Climate Change....who cares?
- Thread starter HawktimusPrime
- Start date
Climate Misinformer: Roger Pielke Sr
Quotes Articles Arguments Blogs Links Search
Quotes by Roger Pielke Sr
Climate Myth What the Science Says
"not all glaciers and ice caps are melting. While the Arctic ice, for example, has been decreasing in areal extent...Antarctic sea ice coverage has not"
8 November 2011 (Source)
Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.
" Melting is a response to warming. However, not all glaciers and ice caps are melting. While the Arctic ice, for example, has been decreasing in areal extent; see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png Antarctic sea ice coverage has not; see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png"
8 November 2011 (Source)
Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
"...the global average temperature anomalies are cooling! "
8 November 2011 (Source)
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
"There has not been warming significantly, if at all, since 2003, as most everyone on all sides of the climate issue agree. "
15 September 2011 (Source)
There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.
"...I have reproduced below the current plots of lower tropospheric temperature anomalies. The trend of temperatures using that climate metric is NOT accelerating, and, indeed, has not even been positive for over 12 years!"
4 April 2011 (Source)
For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
"upper ocean heat, in terms of its annual average, did not accumulate during the period ~2004 through 2009"
6 September 2010 (Source)
The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
"upper ocean heat, in terms of its annual average, did not accumulate during the period ~2004 through 2009. This means that global warming halted on this time period. There is no other way to spin this data"
6 September 2010 (Source)
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
"“shrinking Arctic sea ice” NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually [in]creased."
30 June 2009 (Source)
Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
"Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003."
30 June 2009 (Source)
The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
"Sea level has actually flattened since 2006."
30 June 2009 (Source)
The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roger_Pielke_Sr.htm
Where are all the problems at though Ciggy? We keep hearing superstorms, megafloods, no crops, etc. Yet, where is it? Keep in mind, the timeline for this keeps expanding. If so much of this research is valid, then why are they constantly getting the timing wrong?
Climate Misinformer: Roger Pielke Sr
Quotes Articles Arguments Blogs Links Search
Quotes by Roger Pielke Sr
Climate Myth What the Science Says
"not all glaciers and ice caps are melting. While the Arctic ice, for example, has been decreasing in areal extent...Antarctic sea ice coverage has not"
8 November 2011 (Source)
Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.
" Melting is a response to warming. However, not all glaciers and ice caps are melting. While the Arctic ice, for example, has been decreasing in areal extent; see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png Antarctic sea ice coverage has not; see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png"
8 November 2011 (Source)
Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
"...the global average temperature anomalies are cooling! "
8 November 2011 (Source)
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
"There has not been warming significantly, if at all, since 2003, as most everyone on all sides of the climate issue agree. "
15 September 2011 (Source)
There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.
"...I have reproduced below the current plots of lower tropospheric temperature anomalies. The trend of temperatures using that climate metric is NOT accelerating, and, indeed, has not even been positive for over 12 years!"
4 April 2011 (Source)
For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
"upper ocean heat, in terms of its annual average, did not accumulate during the period ~2004 through 2009"
6 September 2010 (Source)
The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
"upper ocean heat, in terms of its annual average, did not accumulate during the period ~2004 through 2009. This means that global warming halted on this time period. There is no other way to spin this data"
6 September 2010 (Source)
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
"“shrinking Arctic sea ice” NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually [in]creased."
30 June 2009 (Source)
Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
"Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003."
30 June 2009 (Source)
The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
"Sea level has actually flattened since 2006."
