Global warming less extreme than feared?

[HumblePie]

Wouldn't reversing climate change be itself climate change?

Wow, logic from you? I excepted better

 

[DrPizza]

Can I assume that when someone types this:

What kinds of new fossils will we find in the north pole? It has been covered with ice for thousands of years and we haven't been able to dig around.

That they're scientifically ignorant and their opinions can be dismissed in these types of threads? Or, perhaps, would he like to explain what he actually meant, since he (hopefully) couldn't have possibly meant what he stated?

Hint: you can't dig around if THERE ISN'T LAND.

 

[HumblePie]

Can I assume that when someone types this:

That they're scientifically ignorant and their opinions can be dismissed in these types of threads? Or, perhaps, would he like to explain what he actually meant, since he (hopefully) couldn't have possibly meant what he stated?

Hint: you can't dig around if THERE ISN'T LAND.

There is still dirt under there somewhere. Even the bottom of the ocean still has ground there. Last I checked, Earth was a rocky world that has a thin layer of water on top of it with bits of land poking out of the surface of the water.

There is scientific evidence to suggest that the crust of the planet has in the past literally spun around. Making new poles of old land masses and making old poles into topical areas around the equator.

 

[tydas]

The ignorance and stupidity of people in this thread make me weep for humanity...

 

[randomrogue]

Is this the thread for smart people?

I don't know what to make of the climate change debate since nobody is actually interested in the science of it but more interested in the politics of it. Taking a very small sample of time and drawing very long conclusions from it bothers me.

 

[drebo]

We are still coming out of the last Ice Age. At some point all of the ice will be gone and the poles will be tropical.

And at some point, the poles will reverse magnetically.

Maybe we should petition government to stop that from happening.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Is this the thread for smart people?

I don't know what to make of the climate change debate since nobody is actually interested in the science of it but more interested in the politics of it. Taking a very small sample of time and drawing very long conclusions from it bothers me.

Politics rules all these days. The zealotry of the GW 'faithful' and what they demand we do is a perfect example of this. Gore is laughing all the way to the bank with his carbon credit scam.

Where's Shira? Thought he'd be all over this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Can I assume that when someone types this:

That they're scientifically ignorant and their opinions can be dismissed in these types of threads? Or, perhaps, would he like to explain what he actually meant, since he (hopefully) couldn't have possibly meant what he stated?

Hint: you can't dig around if THERE ISN'T LAND.

Damn you and your hint. I had my money on frozen fish.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://cicero.uio.no/webnews/index_e.aspx?id=11856

Unpublished estimates of climate sensitivity

A news story published by the Research Council of Norway has recently attracted attention by international news media and blogs.

Project results presented indicate that the warming associated by increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations is less than previously assumed. ​

The news story was based on research project (CLIMSENS) involving CICERO, and was based on the final report submitted to the research council. The final report contains both published and unpublished material.​

Terje Berntsen, a professor at Center for Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo, has lead the project "Constraining total feedback of the climate system by observations and models (CLIMSENS)" which was funded by The Research Council of Norway’s program "Climate change and impacts in Norway (NORKLIMA)".​

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how the temperature correlates with changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Typically scientists calculate how much the temperature increases from a doubling of CO2. The IPCC’s best estimate from the panel’s fourth assessment report in 2007 is 3°C. The uncertainty range however, is very high – between 2°C and 4,5°C according to the IPCC report. This has implications for future temperature projections. If the climate sensitivity is low, for example 2°C, we can emit more CO2 before climate change becomes dangerous. In CLIMSENS the Norwegian scientist aimed to reduce this uncertainty range and improve our ability to project future temperature increase. ​

In the final report from CLIMSENS Berntsen et al has calculated their best estimate of climate sensitivity to be 1.9°C. This result has not yet been published. What has been published is a paper by Aldrin et al describing the method they used. Berntsen at al used statistics to investigate the relationship between global temperatures and changes in radiative forcing. (Radiative forcing is a measure of how much energy is contained in the Earths atmosphere. CO2 is one of many factors). When the scientists added data from the year 2000 to 2010 to their 160 year long time series, the climate sensitivity dropped from 3.7°C to 1.9°C. Berntsen explains this large change in sensitivity by a combination of the substantial increase in radiative forcing and simultaneous modest increse in temperature observed from 2000 to 2010.​

1.9°C is a best estimate. The uncertainty range, with 90 per cent confidence, is from 1.2°C to 2.9°C. This is substantially lower than the IPCC conclusions from 2007. These results are not yet published in a scientific journal and are still under peer review, a standard scientific quality control. CICERO will wait with dissemination of these results until they are accepted by a journal.​

Many scientists have estimated climate sensitivity since the 2007 IPCC report using both statistical tools and models. Some of the more recent work was summarised by Hans Martin Seip, a professor at CICERO, in our popular science magazine Klima in the January 2012 issue. ​

