Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[govols/cc]

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.

At the time some scientists forecast an imminent ice age.

And the global cooling tax warmed things up.

 

[tumscalcium]

Lol at Bart for keeping this global cooling..err..warming...err... Climate change act going. So funny.

 

[govols/cc]

I wonder how many solar panels he has on his home and what model Tesla he has. I'm sure there's not an aerosol can in his home.

 

[BartW]

Somehow I knew this thread would be bumpin'

Blizzard Offers Climate-Change Deniers Yet Another Opportunity to Be Wrong
The Climate Science Behind New England’s Historic Blizzard

One of the most robust scientific findings is the direct connection between global warming and more extreme precipitation or deluges. “Basic physics tells us that a warmer atmosphere is able to hold more moisture — at a rate of approximately 7 per cent increase per degree [Celsius] warming,” as the U.K. Met Office explained in its 2014 update on climate science. “This is expected to lead to similar percentage increases in heavy rainfall, which has generally been borne out by models and observed changes in daily rainfall.”

This means that when it is cold enough to snow, snow storms will be fueled by more water vapor and thus be more intense themselves. So we expect fewer snowstorms in regions close to the rain-snow line, such as the central United States, though the snowstorms that do occur in those areas are still likely to be more intense. It also means we expect more intense snowstorms in generally cold regions. This may appear to be counterintuitive — and certainly climate science deniers like to play up big snowstorms for that reason. But the fact is that the warming to date is not close to that needed to end below-freezing temperatures during midwinter over parts of the globe like New England, while it is large enough to put measurably more water vapor into the air.


The 2014 National Climate Assessment (NCA), which is the most comprehensive analysis to date of current and future U.S. climate impacts, pointed out, “The mechanism driving these changes is well understood.” The congressionally-mandated report by 300 leading climate scientists and experts, which was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, explains: “Warmer air can contain more water vapor than cooler air. Global analyses show that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has in fact increased due to human-caused warming…. This extra moisture is available to storm systems, resulting in heavier rainfalls. Climate change also alters characteristics of the atmosphere that affect weather patterns and storms.”

That final point is very important. The worst deluges have jumped not merely because warmer air holds more moisture that in turn gets sucked into major storm systems. Increasingly, scientists have explained that climate change is altering the jet stream and weather patterns in ways that can cause storm systems to slow down or get stuck, thereby giving them more time to dump heavy precipitation.

It's been sunny and 60s here in Seattle (same high temperature as Miami yesterday). SF hasn't had any rain all year and doesn't expect any this month. The skeeters are out in force; hope we get a good freeze to wipe 'em out...

Crazy weather, eh?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

"Bridgeport, CT Mayor Bill Finch (D) thanked MSNBC anchor Al Sharpton for “fighting the good fight on climate change” during a report on Winter Storm Juno on Monday’s “PoliticsNation.”

After urging residents to stay off the roads and reporting that emergency workers were ensuring that the elderly and homeless population were taking care of, Finch told Sharpton “thank you for your show, Reverend, you’ve been fighting the good fight on climate change, and we can see the crazy climate here, and we’d like to have a little bit more of you down in Washington.”

Wait a second, "crazy cimate" as in having a snow storm during winter you fkng jacktard? You live in the North. WTF are you even talking about?

I saw that clip & Sharpton is smiling & shaking his head yes like "thanks brother for the shout out & making me look so cool".....:yuck: so freaking disgusting that guy Al.

 

[FLVOL69]

I saw that clip & Sharpton is smiling & shaking his head yes like "thanks brother for the shout out & making me look so cool".....:yuck: so freaking disgusting that guy Al.

$

This sums up Al pretty accurately ..

 

[theFallGuy]

It's been sunny and 60s here in Seattle (same high temperature as Miami yesterday).

Crazy weather, eh?

OMG 60 degree weather in Seattle and sunny? The logical conclusion here is that the earth is doomed!

 

[AirVol]

Can't find the video but a meteorologist vs sen. kucinich last night on Hannity was a hoot. Weatherman put him in his place.

 

[govols/cc]

OMG 60 degree weather in Seattle and sunny? The logical conclusion here is that the earth is doomed!

Not if the people of Seattle pay a tax.

 

[volinbham]

Somehow I knew this thread would be bumpin'

Blizzard Offers Climate-Change Deniers Yet Another Opportunity to Be Wrong
The Climate Science Behind New England’s Historic Blizzard


It's been sunny and 60s here in Seattle (same high temperature as Miami yesterday). SF hasn't had any rain all year and doesn't expect any this month. The skeeters are out in force; hope we get a good freeze to wipe 'em out...

Crazy weather, eh?