30 June 2009 (Source)
The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roger_Pielke_Sr.htm
“But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.” - Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund New York Times - January 2000
“We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.” - Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, Mar 11 2000
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. - Charles Onians -UK Independent Mar 20, 2000
Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting even. Children just aren't going to know what snow is," Dr David Viner, Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia - Mar 20, 2000
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel, 1 April 2000
"According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015". “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet - November 16, 2007
“There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015. This would mean the disappearance of multi-year ice, as no sea ice would survive the summer melt season….Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report – 2009
“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” he said, pulling out a battered laptop to show a diagram explaining his calculations, which he calls “the Arctic death spiral”. - David Vaughan Glaciologist & IPCC scientist - Financial Times Magazine Aug 8, 2012
“We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.” - Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, Mar 11 2000
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. - Charles Onians -UK Independent Mar 20, 2000
Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting even. Children just aren't going to know what snow is," Dr David Viner, Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia - Mar 20, 2000
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel, 1 April 2000
"According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015". “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet - November 16, 2007
“There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015. This would mean the disappearance of multi-year ice, as no sea ice would survive the summer melt season….Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report – 2009
“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” he said, pulling out a battered laptop to show a diagram explaining his calculations, which he calls “the Arctic death spiral”. - David Vaughan Glaciologist & IPCC scientist - Financial Times Magazine Aug 8, 2012
"A review of selected literature on latitudinal climatic shifts and atmosphere-ocean interaction suggests some similarities between the patterns of climate in the 1960s and the climate of the Little Ice Age". - Climate of the American tropics and subtropics in the 1960s and possible comparisons with climatic variations of the last millennium - Quaternary Research June 1974 *Quaternary Research June 1974 *
General agreement that the present warm epoch has reached its final phase, and that disregarding possible man-made effects - the natural end of this interglacial is "undoubtedly near". - Background to a geophysical model of the initiation of the next glaciation -Quaternary Research Dec 1974 *
“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Time Magazine June 24, 1974
"The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth's climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850) - an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world"... Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climate change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it become apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources. Assessing the impact of climate change on major nations will in the future, occupy a major portion of the Intelligence Community's assets. Central Intelligence Agency Report - "A study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems" - August 1974
General agreement that the present warm epoch has reached its final phase, and that disregarding possible man-made effects - the natural end of this interglacial is "undoubtedly near". - Background to a geophysical model of the initiation of the next glaciation -Quaternary Research Dec 1974 *
“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Time Magazine June 24, 1974
"The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth's climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850) - an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world"... Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climate change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it become apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources. Assessing the impact of climate change on major nations will in the future, occupy a major portion of the Intelligence Community's assets. Central Intelligence Agency Report - "A study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems" - August 1974
''I think we're in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.'' - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990
"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. - BBC November 7, 1997
(By 1995) somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
“By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970 *
“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." – Washington Post - July 9, 1971
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich 1971
New Ice Age Coming---It's Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971
"It is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5°C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production" - Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" Steven Schinder Science July 1971 *
"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. - BBC November 7, 1997
(By 1995) somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
“By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970 *
“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." – Washington Post - July 9, 1971
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich 1971
New Ice Age Coming---It's Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971
"It is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5°C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production" - Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" Steven Schinder Science July 1971 *
Does anyone think that "The Boy who cried Wolf", may be a good read into understanding why there are still so many skeptics?
China plans to unveil a new cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions Friday as the country's leader meets in Washington with President Barack Obama, U.S. officials said Thursday night.
President Xi Jinping will announce details of the plan while at the White House for a state visit, an event scored with tension as China and the United States work to overcome issues related to cybertheft and military aggression.
The announcement marks a significant achievement for the White House, which has worked to convince China to reduce pollution and invest in green power technology. China has the world's largest population, and is the world's largest polluter.
Looks like someone else is willing to try - it is going to take much more than the US can do.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/us-china-climate-change-regulations/index.html
President Xi Jinping will announce details of the plan while at the White House for a state visit, an event scored with tension as China and the United States work to overcome issues related to cybertheft and military aggression.
The announcement marks a significant achievement for the White House, which has worked to convince China to reduce pollution and invest in green power technology. China has the world's largest population, and is the world's largest polluter.
Looks like someone else is willing to try - it is going to take much more than the US can do.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/us-china-climate-change-regulations/index.html
Cap and Trade emissions is going to monopolize industry. The standards will start out 'reasonable' and then explode into unreasonable. Similar to how you have seen ACA skyrocket health insurance costs. A normal family, pays at least $500 for their coverage plan per month. That's $5,500 in premiums a year.
If you intend to get most of your 'sources' from Time Magazine and newsmedia reports dating back to the 1970s, vs actual scientific publications, I'm sure you'll find lots of sensationalized, unscientific and unsupported claims.
Do you get your medical advice from the same types of sources?
Is your investment advice from people making 'infomercial-like' pitches on 'penny-stocks that are going to double this year!'?
If you're really concerned about the issue (or the 'over hyping' of the issue), perhaps you should change where you gather your information from, rather than make outlandish and unsubstantiated claims about the topic....
These are the same outlandish claims made regarding the Montreal Protocol (1989), and regulations to limit sulfur emissions from coal burning/acid rain (1990) - we would 'bankrupt the economy'.
As I recall, the economy did pretty darned well during the 90's.
Perhaps you should go review what some leading economists say about 'cap and trade', and how this is probably the best option to limit emissions AND develop clean energy that will ultimately seed significant economic growth in coming decades.
Now, that'll completely disrupt the fossil fuel industry, and will eventually bankrupt the Middle Eastern countries solely dependent on oil exports, but I'm not one who really cares about what happens to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and OPEC when the rest of the world no longer relies on their exports for energy.
My solution solves the problem and does not impact people's lives, yours does not solve the problem, and it negatively impacts people's lives.
Those same leading economists that refused to believe that 2008 would happen? The same ones that can't figure out whether to raise rates or not? The same ones that are hired by big business to make sense of what they know doesn't make sense?
Any reason why they can't develop the clean energy now? What is really stopping them?