Three of the studies in Seip’s article use observations from the last glacial maximum and pre industrial times and compare these to changes in radiative forcing. Schmittner at al arrive at a climate sensitivity of 2.3°C, whileKöhleret al arrive 2.4°C. Using the same method Hansen and Sato estimate the climate sensitivity to be 3°C.　​

Real Climate, a blog about climate science, calculate that lowering the climate sensitivity from 3°C to 2.3°C means we have 35 years, instead of 24 years, of emissions at current levels before there is more than a 50 per cent chance that temperatures will rise by more than 2°C.​

Huber and Knutti have investigated changes in greenhouse gasses, aerosols, sun radiation and energy budgets from 1950 onwards. Their primary objective was to determine what had cause the post 1950 temperature increase. They also estimated the climate sensitivity and arrived at 3.6°C, with a likely range from 1.7°C to 6.5°C.​

　
Real Climate has recently published a more thorough break down of recent research on climate sensitivity. ​

 

[Moonbeam]

The ignorance and stupidity of people in this thread make me weep for humanity...

Hum, perhaps you are not alone and warm tears are the cause of sea level rise and global warming. Hey and maybe the conservatives are trying to save us. Imagine if all of them joined in at one time and started whining like they did when Obama won reelection. We'd have a salty hot water flood of epic proportions.

 

[Moonbeam]

I get so confused. I don't know if spending money to fix something that would theoretically kill me otherwise but won't is better or worse that not spending money to fix something that i believe won't kill me but will. What to do, what to do!

 

[Incorruptible]

This global warming BS was never a problem but special interests know that they can use it to further their agenda. Bring in a cap and trade, punish the US and 1st world countries while ignoring india and china and wealth transfers

 

[drebo]

I get so confused. I don't know if spending money to fix something that would theoretically kill me otherwise but won't is better or worse that not spending money to fix something that i believe won't kill me but will. What to do, what to do!

It's more like these are the two options:

1) Ruin the economy fixing something we don't even know if we can fix, even if it is broken, which we don't actually know whether its broken or not; or

2) Not ruin the economy and instead try our best to improve efficiency for the cost savings.

Maybe we should just remove your lungs, liver, pancreas, and testicles because they might at some point develop cancer. We can't say for sure, because we don't know if it'll happen and we don't know what causes cancer so we can't accurately predict whether or not you'll ever actually get it, but we should do it anyway because it could end up being a prudent decision.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The ignorance and stupidity of people in this thread make me weep for humanity...

I guess that's one way to look at it. Perhaps another way is to cast pearls before swine. I hear that some pigs are actually smarter than they look.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Politics rules all these days. The zealotry of the GW 'faithful' and what they demand we do is a perfect example of this. Gore is laughing all the way to the bank with his carbon credit scam.

Speaking of Gore:

http://todaynews.today.com/_news/20...a-nature-hike-through-book-of-revelation?lite

“These storms – it’s like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation on the news every day now,” he told TODAY’s Matt Lauer. “People are connecting the dots.”

There's AGW, then there's Al Gore Warming. Don't confuse one with the other.

 

[nehalem256]

I get so confused. I don't know if spending money to fix something that would theoretically kill me otherwise but won't is better or worse that not spending money to fix something that i believe won't kill me but will. What to do, what to do!

I assume that depends on if you have conservative brain defect and are ruled by fear or not

 

[stormkroe]

Conservatards gonna 'tard.

I linked a page with hundreds of examples of falsified charts and data by AGW fearmongers and all you've got is 'liberal high-five #26'? Those pages should be a treasure trove to you if your side is right; it gives you exact sources of deniers beliefs and records to destroy.
So, let me ask you a direct question. How slow do you have to believe the globe is warming to fall into 'conservitard' area? On a scale of 'actual data' to 'al gore', where is that line? Please define where the line is so those interested in your approval can take it into consideration.

 

[tydas]

So, 99% of Climatologists conclude from studies the earth is warming and will genarly have negative affects...what is thier 'scam' exactly?

 

[Moonbeam]

It's more like these are the two options:

1) Ruin the economy fixing something we don't even know if we can fix, even if it is broken, which we don't actually know whether its broken or not; or

2) Not ruin the economy and instead try our best to improve efficiency for the cost savings.

Maybe we should just remove your lungs, liver, pancreas, and testicles because they might at some point develop cancer. We can't say for sure, because we don't know if it'll happen and we don't know what causes cancer so we can't accurately predict whether or not you'll ever actually get it, but we should do it anyway because it could end up being a prudent decision.

Yeah, wouldn't that be a nice fantasy. I like your cancer analogy though. Very scientific. You might want to remove your brain in case you try to use it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So, 99% of Climatologists conclude from studies the earth is warming and will genarly have negative affects...what is thier 'scam' exactly?

Yes, there has been some "interesting" science along with some scientists demonstrating questionable integrity if that's what you mean by "scam".

However, there is little doubt that the earth has been warming since the last ice age...the $64 question is how much CO2 and other variables play a role in this warming. The study I linked indicates that climate sensitivity to CO2 may be significantly less than previously thought. This is potentially very good news. But we need to understand and keep in mind that the paper hasn't been peer-reviewed or published yet.