Wait a minute - the article you linked is not scientific, peer-reviewed research. It is opinion and cobbles together various views and studies to draw a conclusion that is not tested, let alone subject to peer review (sound familiar)

For example this statement is not a peer reviewed finding - it is an opinion of a scientist

I asked Dr. Trenberth to comment on the role climate change has on this latest storm, which is forecast to set records. He explained:
The number 1 cause of this is that it is winter. In winter it is cold over the continent. But it is warm over the oceans and the contrast between the cold continent and the warm Gulf Stream and surrounding waters is increasing. At present sea surface temperatures are more the 2F above normal over huge expanses (1000 miles) off the east coast and water vapor in the atmosphere is about 10% higher as a result. About half of this can be attributed to climate change.

Also, the chart showing a trend towards more precipitation

“Percent changes in the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy events (the heaviest 1%) from 1958 to 2012″ by region,” via the 2014 National Climate Assessment. “There is a clear national trend toward a greater amount of precipitation being concentrated in very heavy events, particularly in the Northeast,” driven by a warming climate.

is quite selective in the time period studied as this blog points out

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/a-classic-example-of-climate-fraud-by-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/

A bit heavy handed critique too be sure but it certainly calls into question the notion that we are in a massive precipitation increased due to warming when the study begins with historic lows as the precipitation baseline and levels of precip are high in both below average and above average temperature ranges.

Bottomline, if you require skeptics or luke warmists to stick to peer reviewed and validated conclusions then hold yourself to the same standard.

 

[volinbham]

more "opinion" science

Bill Nye Blames Blizzard on Climate Change, Because of Course | National Review Online

 

[volinbham]

From Bart's article

As Trenberth wrote in his must-read analysis, “How To Relate Climate Extremes to Climate Change,” the “answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

so anything we observe is the result of warming - more precip, less precip, more snow, less snow.

So this storm proved to be milder than expected - I can only assume that is because of warming.

If it's crazy cold, that's because of warming. If it's crazy hot, that' because of warming. If it's really hot and really cold in the same year? You guessed it, warming (or the steroids of climate).

 

[volinbham]

One of the most robust scientific findings is the direct connection between global warming and more extreme precipitation or deluges. “Basic physics tells us that a warmer atmosphere is able to hold more moisture — at a rate of approximately 7 per cent increase per degree [Celsius] warming,” as the U.K. Met Office explained in its 2014 update on climate science. “This is expected to lead to similar percentage increases in heavy rainfall, which has generally been borne out by models and observed changes in daily rainfall.”

Let's just take this "robust finding". What you see here is a claim from basic physics (warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture) taken as therefore a warmer year will mean more precipitation.

What are the problems with this?

1. the physics finding is an "all else being equal" yet we know there are considerably more influences in the system

2. warm is implied to be universal yet we are continually reminded that warming is global not necessarily localized. So a year may be warm while region is cool. Should we expect the cool region to be "more moist" given the world itself is warmer? What at the geographic boundaries.

3. was this particular blizzard historic? not particularly and we've had similar magitude blizzards occurred in less globally warm conditions.

so this "most robust finding" is stretched in this article into "proof" that warming is causing worse storms. Of course, the conclusion is speculation and not subject to peer review.

 

[hog88]

In Kansas City tonight and its 68f. Maybe Bart's right?

 

[FLVOL69]

In Kansas City tonight and its 68f. Maybe Bart's right?

Send me some ribs from LC's BBQ please..

 

[Carl Pickens]

Somehow I knew this thread would be bumpin'

Blizzard Offers Climate-Change Deniers Yet Another Opportunity to Be Wrong
The Climate Science Behind New England’s Historic Blizzard


It's been sunny and 60s here in Seattle (same high temperature as Miami yesterday). SF hasn't had any rain all year and doesn't expect any this month. The skeeters are out in force; hope we get a good freeze to wipe 'em out...

Crazy weather, eh?

Run for the hills.....it's Armageddon

 

[MG1968]

Crazy weather, eh?

local weather isn't climate. At least that's what you alleged scientists have been telling us for years.

 

[hog88]

In Kansas City tonight and its 68f. Maybe Bart's right?

Nope, he's wrong 45 today.

 

[BartW]

Wait a minute - the article you linked is not scientific, peer-reviewed research. It is opinion and cobbles together various views and studies to draw a conclusion that is not tested, let alone subject to peer review

I post news pretty regularly. No, news articles are not peer-reviewed scientific research. They do cite peer-reviewed scientific research.

The basic physical argument is not opinion. It’s so simple it honestly doesn’t even require citation.

For example this statement is not a peer reviewed finding - it is an opinion of a scientist

SST and water vapor are simple measurables. The part about ~half being due to climate change is off-the-cuff, granted. It’s impossible to comment on current events in real time through peer-reviewed outlets though. So are scientists not allowed to talk news?

Also, the chart showing a trend towards more precipitation
is quite selective in the time period studied as this blog points out

A bit heavy handed critique too be sure but it certainly calls into question the notion that we are in a massive precipitation increased due to warming when the study begins with historic lows as the precipitation baseline and levels of precip are high in both below average and above average temperature ranges.