Oh I see, so the editors at TIME and news media just started blurting crap out? Good to know, they used false evidence then eh? Couldn't possibly be happening now. Have you yourself verified what has been published? Are we sure there isn't any sort of lack of credibility in all of this?
So again though, TIME just ran with this?
Well, then....link to your CO2 'capture' technology that can eliminate the 5 to 7 Gigatons of carbon dioxide we release annually thru fossil fuel and other means.
That is 10,000,000,000,000 to 14,000,000,000,000 pounds, btw. Annually.
Again, you seem to confuse 'newsmedia' with 'scientific publication'. Do you understand the difference?
And, yes, they 'just ran with that'. If you go look at the actual science literature at the time, you would find maybe 5 or 7 peer-reviewed publications claiming 'global cooling' during the 1970s, and more than 5 or 6x that many claiming we would end up with warming due to fossil fuels burning. I.e.: those claiming we were heading for an Ice Age were CLEARLY in the scientific MINORITY by a factor of 5 or 6.
There are ample sources you can Google up to verify that.
Additionally, during the 1970s, it has now been disclosed that Exxon scientists has already warned their chief management that continued burning of fossil fuels was going to result in warming due to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. That is also readily available information you can find, as you seem to be quite adept at Googling up random quotes and false information. Just use the proper keywords, and Google can find FACTS, too!
So they've been warning since the 70's, and nothing has happened yet? Keep in mind the predictions also included warming. Sorry, I'm just not convinced. Show me the chaos. It should have happened by now.
I guess my question (because I haven't looked into it) is what are the caveat's to letting the fossil fuels build back up due to lack of use? What will the earth do?
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...ted-global-warming-study-finds/#ixzz2enV95yA8
Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.
That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.
Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.
"It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models," climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.
That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.
Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.
"It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models," climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
See? This is where those brain cells would come in handy. You might then understand how climate models work. John Christy DOES know and prefers to be mendacious.
"Nothing has happened?"
Since 1970, temperatures are up 0.6 degrees C.
If you're expecting 'chaos' as in Day After Tomorrow Hollywood Style crap, no, that's not realistic.
That seems to be the Straw Man argument you're relying on here.
Here is the whole temperature series, w/o zooming in starting in 1970:
So there is no chaos then,..? Why are we so worried, or rather, why should we be so worried? I'm not expecting Day after Tomorrow, but I am expecting to see some disasters."Nothing has happened?"
Since 1970, temperatures are up 0.6 degrees C.
If you're expecting 'chaos' as in Day After Tomorrow Hollywood Style crap, no, that's not realistic.
That seems to be the Straw Man argument you're relying on here.
Here is the whole temperature series, w/o zooming in starting in 1970:
The most disastrous thing I've see as of late is ACA. Or the 50 Shades of grey movie to be sure.
In his speech, dubbed, "Earth Has A Fever," Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.
He went on to say that "scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now."
And Maslowski himself told members of the American Geophysical Union the same year that the Arctic's summer ice could completely disappear within the decade.
"If anything, our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer... is already too conservative," he said.
Fast-forward to the present day.
He went on to say that "scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now."
And Maslowski himself told members of the American Geophysical Union the same year that the Arctic's summer ice could completely disappear within the decade.
"If anything, our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer... is already too conservative," he said.
Fast-forward to the present day.
It's usually warranted to go find the ORIGINAL article, and not just the news blurb to see what they are talking about.
And when you do that, you'd find they did not address ENSO (El Nino, or also referred to as Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation - IPO) as a factor in that paper.
And if you DID a little research, you'd find that the author of the work YOU linked (John Fyfe, 2013) has a NEW article published THIS year (April 2015) where they DID look at the IPO and its influence vs. 'models'. Guess what they found!??
The recent slowdown in observed surface warming has been attributed to decadal cooling in the tropical Pacific [1,4,5], intensifying trade winds5, changes in El Niño activity [6,7], increasing volcanic activity [8–10] and decreasing solar irradiance[7]. Earlier periods of arrested warming have been observed but received much less attention than the recent period, and their causes are poorly understood. Here we analyse observed and model-simulated global T fields to quantify the contributions of internal climate variability (ICV) to decadal changes in global-mean T since 1920. We show that the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) has been associated with large T anomalies over both ocean and land. Combined with another leading mode of ICV, the IPO explains most of the difference between observed and model-simulated rates of decadal change in global-mean T since 1920,and particularly over the so-called ‘hiatus’ period since about 2000. We conclude that ICV, mainly through the IPO, was largely responsible for the recent slowdown, as well as for earlier slowdowns and accelerations in global-mean T since 1920, with preferred spatial patterns dierent from those associated with GHG-induced warming or aerosol-induced cooling. Recent history suggests that the IPO could reverse course and lead to accelerated global warming in the coming decades.
