What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

God made them from the earth, where humans have an insignificant impact on climate, if at all.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

[wardd]

the first life forms cam about that way then evolved to the forms of life we have today

so it seems we agree

[hoytedow]

And we have dominion over the animals, but not over climate.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

And we have dominion.

tell that to a hungry tiger the next time you meet one in the forest

[hoytedow]

Before or after I kill him, cook him and make a sofa cover from his striped hide while contemplating how little humans change the global climate?

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Before or after I kill him, cook him and make a sofa cover from his striped hide?

on equal terms?

besides tigers are a protected species, humans aren't

[bearflag]

Jeff could you please remove all the comments not related to the subject in the last few pages.

----------------

Religion has no place in a scientific argument. Religion must be consistent with the natural world for it to have any validity, if you have an argument relating to the natural world you should be able to make such an argument using the appropriate empirical, scientific, mathematical, logical, philosophical, and rational arguments.

Furthermore, if you wish to discuss about other topics such as old-earth/new-earth, evolution/creationism, pro-choice/anti-abortion, this thread wouldn't be the place.

Please keep it on topic.

[bearflag]

Just in case I didn't make myself clear in the previous post. And so that the various faceted parties in this debate thinks that all "Anthropomorphic Global Warming skeptics" (the agreed term) are of the same religious/political/metaphysical frame of mind on the same or other issues, please do not do so.

I assure you that there are plenty of fervently religious AGW adherents just as there are plenty of heretic/Atheist AGW skeptics.

I personally would say anyone arguing for a young-earth or anti-evolutionary argument probably does not have a very credible position on those subjects but they don't necessarily translate to other subject matters.

Similarly many of the most vocal proponents of the AGW theory are not very good scientists but are more of passionate people with progressive or political agendas. This does not imply that that is the predominant view amongst most AGW supporters.

The point being... is lets keep this thread about "Climate Change" and not any of these other arguments. If these other arguments do get introduced please only look at them as an indicator of a particular individual's views and not representative of others who may or may not share there view on the AGW issue.


Danke.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by bearflag

Just in case I didn't make myself clear in the previous post. And so that the various faceted parties in this debate thinks that all "Anthropomorphic Global Warming skeptics" (the agreed term) are of the same religious/political/metaphysical frame of mind on the same or other issues, please do not do so.

I assure you that there are plenty of fervently religious AGW adherents just as there are plenty of heretic/Atheist AGW skeptics.

I personally would say anyone arguing for a young-earth or anti-evolutionary argument probably does not have a very credible position on those subjects but they don't necessarily translate to other subject matters.

Similarly many of the most vocal proponents of the AGW theory are not very good scientists but are more of passionate people with progressive or political agendas. This does not imply that that is the predominant view amongst most AGW supporters.

The point being... is lets keep this thread about "Climate Change" and not any of these other arguments. If these other arguments do get introduced please only look at them as an indicator of a particular individual's views and not representative of others who may or may not share there view on the AGW issue.


Danke.

On AGW I agree with you completely, on religion, not so much.

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Were your ancestors monkeys? Then why are there still monkeys? They didn't affect the climate either.

In the first place, we aren't descended from monkeys - any more than we're descended from chimps, baboons or gorillas. But we all had a common ancestor.

And what makes you think the monkeys would disappear if we had been descended from them? Did your parents and your grandparents disappear when you were born? Of course not. Similarly, there's no reason a new species couldn't evolve from one or more members of a species, and leave the rest of the species as it was.

[Boston]

myself and a few others have been making monkey's out of the deniers squad long enough one would think you idiots would know your heritage by now

think I covered all the bases with that one

its far more entertaining when we're all at each others throats anyway

cheers
B

ps
I think we were talking about how wrong the deniers are to think that water vapor is a driver of climate when it in fact vapor is dependent on temp in the first place
for the monkeys in the pile I'll repeat that
temp determines vapor content not the other way around and one of the primary greenhouse gasses is co2 which has a direct relationship with temp. The physical properties of CO2 is what makes it a greenhouse gas so whichever monkey comes along to try and deny that reality is, how shall I say it, dumb. Direct experimentation shows that an atmosphere containing more CO2 than less heats faster and holds that heat longer. Its not really open to debate cause no self respecting scientist is dumb enough to bother.

