PDA

View Full Version : Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change



Chris
12-19-2012, 01:22 PM
Climate models that drove alarm refuted.


...Mr. Lewis* tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.

In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).

...Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."

A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on....

@ Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)

* His creds:


Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.

He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.

Cigar
12-19-2012, 02:51 PM
The Windy City is seeing one of the warmest first weeks of DecemberChicago is forecasted to break the record for longest stretch of snowless days on Monday.


"We're from Illinois so we'll take what we can get," joked a woman walking through the Christkindlmarket on Sunday.

So far this year, Chicagoans have received 280 days of no snow accumulation and unseasonably warm temperatures. The number of days ties the record set in 1994 and is on track to set a new record Monday.

All that stands in the way of setting a new record is a tenth of an inch of accumulated snow.

A chance for flurries and snowflakes are on tap for Monday, but widespread accumulating snow is not anticipated, according to the National Weather Service. Additionally, temperatures in the lower and mid-30's during the day will mostly likely melt any snow accumulations quickly.
The last time the Chicago area saw a "measurable amount" of snow was on March 4, when three-tenths of an inch accumulated.
While many are enjoying the unseasonably warm weather, some were hoping to see snow by now.


"We planned this trip months ago thinking we were going to come and see the snow in Chicago," said a woman from Texas.

After Monday, snow is a no show in the five day forecast. Be sure to enjoy it if a record is set tomorrow, because it may be awhile before Chicago enjoys this kind of break from the cold

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/weather/stories/Chicago-Could-See-Record-Breaking-Days-Without-Snow-182732501.html#ixzz2FWrZh17y


5 Days before Christmas in downtown Chicago :grin:
http://media.nbcchicago.com/images/324*182/IMG_6086kathleen2.jpg

Cigar
12-19-2012, 03:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDWYgc496M&feature=player_embedded

Just published on the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media

I talked to a whole lot of scientists at this year’s American Geophysical Union Conference, and a number of them took time for interviews. I’ll be building videos around these in the coming year, but for now, here is a sampling of perspectives on what we know now, and what we’re looking for in 2013.

Included are Charles Johnson of NASA JPL and Ben Abbott of U. of Alaska, on permafrost. Texas A&M’s Andrew Dessler on Extreme weather attributions, Eric Rignot of JPL on polar ice, Robert Rohde, lead scientists of Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, Ben Santer on IPCC models and the upcoming report, Ted Scambos of National Snow and Ice Data Center – on Snow and Ice Data, and Jason Box of Byrd Center on Greenland melt.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/12/perspectives-of-8-scientists-attending-agu-2012-fall-meeting-new-video/

Chris
12-19-2012, 03:42 PM
Those, cigar, are probably the climate modelers that the actual historical record refutes.

The argument isn't so much whether climate is changing, temps rising or falling, CO2 rising or falling, etc--those are the arguments of alarmists and deniers--but how much. Your video talks of change, the OP talks of minimal change, so minimal its ultimate effect is zilch to positive.

Cigar
12-20-2012, 08:31 AM
ERL Study - New Projections - Up to 3.7C Higher Heatwave Temps In E. US Cities By 2050


http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/12/19/lead_this_1/largest.jpg


We know by now that climate change is capable of making bad weather events worse. Heat waves will become longer, hotter, more frequent. Droughts will get drier, flood levels higher, freakish storms less freakish in their regularity. But nothing makes this prospect sound quite so scary as some very specific numbers.

So here are some new ones to ponder. This latest data comes from a recent study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, which used a high-resolution climate modeling system to project bad news down to an impressively local level, examining what we might see in the 20 largest cities east of the Mississippi come the late 2050s.

By then, researchers from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville have calculated, heat waves in New York City could be 3.58 degrees Celsius hotter in intensity than they are now, with the average one lasting nearly two days longer (these projections are compared to a baseline of climate data between 2001 and 2004). Cleveland has it the worst, with a heat wave temperature increase of 3.71 degrees Celsius, followed by Philadelphia (3.69). The researchers project that heat waves will grow worse particularly across the Northeast and Midwest, bringing the North and South to roughly equal hot-weather fates.

This set of maps from the study shows, on the left, the four-year average of heat wave intensity calculated from 2001-2004 ("intensity" is defined as the average minimum temperature over three consecutive sweltering nights). The middle map shows a three-year average from our projected future climate, in 2057-2059. And the map on the right illustrates the difference between the two (those numbers are degrees Celsius).

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/how-bad-will-climate-change-get-eastern-us-look-these-crazy-maps/4208/

ptif219
12-20-2012, 09:23 AM
The Windy City is seeing one of the warmest first weeks of DecemberChicago is forecasted to break the record for longest stretch of snowless days on Monday.


"We're from Illinois so we'll take what we can get," joked a woman walking through the Christkindlmarket on Sunday.

So far this year, Chicagoans have received 280 days of no snow accumulation and unseasonably warm temperatures. The number of days ties the record set in 1994 and is on track to set a new record Monday.

All that stands in the way of setting a new record is a tenth of an inch of accumulated snow.