I wonder why they’re attacking UCS. My article cited the NCA. As you can see the NCA chapter’s first figures go back to 1900. Your blog’s figure has a different focus and uses a different metric -- it and the NCA’s just both start in 1958. I think that particular figure started in 1958 because that was ‘the past 50 years’ at the time of the figure’s assembly. You can follow the NCA citation to its original context, p.32. I don’t know the origin of your blog’s figure as it links elsewhere. Maybe it was because most of the CO2 and temperature increase has been since the ‘50s? I don’t suspect anything nefarious.

Bottomline, if you require skeptics or luke warmists to stick to peer reviewed and validated conclusions then hold yourself to the same standard.

I don’t require peer-reviewed posts. But if someone does cite peer-reviewed research, I expect them to provide proper context and not horrifically misrepresent the author’s position (*cough* SandVol)

From Bart's article

so anything we observe is the result of warming - more precip, less precip, more snow, less snow.

That’s not at all what it said.

So this storm proved to be milder than expected - I can only assume that is because of warming.

No

If it's crazy cold, that's because of warming. If it's crazy hot, that' because of warming. If it's really hot and really cold in the same year? You guessed it, warming (or the steroids of climate).

Just no

Let's just take this "robust finding". What you see here is a claim from basic physics (warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture) taken as therefore a warmer year will mean more precipitation.

What are the problems with this?

1. the physics finding is an "all else being equal" yet we know there are considerably more influences in the system

Red herring. All else being equal, increasing temperature increases absolute humidity. That is the point.

2. warm is implied to be universal yet we are continually reminded that warming is global not necessarily localized. So a year may be warm while region is cool. Should we expect the cool region to be "more moist" given the world itself is warmer? What at the geographic boundaries.

Like my article noted, super cold winters typically have less precipitation. Likewise, colder climates generally have little precipitation.

Geography certainly affects weather and climate, especially relief and water bodies. This nor’easter was an example of that: polar air mass from land meets tropical moisture from sea.

Why do you think different regions have different climate predictions? That gets at the heart of the difference between ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’.

3. was this particular blizzard historic? not particularly and we've had similar magitude blizzards occurred in less globally warm conditions.

Agreed

so this "most robust finding" is stretched in this article into "proof" that warming is causing worse storms. Of course, the conclusion is speculation and not subject to peer review.

You misunderstand. The article does not state that global warming caused this blizzard (it explicitly makes that distinction); it’s just saying that the observation is consistent with climate predictions.

There is tons of peer-reviewed research on AGW’s impact on the hydrologic cycle. Here’s the first hit from a quick google scholar. Check the citation web. You will find dozens, hundreds of articles on the topic. Follow the NCA’s citation web. The basic physical argument is non-controversial. It’s just counter-intuitive that global warming can cause heavier snowfall.

 

[BartW]

OMG 60 degree weather in Seattle and sunny? The logical conclusion here is that the earth is doomed!

In Kansas City tonight and its 68f. Maybe Bart's right?

Fantastic weather again today. This is supposed to be our rainy season!

local weather isn't climate. At least that's what you alleged scientists have been telling us for years.

Hey you’re catching on :good!:

 

[Obsessed]

I bought a used powerstroke yesterday.


Tired of winter. Doing my part to speed this up....

 

[BartW]

Shell urges shareholders to accept climate resolution

“This is a huge victory for the climate, which demonstrates the power of positive shareholder engagement,” said Elspeth Owens, at environmental legal group ClientEarth, which also helped coordinate the resolutions. “The vast majority of Shell shareholders are now likely to vote in support. This throws down the gauntlet for BP to face up to its climate risk.”

Some investors concerned about global warming have chosen to sell off their fossil fuels stocks in a fast-growing campaign of divestment that seeks to stigmatise the companies. They argue that current business models are unsupportable given that over $700bn a year is spent exploring for new oil, gas and coal, despite three-quarters of existing reserves being unburnable if climate change is tackled.

But other investors argue engaging with companies through shareholder resolutions, for example, has more effect.

“We think our supportive but stretching shareholder resolutions could help focus attention on this increasingly complex challenge for companies, investors and policy makers,” said Helen Wildsmith, at CCLA, a coalition of UK local authority pension funds many of whom co-filed the BP and Shell resolutions.

“We view Shell’s decision as a potential turning point in investor engagement with the industry on carbon asset risk,” said Andrew Logan, oil & gas program director at the sustainability group Ceres, whose Investor Network on Climate Risk has 110 institutional investors with collective assets of $13 trillion. “However, investors will be closely scrutinizing Shell’s disclosures, particularly in light of its decision today to greenlight drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, one of the highest cost and highest risk projects in its entire portfolio.”

Royal Dutch Shell represent!

 

[Obsessed]

$$

 

[Orangeslice13]

I still want to know what the ideal temperature should be. I think this place could use some warming up.

 

[Sandvol]

Shell urges shareholders to accept climate resolution


Royal Dutch Shell represent!

How altruistic of them.