the two most-conservative ones. Subject to the normal limits of variability, they are accurate.

CO2 follows such a precise curve it is hard to miss. Check out the Keeling Curve.

Your question is predicated on the assumption that your reader/listener is not familiar with scientific literature and thus will not be able to answer you.

For anyone to undertake a literature review of the entire field would be a colossal undertaking. However, literature reviews of smaller parts of it are routinely published in scientific journals. Somewhere around here I have a copy of an ice storm literature review completed by Don Bragg a few years ago. I'll see if I can dig it up for you. BTW: he is now the editor of the Journal of Forestry.

Doug

Found it: Bragg, D. C., M. G. Shelton and B. Zeide. 2003. Impacts and management implications of ice storms on forests in the southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 186 (2003) 99-123.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News! Is that where you get your science from?

The night before last I listened to Bill Nye (The Science Guy, remember him?) in person. You'd like some of the things he says (and probably not some others). For example: we're never going to see big changes to the way we do things. But we will see little ones. And those little ones will CHANGE THE WORLD! And maybe make you rich. It won't be the pseudo-scientists or religious extremists who CHANGE THE WORLD (or save it, either). It will be those trained in science and willing to look at things objectively. The others are a side-branch that will wither and die because it separates itself from knowledge.

That's a distillation of a two-hour program. But he is an excellent speaker. And he's out to CHANGE THE WORLD!

Doug

P.S.: Green Peace is a political organization and always has been. They had a very active chapter where I used to live (Boulder, Colorado - four square miles surrounded by reality), and yet were some of the least-knowledgeable people on environmental topics that I ever met. AND: they're talkers - not doers.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News! Is that where you get your science from?

The night before last I listened to Bill Nye (The Science Guy, remember him?) in person. You'd like some of the things he says (and probably not some others). For example: we're never going to see big changes to the way we do things. But we will see little ones. And those little ones will CHANGE THE WORLD! And maybe make you rich. It won't be the pseudo-scientists or religious extremists who CHANGE THE WORLD (or save it, either). It will be those trained in science and willing to look at things objectively. The others are a side-branch that will wither and die because it separates itself from knowledge.

That's a distillation of a two-hour program. But he is an excellent speaker. And he's out to CHANGE THE WORLD!

Doug

P.S.: Green Peace is a political organization and always has been. They had a very active chapter where I used to live (Boulder, Colorado - four square miles surrounded by reality), and yet were some of the least-knowledgeable people on environmental topics that I ever met. AND: they're talkers - not doers.

Doug

I think that is why this scientist left Greenpeace back in the 80's. He isn't denying warming, just denying the done science that blames it all on man. What is the downside to the earth warming up a couple of degrees? Why is 40 years ago, when it was colder the best period for humans? Wasn't there far more arable land when things were a bit warmer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is why this scientist left Greenpeace back in the 80's. He isn't denying warming, just denying the done science that blames it all on man. What is the downside to the earth warming up a couple of degrees? Why is 40 years ago, when it was colder the best period for humans? Wasn't there far more arable land when things were a bit warmer?

I never joined Greenpeace. They were, and still are, a little far out there for me.

According to what I've read, man is a major part of the problem, but not the only part. There are natural sources of carbon, such as methane seeps, permafrost and carbon dissolved in the oceans. Even most of what humans do is nothing more than releasing carbon through natural processes. Example: when land is cultivated, the carbon content (usually about 2%) drops as a result of bacteria consuming carbon and releasing it as CO2. It is natural processes that release the carbon, but we're the ones that set it in motion.

There are remedies other than just cutting industrial CO2 emissions and most of them will save money for the producers and for us consumers. Just one example: a window-box passive solar heater. You can make it yourself for about $30 worth of plywood, paint, screws, a sheet of polypropylene and some old soda cans. Make a frame to fit the window. Put the plastic over the outside and plywood over the back, leaving two sliding doors top and bottom on the inside (back). Cut the soda cans in half lengthwise and tack them to the backing (facing the outside). Spray paint everything black and stretch the plastic over the front. Mount it to the window frame with screws. On sunny days, open the slides. Close them at night and on cloudy days. The result - free heat - enough to amortize the cost in about two weeks. Two or three of these can heat a house here in Oklahoma, or anywhere else in the sunny southwest. And that can save you money whether you accept the science of global warming or not.

Same with coal - why pay 11 cents per kilowatt hour when wind will generate that same kilowatt hour for 7 cents? And why pay $50 for a fill up when it takes only fifty cents worth of electricity to run an electric car the same number of miles? Can't find a good battery - what's the matter with catenaries? Or fuel cells?

It's not BIG GOVERNMENT or BIG INDUSTRY that will make the difference. It's little people like you and me making decisions at the margin. One fluorescent bulb saves about 83% on electricity. Each of us average about eight bulbs on our homes. The are 3.4 million people in Oklahoma. America switched to fluorescent bulbs last month. Oklahoma's power consumption has dropped enough to put a power plant out of business - permanently. Why do you think big coal and big oil are putting out all the anti-warming propaganda? That's why. Every time we adopt some seemingly-minor improvement - all 300+ million of us in the US - it hits them in the pocket book.

