Global warming less extreme than feared?

[Doc Savage Fan]

Good news! It ain't as bad as we thought! I also saw a study last week where the forcing factor for black carbon is expected to double from what we originally thought. Anyway, I think the take away here is that, when it comes to global climate change, we don't know nearly as much as some would like us to think. It's a very immature science.

Temperature rise is levelling off
After Earth’s mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise.

It is the focus on this post-2000 trend that sets the Norwegian researchers’ calculations on global warming apart.

Mutual influences
A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.

Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2°C and 4.5°C, with the most probable being 3°C of warming.

In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9°C as the most likely level of warming.

Natural changes also a major factor
The figure of 1.9°C as a prediction of global warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is an average. When researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.

This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.

Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.

“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now.”

The researchers succeeded in reducing uncertainty around the climatic effects of feedback mechanisms, and their findings indicate a lowered estimate of probable global temperature increase as a result of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Ne...3983344535/p1177315753918?WT.ac=forside_nyhet

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

First and foremost it NEVER WAS as bad "as people feared". It was simply blown out of proportion by the media and liberals as a means to "IF YOU DONT DO THIS RIGHT NOW WE WILL ALL DIE IN AN INFERNO".

 

[ShawnD1]

According to google, I'm 2200 feet above sea level. The oceans can rise quite a bit before I'm doomed. People who live at sea level are in big trouble.

 

[nehalem256]

According to google, I'm 2200 feet above sea level. The oceans can rise quite a bit before I'm doomed. People who live at sea level are in big trouble.

I remember years ago seeing a documentary that discussed sea levels rising.

It discussed how determining the rise of sea levels was a difficult tasks. And I was all excited to learn the complicated scientific method they had.

And then it turned out they simply looked at some rock that a Polynesian had scratch a line at "high tide" 150 years ago and compared it to the current high tide. ^_^

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

According to google, I'm 2200 feet above sea level. The oceans can rise quite a bit before I'm doomed. People who live at sea level are in big trouble.

You should be in good shape. It's taken 20,000 years for sea level to rise 400 feet. At this rate it'll take another 110,000 years before sea water starts flooding your basement. But that's probably worse case scenario...because if you extrapolate the last 8,000 years you're probably talking millions of years...

... unless another ice age comes.

 

[tydas]

Of course its 'X%' chance of 'X' event happening based on what scientist know...what exactly are you trying to say?

 

[ShawnD1]

You should be in good shape. It's taken 20,000 years for sea level to rise 400 feet. At this rate it'll take another 110,000 years before sea water starts flooding your basement. But that's probably worse case scenario...because if you extrapolate the last 8,000 years you're probably talking millions of years...

... unless another ice age comes.

I don't mind dying as long as every other person dies first. I would be super pissed if my city was a major target of global warming and the world did nothing to help prevent global warming. Or I could just move to another city.

Adding extra heat or energy to the environment is expected to increase the strength and frequency of storms. People on the coast should be worried about this. I'm hundreds of miles inland, so the only thing here is tornadoes and maybe hale storms. With proper building codes, we can probably adjust to that with minimal effort. States like Oklahoma get wiped out by tornadoes all the time, so we could look at what they do and copy it.

 

[nextJin]

Eh my only problem with this (and it is extremely ignorant I know) is that if the earth was once covered in a sheet of ice during the last several ice ages and man was not even around how did we have these cycles where it was so hot afterwards with forests that make the Amazon look pitiful.

I dunno, I tend to not get in on these discussions because to me its stupid.

 

[monovillage]

I don't mind dying as long as every other person dies first. I would be super pissed if my city was a major target of global warming and the world did nothing to help prevent global warming. Or I could just move to another city.

Adding extra heat or energy to the environment is expected to increase the strength and frequency of storms. People on the coast should be worried about this. I'm hundreds of miles inland, so the only thing here is tornadoes and maybe hale storms. With proper building codes, we can probably adjust to that with minimal effort. States like Oklahoma get wiped out by tornadoes all the time, so we could look at what they do and copy it.

Then you'll probably be happy to know that the IPCC SREX along with the IPCC AR5 SOD agree that hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding and major storms are continuing at normal historical levels or in some cases even lower than normal historical levels.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
http://davidappell.com/AR5/ZODS/WG1AR5_ZOD_Ch02_All_Final observations.pdf


http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

 

[glenn1]

First and foremost it NEVER WAS as bad "as people feared". It was simply blown out of proportion by the media and liberals as a means to "IF YOU DONT DO THIS RIGHT NOW WE WILL ALL DIE IN AN INFERNO".

You do realize this thread and your post are setting up an angry reponse from Moonbeam and others, who are furious that Obama hasn't outlawed SUVs via Executive Order. For the kids' sake, of course.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Good news! It ain't as bad as we thought! I also saw a study last week where the forcing factor for black carbon is expected to double from what we originally thought. Anyway, I think the take away here is that, when it comes to global climate change, we don't know nearly as much as some would like us to think. It's a very immature science.







http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Ne...3983344535/p1177315753918?WT.ac=forside_nyhet

Just think how much your drink warms after the last of the ice melts. Now think how much the global temperature will rise when all the pack ice, perma-frost and glaciers melt.

 

[Jaskalas]

Here's something to compliment this news. NOTE, it is prior to the reduced forecasts.

The bulk of all warming from a strictly temperature perspective should happen, and is happening, in the coldest parts of the planet at the coldest times of the year.

 

[Jaskalas]

Just think how much your drink warms after the last of the ice melts. Now think how much the global temperature will rise when all the pack ice, perma-frost and glaciers melt.

The vikings might actually farm in Greenland again.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Just think how much your drink warms after the last of the ice melts. Now think how much the global temperature will rise when all the pack ice, perma-frost and glaciers melt.