at any point raise your hands if you were in the remedial classes cause we have these groovy little triangular hats and a nice tidy seat in the corner just so we can keep an eye on you while were in this class

another little treasure that throws a wrench into the deniers camp fire is this bit about isotopic mass balance and CO2. Clearly these studies have placed the vast majority if not all of the recent and unprecedented rise in CO2 squarely at the feet of fossil fuels, (anthropogenic to put it in multisylabic terms) which in turn means that given the relationship between CO2 and temp its the burning of fossil fuels that is the primary cause of the rise in temp.

there are only a handful of scientists who "deny" this and the majority of them can be shown to be on the take from industry to express this opinion

there is no debate for a reason

hows that for getting us back on track

oh
G was right about there being no obvious link between the number of tropical cyclones and temp, but once again he has asked the wrong question. Its not the frequency that is changing but the intensity. The working theories that are used to predict hurricane formation and movements is clear and does not bode well for the warming scenario. It would appear that hurricanes are getting stronger as temp increases " Emanuel (2005)"

a little tidbit from some of our favorite authors

by Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Rasmus Benestad, Gavin Schmidt, and William Connolley

On Monday August 29, Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, Louisiana and Missisippi, leaving a trail of destruction in her wake. It will be some time until the full toll of this hurricane can be assessed, but the devastating human and environmental impacts are already obvious.

Katrina was the most feared of all meteorological events, a major hurricane making landfall in a highly-populated low-lying region. In the wake of this devastation, many have questioned whether global warming may have contributed to this disaster. Could New Orleans be the first major U.S. city ravaged by human-caused climate change?

The correct answer–the one we have indeed provided in previous posts (Storms & Global Warming II, Some recent updates and Storms and Climate Change) –is that there is no way to prove that Katrina either was, or was not, affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible. We only have one Earth, and it will follow only one of an infinite number of possible weather sequences. It is impossible to know whether or not this event would have taken place if we had not increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as much as we have. Weather events will always result from a combination of deterministic factors (including greenhouse gas forcing or slow natural climate cycles) and stochastic factors (pure chance).

Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming – and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.

Yet this is not the right way to frame the question. As we have also pointed out in previous posts, we can indeed draw some important conclusions about the links between hurricane activity and global warming in a statistical sense. The situation is analogous to rolling loaded dice: one could, if one was so inclined, construct a set of dice where sixes occur twice as often as normal. But if you were to roll a six using these dice, you could not blame it specifically on the fact that the dice had been loaded. Half of the sixes would have occurred anyway, even with normal dice. Loading the dice simply doubled the odds. In the same manner, while we cannot draw firm conclusions about one single hurricane, we can draw some conclusions about hurricanes more generally. In particular, the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make – and possibly already is making – those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been.

The key connection is that between sea surface temperatures (we abbreviate this as SST) and the power of hurricanes. Without going into technical details about the dynamics and thermodynamics involved in tropical storms and hurricanes (an excellent discussion of this can be found here), the basic connection between the two is actually fairly simple: warm water, and the instability in the lower atmosphere that is created by it, is the energy source of hurricanes. This is why they only arise in the tropics and during the season when SSTs are highest (June to November in the tropical North Atlantic).

SST is not the only influence on hurricane formation. Strong shear in atmospheric winds (that is, changes in wind strength and direction with height in the atmosphere above the surface), for example, inhibits development of the highly organized structure that is required for a hurricane to form. In the case of Atlantic hurricanes, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation tends to influence the vertical wind shear, and thus, in turn, the number of hurricanes that tend to form in a given year. Many other features of the process of hurricane development and strengthening, however, are closely linked to SST.

Hurricane forecast models (the same ones that were used to predict Katrina’s path) indicate a tendency for more intense (but not overall more frequent) hurricanes when they are run for climate change scenarios (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Model Simulation of Trend in Hurricanes (from Knutson et al, 2004)

In the particular simulation shown above, the frequency of the strongest (category 5) hurricanes roughly triples in the anthropogenic climate change scenario relative to the control. This suggests that hurricanes may indeed become more destructive (1) as tropical SSTs warm due to anthropogenic impacts.

But what about the past? What do the observations of the last century actually show? Some past studies (e.g. Goldenberg et al, 2001) assert that there is no evidence of any long-term increase in statistical measures of tropical Atlantic hurricane activity, despite the ongoing global warming. These studies, however, have focused on the frequency of all tropical storms and hurricanes (lumping the weak ones in with the strong ones) rather than a measure of changes in the intensity of the storms. As we have discussed elsewhere on this site, statistical measures that focus on trends in the strongest category storms, maximum hurricane winds, and changes in minimum central pressures, suggest a systematic increase in the intensities of those storms that form. This finding is consistent with the model simulations.