But they're not stupid. Electric companies are already switching to wind and if we could provide a little incentive, people like T. Boone Pickens - Mr. BIG OIL - are going to make the investment. Pickens even said that, himself.

These problems have solutions. This is your chance: find a small fix, market it, get rich and CHANGE THE WORLD!

Am I planning to take my own advice? You bet. I am working on a proposal for such a project. If it gets funded, I'll revamp forest inventory and make enough to retire.

Doug

P.S.: It's not the temperature that is the critical part. It is its effects on the ecosystem. We could be quite happy with temps as they are now, but it's where they're going that is of concern. The real problem is the risk of ecosystem collapse. How many species can we exterminate before we kill off one vital to our own survival? That's a question I hope we never know the answer to.

There is more arable land now, but that's only because more has been cleared.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S.: It's not the temperature that is the critical part. It is its effects on the ecosystem. We could be quite happy with temps as they are now, but it's where they're going that is of concern. The real problem is the risk of ecosystem collapse. How many species can we exterminate before we kill off one vital to our own survival? That's a question I hope we never know the answer to.

There is more arable land now, but that's only because more has been cleared.

Doug

If they go up 2 degrees it may be a good thing wouldn't it. The northern half of Africa is desert now but wasn't when the earth was just a bit warmer. Building window boxes to generate heat is claptrap and maybe you should've joined Greenpeace but the problem isn't here it is in China and India where they don"t give a rat's ass. Man isn't warming the earth and your models SUCK. They are so far off that it is absurd. Get your science together and make some decent calculations without cherrypicking the data and maybe I'll listen and oh yeah, maybe AL Gore shouldn't make a billion dollars of of carbon taxes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they go up 2 degrees it may be a good thing wouldn't it. The northern half of Africa is desert now but wasn't when the earth was just a bit warmer. Building window boxes to generate heat is claptrap and maybe you should've joined Greenpeace but the problem isn't here it is in China and India where they don"t give a rat's ass. Man isn't warming the earth and your models SUCK. They are so far off that it is absurd. Get your science together and make some decent calculations without cherrypicking the data and maybe I'll listen and oh yeah, maybe AL Gore shouldn't make a billion dollars of of carbon taxes

China does give a rats ass. They have a very active program of alternative roll outs - they also have a big pollution problem which will encourage them to clean up their dirty inefficient generating stock. For them it will mean the difference between surviving as a regime or failing.

The problem with a two degrees rise is it would be very unlikely to stop at two degrees. More significantly it would radically alter the prevailing weather patterns which would have major impacts on agriculture and densely inhabited areas. Human civilization is based upon a 8 thousand year period of relatively stable climate, changing it will have many and unforseen consequences.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they go up 2 degrees it may be a good thing wouldn't it. The northern half of Africa is desert now but wasn't when the earth was just a bit warmer. Building window boxes to generate heat is claptrap and maybe you should've joined Greenpeace but the problem isn't here it is in China and India where they don"t give a rat's ass. Man isn't warming the earth and your models SUCK. They are so far off that it is absurd. Get your science together and make some decent calculations without cherrypicking the data and maybe I'll listen and oh yeah, maybe AL Gore shouldn't make a billion dollars of of carbon taxes

Two degrees puts us pretty close to an unstoppable temperature increase - a runaway greenhouse effect with huge environmental consequences. The problem is that we don't know exactly where the line is and it's doubtful if we can stop the process once we get there.

About passive solar heaters: I just handed you that small change that could make you rich AND contribute to cleaning up the mess. All you have to do is the design work, apply for a patent and start marketing. Ignore it, if that makes you happy, but somebody else reading this could well end up a millionaire. Or maybe I'll do it if that other project doesn't pan out. That's how the future will happen - little changes that pack a big wallop. Fifty million solar heaters at a profit of $10 each: Hmmmm!

To make such claims demands that you put up something to support them. China is cleaning up its act, but it has had so far to come that development has outpaced pollution control measures. It will take time, but they are coming along. They already have programs to cut SO3 emissions and as that takes effect, one of the limiting factors on global warming will disappear.

So which models don't you like and exactly how far off are they? Time to back up those sweeping charges. EXACTLY what don't they do that you think they should?

Al Gore is getting rich off carbon taxes? How do I get in on this? Al Gore has made a lot of money on speaking tours and book sales, but as far as I know, the US has no carbon taxes, at least, not yet. But there is a way to do it in America if you know how. Many OTHER countries have carbon mitigation programs (which don't work, but that's another issue); some of these are tax based. America also has trading exchanges for carbon credits. So I buy up some land, sign tree-planting or other mitigation contracts, and sell the carbon credits to European companies. So that way, as an American in America, I can make money off EUROPE's carbon taxes (which really don't work any better than carbon mitigation programs).