There is much that we don't know about how our climate works. Just last week there was a study released showing black carbon having a forcing factor of approximately double what was previously thought (which is now only slightly lower than CO2). This past year, CERN released results of their CLOUD study which suggests an extraterrestrial mechanism (galactic cosmic rays modulated by solar winds) that may be a profound factor affecting cloud formation and our climate change. And, to add to the confusion, our climate hasn't warmed the past dozen years despite ever increasing CO2 levels.

So much is going on in this field right now. Personally, I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind on this subject for the time being and let the chips fall where they may. I'm confident that science will prevail in the end despite all the "noise".

 

[monovillage]

Yes, or they ignore the land use causes of climate change while trying to blame CO2 for issues that aren't related to it and then try to politicize it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50108/full

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=irrigation

 

[werepossum]

If I respected you enough to even consider you a person I'd be offended.

I just read this - but if I'd read it yesterday I suspect I'd still be chuckling. BURN!

Can I assume that when someone types this:

That they're scientifically ignorant and their opinions can be dismissed in these types of threads? Or, perhaps, would he like to explain what he actually meant, since he (hopefully) couldn't have possibly meant what he stated?

Hint: you can't dig around if THERE ISN'T LAND.

Sure you can. It's just that your hole fills up very, very quickly and you get very, very wet. (And at the North Pole, very, very cold and very, very crushed.)

Is this the thread for smart people?

I don't know what to make of the climate change debate since nobody is actually interested in the science of it but more interested in the politics of it. Taking a very small sample of time and drawing very long conclusions from it bothers me.

Good point. I think a huge amount of the hype of global warming is because Mann et al took the end of the Little Ice Age as a baseline and then projected a dishonest hockey stick temperature graph, which predictably scared the sheep.

Doc Savage Fan, you must be joking with your original post. Everyone knows that if the temperature doesn't rise as much as predicted, that only means things are even worse than than they thought.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, there has been some "interesting" science along with some scientists demonstrating questionable integrity if that's what you mean by "scam".

However, there is little doubt that the earth has been warming since the last ice age...the $64 question is how much CO2 and other variables play a role in this warming. The study I linked indicates that climate sensitivity to CO2 may be significantly less than previously thought. This is potentially very good news. But we need to understand and keep in mind that the paper hasn't been peer-reviewed or published yet.

There is much that we don't know about how our climate works. Just last week there was a study released showing black carbon having a forcing factor of approximately double what was previously thought (which is now only slightly lower than CO2). This past year, CERN released results of their CLOUD study which suggests an extraterrestrial mechanism (galactic cosmic rays modulated by solar winds) that may be a profound factor affecting cloud formation and our climate change. And, to add to the confusion, our climate hasn't warmed the past dozen years despite ever increasing CO2 levels.

So much is going on in this field right now. Personally, I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind on this subject for the time being and let the chips fall where they may. I'm confident that science will prevail in the end despite all the "noise".

Well said. I'd just add that while I'm agnostic about the perils of global warming, there are still valid reasons to limit and better yet, sequester and use CO2, as long as we do it sanely. Unfortunately one can't get the sheep nearly as concerned about, say, the world's shallow reefs as about their own lives, making ocean acidification a poor way to gain power.

 

[tydas]

Yes, there has been some "interesting" science along with some scientists demonstrating questionable integrity if that's what you mean by "scam".

However, there is little doubt that the earth has been warming since the last ice age...the $64 question is how much CO2 and other variables play a role in this warming. The study I linked indicates that climate sensitivity to CO2 may be significantly less than previously thought. This is potentially very good news. But we need to understand and keep in mind that the paper hasn't been peer-reviewed or published yet.

There is much that we don't know about how our climate works. Just last week there was a study released showing black carbon having a forcing factor of approximately double what was previously thought (which is now only slightly lower than CO2). This past year, CERN released results of their CLOUD study which suggests an extraterrestrial mechanism (galactic cosmic rays modulated by solar winds) that may be a profound factor affecting cloud formation and our climate change. And, to add to the confusion, our climate hasn't warmed the past dozen years despite ever increasing CO2 levels.

So much is going on in this field right now. Personally, I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind on this subject for the time being and let the chips fall where they may. I'm confident that science will prevail in the end despite all the "noise".

There is no doubt you may be correct, but as others have said...using worst case scenarios 1. We act, and this action causes worldwide recession/ depression…2. We don’t act earth beats the shit out of human race..
We have recovered from global depressions before..I’m not sure we could recover from a global climate disaster…

 

[nehalem256]

There is no doubt you may be correct, but as others have said...using worst case scenarios 1. We act, and this action causes worldwide recession/ depression…2. We don’t act earth beats the shit out of human race..
We have recovered from global depressions before..I’m not sure we could recover from a global climate disaster…

Actually I thought the worst case was worldwide recession/depression and the Earth still beats the shit out of the human race.