A chance for flurries and snowflakes are on tap for Monday, but widespread accumulating snow is not anticipated, according to the National Weather Service. Additionally, temperatures in the lower and mid-30's during the day will mostly likely melt any snow accumulations quickly.
The last time the Chicago area saw a "measurable amount" of snow was on March 4, when three-tenths of an inch accumulated.
While many are enjoying the unseasonably warm weather, some were hoping to see snow by now.


"We planned this trip months ago thinking we were going to come and see the snow in Chicago," said a woman from Texas.

After Monday, snow is a no show in the five day forecast. Be sure to enjoy it if a record is set tomorrow, because it may be awhile before Chicago enjoys this kind of break from the cold

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/weather/stories/Chicago-Could-See-Record-Breaking-Days-Without-Snow-182732501.html#ixzz2FWrZh17y


5 Days before Christmas in downtown Chicago :grin:
http://media.nbcchicago.com/images/324*182/IMG_6086kathleen2.jpg

Russia is seeing the coldest in years

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/russia-suffers-its-coldest-winter-ever-1289248.html

Chris
12-20-2012, 09:33 AM
ERL Study - New Projections - Up to 3.7C Higher Heatwave Temps In E. US Cities By 2050


http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/12/19/lead_this_1/largest.jpg


We know by now that climate change is capable of making bad weather events worse. Heat waves will become longer, hotter, more frequent. Droughts will get drier, flood levels higher, freakish storms less freakish in their regularity. But nothing makes this prospect sound quite so scary as some very specific numbers.

So here are some new ones to ponder. This latest data comes from a recent study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, which used a high-resolution climate modeling system to project bad news down to an impressively local level, examining what we might see in the 20 largest cities east of the Mississippi come the late 2050s.

By then, researchers from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville have calculated, heat waves in New York City could be 3.58 degrees Celsius hotter in intensity than they are now, with the average one lasting nearly two days longer (these projections are compared to a baseline of climate data between 2001 and 2004). Cleveland has it the worst, with a heat wave temperature increase of 3.71 degrees Celsius, followed by Philadelphia (3.69). The researchers project that heat waves will grow worse particularly across the Northeast and Midwest, bringing the North and South to roughly equal hot-weather fates.

This set of maps from the study shows, on the left, the four-year average of heat wave intensity calculated from 2001-2004 ("intensity" is defined as the average minimum temperature over three consecutive sweltering nights). The middle map shows a three-year average from our projected future climate, in 2057-2059. And the map on the right illustrates the difference between the two (those numbers are degrees Celsius).

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/how-bad-will-climate-change-get-eastern-us-look-these-crazy-maps/4208/

Thank you for providing the old arguments that the OP refutes.

The journalistic article is based on a recent study: Projected changes of extreme weather events in the eastern United States based on a high resolution climate modeling system (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044025): "Projected changes of extreme weather events in the eastern United States based on a high resolution climate modeling system...."

IOW, it makes projections based on a model, not on actual historical data. That is exactly what the OP criticizes and, based on actual data, refutes:


In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

Cigar
12-20-2012, 09:37 AM
Dude ... that doesn't make sense ... all data is based on historical data ... not future data

Chris
12-20-2012, 09:37 AM
Russia is seeing the coldest in years

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/russia-suffers-its-coldest-winter-ever-1289248.html

Exactly. What cigar is reporting is the old Global Warming alarm that was replaced by the Global Cooling alarm and since by the more ambitious but ambiguous Climate Change alarm. But we all know climate changes. The question is not that but how much and to hat effect on humans. By the OP, not all that much.

ptif219
12-20-2012, 09:37 AM
More proof ... things are getting fucked-up :)

You mean proof we are cooling not warming

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2010/12/15/nasa-says-earth-is-entering-a-cooling-period/

Chris
12-20-2012, 09:40 AM
Dude ... that doesn't make sense ... all data is based on historical data ... not future data

Models are based on theories, in fact they are just mathematical/computation expressions of theories. Their value is determined by whether the predictions they make match historical data. The study you posted makes predictions that simply do not match the historical data.

Agravan
12-20-2012, 10:19 AM
Climate change is cyclical. It happened numerous time before man came on the scene and will happen numerous times after we are but a memory. Nothing we do will ever change that.

Chris
12-20-2012, 10:24 AM
Climate change is cyclical. It happened numerous time before man came on the scene and will happen numerous times after we are but a memory. Nothing we do will ever change that.

http://i.snag.gy/iq7Ru.jpg

Does the model cigar reported account for this cycle? Cigar? Comment?

ptif219
12-20-2012, 03:00 PM
Here is another article on Russia that Drudge posted

http://rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperature-379/



Russia is enduring its harshest winter in over 70 years, with temperatures plunging as low as -50 degrees Celsius. Dozens of people have already died, and almost 150 have been hospitalized.
*The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia.
Across the country, 45 people have died due to the cold, and 266 have been taken to hospitals. In total, 542 people were injured due to the freezing temperatures, RIA Novosti reported.

The Moscow region saw temperatures of -17 to -18 degrees Celsius on Wednesday, and the record cold temperatures are expected to linger for at least three more days. Thermometers in Siberia touched -50 degrees Celsius, which is also abnormal for December.