So you are charging me with cherry-picking data? Exactly what data have I cherry-picked? Be specific. If you know what you're talking about that will be an easy question to answer. If not, thanks for playing. Time to put up the evidence.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they go up 2 degrees it may be a good thing wouldn't it. The northern half of Africa is desert now but wasn't when the earth was just a bit warmer. Building window boxes to generate heat is claptrap and maybe you should've joined Greenpeace but the problem isn't here it is in China and India where they don"t give a rat's ass. Man isn't warming the earth and your models SUCK. They are so far off that it is absurd. Get your science together and make some decent calculations without cherrypicking the data and maybe I'll listen and oh yeah, maybe AL Gore shouldn't make a billion dollars of of carbon taxes

One guy formerly from Greenpeace versus the two most elite science academies in the world.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-worlds-top-scientists-take-action-now-on-climate-change-2014-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denial of global warming is another way to play politics with it. The BS where global warming is concerned is wherever politicians get involved with it. Even if 100% of "global warming" is 100% man-made, who gave Al Gore all the right solutions? This isn't a political arena - AT ALL.

Oh but some neat and clean policy change from the federal govt is going to save the world, should global warming be a man made phenomenon? Lazy liberals - find out what YOU can do and start doing that first. Champion what you're doing, sell it, sell it harder and sell it again. The solution to this bureaucratic problem lies in the peoples' hands like just about every other problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

China does give a rats ass. They have a very active program of alternative roll outs - they also have a big pollution problem which will encourage them to clean up their dirty inefficient generating stock. For them it will mean the difference between surviving as a regime or failing.

The problem with a two degrees rise is it would be very unlikely to stop at two degrees. More significantly it would radically alter the prevailing weather patterns which would have major impacts on agriculture and densely inhabited areas. Human civilization is based upon a 8 thousand year period of relatively stable climate, changing it will have many and unforseen consequences.

Br Cornelius

Thanks for confirming my initial impression of you. Anyone who thinks China is cleaning up their act is an idiot, just sayin'. Listen, when yamato is in your corner you need to reevaluate your thinking because he is, well, not all there..

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just wanted to throw this in as it has an interesting comment section you may want to comment on. The Great Lakes are 89% frozen over, Superior for the first time. I saw a show on TV that showed people walking on it to reach a cave with ice formations that's on an offshore island. Found some other links too. In 1979 and 1994 they froze like this too but this year may be the record especially for Superior. Just would like to hear your input on this. Temperatures here in PA are still in minus wind chills. Last night the temp was 2. Seems like our storm went south and we will now get 4-6 but Philly will get 12. This may be an all time record setter by the time spring gets here, which could take to April.

http://wattsupwithth...he-great-lakes/

http://science.time....me-lapse-video/

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/nearly-frozen-lake-superior-ma/23439393

Edited by susieice
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for confirming my initial impression of you. Anyone who thinks China is cleaning up their act is an idiot, just sayin'. Listen, when yamato is in your corner you need to reevaluate your thinking because he is, well, not all there..

China was responsible for almost one-fifth of total global investment, spending $52 billion on renewable energy last year. The United States was close behind with investments of $51 billion, as developers sought to benefit from government incentive programs before they expired. Germany, Italy and India rounded out the list of the top five countries.

According to China’s 12th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2011-2015), the country will spend $473.1 billion on clean energy investments over the next five years. China’s goal is to have 20 percent of its total energy demand sourced from renewable energy by 2020.

http://www.forbes.co...rgy-investment/

I don't make claims which cannot be supported with evidence - maybe you should try that occasionally.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing in global warming when the temperature has been consistently below 20 this winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing in global warming when the temperature has been consistently below 20 this winter.

I see you didn't go to the Olympics. They had a little problem with the ski and snowboard ramps melting. Not to mention that Peru is having problems with fires and extreme drought and heat and the North Pole is experiencing a record heat wave.

January was the warmest since 2002 and 2003 tied for the all-time high for the month of January.

December was the warmest one since 2005 set the all-time high temperature record for December.

And November was the warmest that month has ever been.

So what is it you're having trouble believing?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not warm where he is so it must be similarly cold everywhere.

It sounds stupid when you say it out loud - but I guarantee thats the underlying logic at work.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannabis takes four times as much carbon out of the atmosphere as trees do and is used in composites that are far superior to wood in housing construction. Ya wanna make this GW a big deal, then legalize the manufacture of hemp in the US again so we're not imposing Mexican goods on ourselves anymore.

You know, actually DO SOMETHING! ;)

Slinging darts at each other is never going to solve the problem. Using the force control of government isn't either. Just empower us with greater freedom to do the right thing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yessss maybe this will be the apocalypse we need. If the zombie virus doesn't pan out

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.