I know, that's a LOT of words to read. But they've basically shown that models UNDERestimated warming in the late 20th century, due to predominant El Nino cycles of the ENSO/IPO; the models are OVERestimating warming in the last 15 years due to predominant La Nina cycles. Overall, when the proper ENSO is used in the models, they are ACCURATE. And the conclusion here is that if we revert to a dominant El Nino period, we are going to experience accelerated warming.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2605.html
Last I checked, 2015 > 2013, and when the SAME AUTHOR is correcting his prior work with updated information/data, it's a good idea to look at the more recent works....
EDIT: If you are REALLY interested in understanding this, I can link you graphs that mirror their basic analysis - their paper is rather technical, and I don't believe it is free/open access. But it's not difficult to link the plots which show precisely the effects they identified, using the data on the WoodForTrees site.
Last edited:
Ask the people in IC/Coralville who experienced 2 500-year floods within a 20 year period....
So when do improbable happenings stop affecting what is being predicted? As in, when do the words actually start to mean what they are supposed to? It seems, like one convenient happening after another.
An endless cycle of, well this happened, so what we said would happen, isn't going to happen. If something has to become more complicated in explanation, than the nature of what actually happens, showing a glaring difference in the complexity of the explanation compared to the simple results of where those complications led. Well then you have another reason to be skeptical and you in time begin to become cynical of the promises and truths you are supposed to believe.
It would of been easier to just say ,'we were wrong'. Instead they lead you down a maze of explanation, that only few could ever truly understand and follow. Sure you can understand what the point is, but you have ti validate every single area of the explanation, including the definitions of the words and including the data they presented. The data itself needs to be understood completely before you can even start identifying the terms aside from it.
Fuzzy science.
The second one based on the buildup of the first flood. Seen any more of those lately around there?
Again, instead of listening to news blurbs, you can go to the Arctic Ice website, and view what the ice coverage looks like for yourself.
This year we hit the 4th lowest sea ice minimum on record. And, yet, Fox News and other sites were referring to this gigantic 'ice recovery' just a year or so ago (based upon the extraordinarily low 2012 event).
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
The Navy prediction you are referring to was discussed ad nauseum here months ago, and the actual prediction was 2016±3 years. So, although it's unlikely it will happen by 2019, that prediction is still 'up in the air'. 2019 may end up being wrong, but 2030 is looking pretty likely if we don't have a major uptick in the next few years - nearly all the ice coverage tracks in the past decade are running 2σ to 3σ BELOW the 1981-2010 years' average, and we have not had a year with above 'average' sea ice minimum since 2001. Go look through the data for yourself.
See what I mean, I used an overly complicated explanation to say something very simple.
The data is presented in such a complicated manner, that only the most educated of said subjects can understand what is being said. They could very well be using the complication to convince people of a lie.
That is the cliff notes version.
No. It did not. There were ~15 years in between them, which is still rather striking for an expected 500-year event.
Major re-insurance companies (Lloyds, MunichRE, etc) are now taking climate change into account for their risk models, because they do not want to lose their shirts by under-estimating the risks of the stuff they are providing insurance for. You can Google up their positions on climate as well.
And, no, they are not just using climate as an excuse to 'up' rates. If they do that, nothing stops their competitors from stepping in and undercutting their business with cheaper rates. But no insurer wants to do that because they know it's a bad investment/financial risk....
Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean SOMEONE ELSE doesn't understand it. Do you self-diagnose your own medical charts as well, or do you rely on a trained physician/radiologist/cardiologist to do it?
And, I have offered to post the "Cliff's Notes" version for you. But you don't appear interested in learning anything here.
Why bother to learn the facts when you're mind's already made up. BAU for climate denialists, which is why it's futile to try and educate them.
You have a mouse in your pocket?
"We" are not confused on anything. "You" seem to be confused on floods.
I am referring to the flooding in IC/Coralville in 1993 and 2008. If I use a skill known as 'math', I calculate those are exactly 15 years apart.
You can read about it on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_flood_of_2008
While the Great Flood of 1993 was greater in continental terms, in local Iowa terms, the June, 2008 Midwest floods were considerably worse. Lessons learned in 1993, however, helped prevent or otherwise ameliorate damage, extensive as it was; one example is how the city of Des Moines raised its levee around its domestic water and sewage treatment plants. The extent of flooding in 2008 was probably less than during the Flood of 1851, but it is difficult to compare impacts of the two floods because of changes in population, economy, and land use. A study performed by Mark Burton at the University of Tennessee and Michael J. Hicks at Ball State University was based on post 1993 flood data. However, the 2008 floods damaged key infrastructure outside of the model (e.g. the University of Iowa library) due both to changes in population and flood protection measures. However, the Burton & Hicks study did identify crop damages at roughly $3 billion, which turned out to be very close to the actual damages.[