A recent study in Nature by Emanuel (2005) examined, for the first time, a statistical measure of the power dissipation associated with past hurricane activity (i.e., the “Power Dissipation Index” or “PDI”–Fig. 2). Emanuel found a close correlation between increases in this measure of hurricane activity (which is likely a better measure of the destructive potential of the storms than previously used measures) and rising tropical North Atlantic SST, consistent with basic theoretical expectations. As tropical SSTs have increased in past decades, so has the intrinsic destructive potential of hurricanes.

Figure 2. Measure of total power dissipated annually by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic (the power dissipation index “PDI”) compared to September tropical North Atlantic SST (from Emanuel, 2005)

The key question then becomes this: Why has SST increased in the tropics? Is this increase due to global warming (which is almost certainly in large part due to human impacts on climate)? Or is this increase part of a natural cycle?

It has been asserted (for example, by the NOAA National Hurricane Center) that the recent upturn in hurricane activity is due to a natural cycle, e.g. the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (“AMO”). The new results by Emanuel (Fig. 2) argue against this hypothesis being the sole explanation: the recent increase in SST (at least for September as shown in the Figure) is well outside the range of any past oscillations. Emanuel therefore concludes in his paper that “the large upswing in the last decade is unprecedented, and probably reflects the effect of global warming.” However, caution is always warranted with very new scientific results until they have been thoroughly discussed by the community and either supported or challenged by further analyses. Previous analysis of the AMO and natural oscillation modes in the Atlantic (Delworth and Mann, 2000; Kerr, 2000) suggest that the amplitude of natural SST variations averaged over the tropics is about 0.1-0.2 ºC, so a swing from the coldest to warmest phase could explain up to ~0.4 ºC warming.

What about the alternative hypothesis: the contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to tropical SST warming? How strong do we expect this to be? One way to estimate this is to use climate models. Driven by anthropogenic forcings, these show a warming of tropical SST in the Atlantic of about 0.2 – 0.5 ºC. Globally, SST has increased by ~0.6 ºC in the past hundred years. This mostly reflects the response to global radiative forcings, which are dominated by anthropogenic forcing over the 20th Century. Regional modes of variability, such as the AMO, largely cancel out and make a very small contribution in the global mean SST changes.

Thus, we can conclude that both a natural cycle (the AMO) and anthropogenic forcing could have made roughly equally large contributions to the warming of the tropical Atlantic over the past decades, with an exact attribution impossible so far. The observed warming is likely the result of a combined effect: data strongly suggest that the AMO has been in a warming phase for the past two or three decades, and we also know that at the same time anthropogenic global warming is ongoing.

Finally, then, we come back to Katrina. This storm was a weak (category 1) hurricane when crossing Florida, and only gained force later over the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. So the question to ask here is: why is the Gulf of Mexico so hot at present – how much of this could be attributed to global warming, and how much to natural variability? More detailed analysis of the SST changes in the relevant regions, and comparisons with model predictions, will probably shed more light on this question in the future. At present, however, the available scientific evidence suggests that it would be premature to assert that the recent anomalous behavior can be attributed entirely to a natural cycle.

But ultimately the answer to what caused Katrina is of little practical value. Katrina is in the past. Far more important is learning something for the future, as this could help reduce the risk of further tragedies. Better protection against hurricanes will be an obvious discussion point over the coming months, to which as climatologists we are not particularly qualified to contribute. But climate science can help us understand how human actions influence climate. The current evidence strongly suggests that:
(a) hurricanes tend to become more destructive as ocean temperatures rise, and
(b) an unchecked rise in greenhouse gas concentrations will very likely increase ocean temperatures further, ultimately overwhelming any natural oscillations.
Scenarios for future global warming show tropical SST rising by a few degrees, not just tenths of a degree (see e.g. results from the Hadley Centre model and the implications for hurricanes shown in Fig. 1 above). That is the important message from science. What we need to discuss is not what caused Katrina, but the likelyhood that global warming will make hurricanes even worse in future.

_____________________
1. By ‘destructive’ we refer only to the intrinsic ability of the storm to do damage to its environment due to its strength. The potential increases that we discuss apply only to this intrinsic meteorological measure. We are not taking into account the potential for increased destruction (and cost) due to increasing population or human infrastructure.

References:

Delworth, T.L., Mann, M.E., Observed and Simulated Multidecadal Variability in the Northern Hemisphere, Climate Dynamics, 16, 661-676, 2000.

Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, online publication; published online 31 July 2005 | doi: 10.1038/nature03906

Goldenberg, S.B., C.W. Landsea, A.M. Mestas-Nuñez, and W.M. Gray. The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity. Causes and implications. Science, 293:474-479 (2001).

Kerr, R.A., 2000, A North Atlantic climate pacemaker for the centuries: Science, v. 288, p. 1984-1986.

Knutson, T. K., and R. E. Tuleya, 2004: Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. Journal of Climate, 17(18), 3477-3495.

[Boston]

why I am skeptical of the deniers use of terms

skep·tic also scep·tic (skptk)
n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy
a. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
b. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? b.c.).
[Latin Scepticus, disciple of Pyrrho of Elis, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine; see spek- in Indo-European roots.]



de·ni·er 1 (d-nr)
n.
One that denies: a denier of harsh realities.
den·ier 2 (dn-y)
n.
1. also (dnyr) A unit of fineness for rayon, nylon, and silk fibers, based on a standard mass per length of 1 gram per 9,000 meters of yarn.
2. also (d-nîr)
a. A small coin of varying composition and value current in western Europe from the eighth century until the French Revolution.
b. Archaic A small, trifling sum.


de·ny (d-n)
tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.
4.
a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
b. To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
c. To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.
[Middle English denien, from Old French denier, from Latin dnegre : d-, de- + negre, to say no; see ne in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms: deny, contradict, contravene, disaffirm, gainsay, negate, traverse
These verbs mean to refuse to admit the existence, truth, or value of: denied the rumor; contradicted the statement; contravene a conclusion; disaffirm a suggestion; trying to gainsay the evidence; negated the allegations; traverse an indictment.
Antonym: affirm

in the purest of definitions what is being done is refusing to admit the established science = "denial"
ya you could say they are "skeptical of a generally accepted conclusion" but they deny that the science is generally accepted and so shot themselves in the foot on that one.
you could better say that they are "denying a harsh reality" given that most of what is being denied here is basic established science. In many cases laboratory re-creatable evidence or data established by direct measurements, for instance, that vapor is dependent on temp, or that the mass isotopic measurement studies place the excess CO2 at the feet of our burning fossil fuels.

a skeptic is someone who doubts something of questionable nature
for instance the existence of the Pauline Christian Gods preeminence over all other belief systems
a denier doubts something of unquestionable nature
for instance that vapor is dependent on temp

most of what the deniers are doing here is refusing to acknowledge the realities of long established science
which falls best under the category of denial

I on the other hand "I am skeptical of the terms the deniers would prefer to use"

just sayin

B

[troy2000]

It doesn't really matter to me. If someone would rather be called a skeptic than a denier, I'll go along with it--although I hope they don't think the alternate term has some sort of magic in it,that gives them more credibility.

Changing what they're called doesn't change their beliefs concerning climate change, or make those beliefs more accurate, any more than calling a liberal a progressive changes who he is, or what he believes.

[Marco1]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225912300531

NSW experiences coldest winter in 12 years

* By staff writers
* From: AAP
* August 31, 2010 12:03PM

NSW shivered through its coldest winter in 12 years, while daytime temperatures in August hit their lowest since 1990.

NSW experienced average daytime temperatures of 15.9C, making it the coldest winter since 1998 and the 16th nippiest winter on record.

Climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), Shannon Symons says widespread rainfall also resulted in the wettest winter since 2005.

"Northern inland regions received above, to very much above average rainfall and that was mainly in July and August, and that's pretty much the case (across) NSW as well," Ms Symons told AAP today.

Inland rainfall was attributed to a La Nina event, which creates cooler than average sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

"When we have La Nina events we, not always, but usually see enhanced rainfall across eastern Australia," Ms Symons said.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

NSW recorded a statewide average of 136.9mm of rainfall this winter, 20.9mm more than the average.

Meanwhile, August experienced its wettest month since 2003 and its coldest daytime temperatures since 1990, according to the BoM.

There was even some snow, as cold fronts through southern Australia brought a flurry of flakes to the alpine regions of southern NSW in late August.

Ms Symons said in the coming months, temperatures should rise as NSW settles into spring.

She said the La Nina event should dissipate by summer, but while it continues, there are chances of above average rainfall in inland NSW and warmer nights.

Catastrophic, horrendous, the end is near, drought and famine, no more winter, will have to build houses underground ... etc

[Marco1]

Facebook has a new site called Global Warming is ********
Sign up here
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2300007869