So...I take it that you believe warming will continue unabated and the cyclic ice ages we've seen every 40-50k years in the past will not occur again. Just curious...on what basis does one make such an assumption?

 

[ShawnD1]

Just think how much your drink warms after the last of the ice melts. Now think how much the global temperature will rise when all the pack ice, perma-frost and glaciers melt.

You have a good point. Ice around the north pole has been steadily declining for decades, and it's getting to the point where there might not be any more permanent ice in the coming years. This is interesting because it means you'll be able to ship things across the north pole in the summer months! A country like Iceland might be the next major shipping hub of the world.

I'm really excited to see what global warming will look like in the coming decades. The world is changing right before my eyes. I'll be able to say to my kids that there was a time when you couldn't ship things across the north pole because it was covered with ice all year. We had myths like Santa Claus living in the north pole because of that permanent ice. In the future, that myth won't make any sense because his house and slave workshop would sink into the arctic ocean in summer. 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. It might have all kinds of interesting dinosaur bones. What kind of minerals can we get from the north? What kind of industry can we establish there?

The bulk of all warming from a strictly temperature perspective should happen, and is happening, in the coldest parts of the planet at the coldest times of the year.

The bulk of global warming happens in the coldest areas because the coldest areas have no water. Water is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas, so areas with high humidity already have a very strong greenhouse effect. Areas with no water only have things like CO2 to provide a greenhouse effect, so the majority of global warming happens around the poles and in desert regions. It also mostly happens in winter. Right now it's -13C where I live, so there's not much water in the air.

This winter has been interesting. I saw a guy skateboarding in January. In Canada. Can you imagine that happening every year? This place could be like north California in a couple decades.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You do realize this thread and your post are setting up an angry reponse from Moonbeam and others, who are furious that Obama hasn't outlawed SUVs via Executive Order. For the kids' sake, of course.

Moonbeam is either an excellent troll - or the guy who brought my pizza to the door the other day. Given how much time he puts into it, I'm going to have to go with the latter.

 

[Lemon law]

I am so thrilled at the genius of DocSavageFan. As he finds just one writer of semi dubious scientific credibility Who states global warming is over blown. As then DSF, goes ga ga, and assumes just that one writer is correct.`

 

[IGBT]

algore's alarmist eco-KOOKS will froth at the mouth over any mention that their hoax really is a hoax based on extrapolated smoke and mirrors and cherry picked / manipulated numbers. Think of all the willing accomplices and useful idiots in the media and academia that have jack booted this hoax to the public. They would rather jump off the roof then admit that they are a spoke in the wheel of the black hand propagandists promoting a fraud.

 

[Incorruptible]

First and foremost it NEVER WAS as bad "as people feared". It was simply blown out of proportion by the media and liberals as a means to "IF YOU DONT DO THIS RIGHT NOW WE WILL ALL DIE IN AN INFERNO".

Agree, It never was and will be a problem. It was used by morons in the media and special interests to pursue an agenda

 

[Darwin333]

Just think how much your drink warms after the last of the ice melts. Now think how much the global temperature will rise when all the pack ice, perma-frost and glaciers melt.

I really don't think I will give a fuck at that point in time.

BTW, does the ice at the poles actually have a measurable effect on global temps?

 

[monovillage]

I really don't think I will give a fuck at that point in time.

BTW, does the ice at the poles actually have a measurable effect on global temps?

Still the best climate blog out there.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/23/a...orced-components-in-the-arctic-amplification/

These results support the notion that the enhanced wintertime warming over high northern latitudes from 1965 to 2000 was mainly a reflection of unforced variability of the coupled climate system. Some of the simulations exhibit an enhancement of the warming along the Arctic coast, suggestive of exaggerated feedbacks. – Wallace et al.

JC comment: I like the Wallace et al. paper, and Jerry North did a nice job with his commentary. However, none of this is news to me, since I have published two papers previously that came to same conclusions:

Recent Arctic sea ice variability: connections to the Arctic Oscillation and the ENSO
Causes of the northern high-latitude land surface winter climate change

While there is a trend in the Arctic, the amplification is associated with natural internal variability. As per google scholar, the sea ice paper has 7 citations (miniscule) and the land paper has 41 citations (moderate). Neither paper was cited by Wallace et al., presumably they are unfamiliar with these papers.

 

[klinc]

Maybe the sun is getting hotter that's all.

 

[zinfamous]

First and foremost it NEVER WAS as bad "as people feared". It was simply blown out of proportion by the media and liberals as a means to "IF YOU DONT DO THIS RIGHT NOW WE WILL ALL DIE IN AN INFERNO".

you know how I know you have no freaking clue what you are talking about?

 

[Jaskalas]

Adding extra heat or energy to the environment is expected to increase the strength and frequency of storms. People on the coast should be worried about this.

The "scientific consensus" is in conflict with the data. You may have been able to make that argument before the PDO turned cold, and ACE values plummeted back to where they were in the 70s. It is true no longer.

 

[drebo]

Anyone who ever thought that "global warming" and "climate change" policies were anything other than a power grab is an idiot.

We have no more control over our climate than a flea has over the direction of travel of the dog it's riding on.

Sure, it's probably a good idea to clean up some of our industry and research "alternative energy"...but not because it's impacting the climate on a global scale to any measurable degree. More because it's just plain a good idea for the long term. Oil will run out sometime in the next 200 years, and oil shale will run out some time after that. Coal and natural gas will run out, too. The more prepared we can be for those eventualities, the better. Efficiency is great and progress is great.

But it shouldn't be because of some mythical "the world is going to die and we killed it" reasoning. And it certainly shouldn't be on the dime of the tax payer.