Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
weirpig

Report Climate change ipcc

Recommended Posts

On 24/04/2019 at 15:56, Midlands Ice Age said:

I still have the feeling that a temperature increase of around 2.0C would be beneficial for the earth and particularly humanity.

I've seen a similar comment to this one elsewhere in the media recently and I was genuinely wondering how this could be beneficial?

I'm 49 and there certainly seems to be more reports of natural disasters (fires, storms, flooding and heatwaves) in the news these days then when I was a child and we do have facts showing a rising temperature, melting ice, rising sea levels, shrinking forests and rising CO2 in the atmosphere so if the latter is indeed causing the former then I'm curious as to how this could be thought of as a good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jayces said:

I've seen a similar comment to this one elsewhere in the media recently and I was genuinely wondering how this could be beneficial?

I'm 49 and there certainly seems to be more reports of natural disasters (fires, storms, flooding and heatwaves) in the news these days then when I was a child and we do have facts showing a rising temperature, melting ice, rising sea levels, shrinking forests and rising CO2 in the atmosphere so if the latter is indeed causing the former then I'm curious as to how this could be thought of as a good thing?

will have to find it but i have read..particularly across N.America that the instants of Major Tornadoes and Hurricanes has fallen over the last 40 years..heatwaves are less severe also..where for instance the 1930s were much hotter and drier than recent decades..also which i found hard to believe but seems the number of acres lost each year due to forest fires has also fallen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

will have to find it but i have read..particularly across N.America that the instants of Major Tornadoes and Hurricanes has fallen over the last 40 years..heatwaves are less severe also..where for instance the 1930s were much hotter and drier than recent decades..also which i found hard to believe but seems the number of acres lost each year due to forest fires has also fallen

in your face media coverage does alter ones perspective and only when you look at the historic record dispassionately do you get the truth 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

will have to find it but i have read..particularly across N.America that the instants of Major Tornadoes

Tornadoes have been a bit lower in recent decades but this is undoubtedly helped by the fact El Nino's have generally been more common since La Nina's since the 1970s, there is a clear link between ENSO and tornadoes. Also tornadoes are most abundant when there is a large temperature gradient between the continental airmasses to the North and tropical airmasses to the south. The frequency of tornadoes in a warming climate is therefore highly uncertain given these factors.  

and Hurricanes has fallen over the last 40 years..

This is incorrect. Hurricane activity in the North Atlantic has increased greatly since the mid 1990s. Part of this may be related to the AMO but Tropical Atlantic SSTs are forecast to continue to warm dramatically and this gives more fuel for hurricanes to form. In the Pacific SSTs are so warm anomalies don't make much of a difference, it is ENSO that matters most. However in the Atlantic things are more borderline for hurricane formation so increasing SSTs will make a huge difference. You can see that from the below Figure. Future activity depends on ENSO but given the relationship below how can we expect it to stop increasing if ENSO continues to naturally vary.

image.thumb.png.64770c55a4b825ef527dcb291190041f.png Emmanuel (2005). Aside from the lull in mid 2010s (ENSO related), Accumulated cyclone energy has consistently been above avg.

Hyperactive seasons before the mid 1990s were rare, but 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2010, 2016 and 2017 were all exceptionally active with only the extremely strong La Nina year of 1933 being more active then 2005. 2017 was also very close. So I believe that statement is false. How have hurricanes fallen in the last 40 years, the 80s to early 90s were very quiet!

image.thumb.png.eee26acf0f062262ad6e2dd47dcae752.png ACE since the 1800s, earlier years may see some tropical storms missed in the Eastern North Atlantic.

The concerning thing here is that we no longer need to have a La Nina in the Pacific to get a hyperactive hurricane season anymore like in earlier years of this graph. The warmer SSTs can now provide that.

 

10 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

heatwaves are less severe also..where for instance the 1930s were much hotter and drier than recent decades..also which i found hard to believe but seems the number of acres lost each year due to forest fires has also fallen

Any evidence to back up these statements? Yes the Summers of the mid 1930s in some areas of the US were very hot but the frequency of hot summers is increasing and the frequency of below average summers is decreasing.

image.thumb.png.9f86116d953270998c08552624c0b9cd.png NOAA

Also US temperatures are not representative of global temperatures as a whole. 1930s hot summers were aided by drought and conductive synoptics for heat. We no longer have to rely on such extremes to achieve those temperatures so it becomes easier.

As far as your final point about wildfires go there wasn't a reliable method of measuring acres burnt until 1983, this is what that graph shows:

image.thumb.png.ac7a195117dd6858512d7273be2e4853.png

Data during the early 20th century shows higher values but there are problems with this data. Randy Eardly, a spokesperson for the NIFC said:

"I wouldn’t put any stock in those numbers. To try and compare any of the more modern data to that earlier data is not accurate or appropriate, because we didn’t have a good way to measure [earlier data]. Back then we didn’t have a reliable reporting system; for all I know those came from a variety of different sources that often double-counted figures. When you look at some of those years that add up to 60 or 70 million acres burned a lot of those acres have to be double counted two or three times. We didn’t have a system to estimate area burned until 1960, but it was really refined in 1983."

Federal reports suggest that a large number of fires were also started delibrately to clear land.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, jonboy said:

in your face media coverage does alter ones perspective and only when you look at the historic record dispassionately do you get the truth 

Ah guess we should ignore the 97% of climate scientists who dedicate their time to studying this issue then....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, for those who insist that 'it's the sun what done it' a basic understanding of stellar evolution might help: http://www.astro.uvic.ca/~robb/a102/starevol.pdf

Also, there's the perhaps inconvenient fact that, ever since life colonised land-masses, not one great climatic/extinction event has been attributed to changes in solar activity: the unchecked proliferation of land plants, however, is an altogether different kettle of fish: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21417-first-land-plants-plunged-earth-into-ice-age/

The conclusion: the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (ergo global climates) are now regulated primarily by life itself, with any contributions from the sun being, at best, negligible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

 

 

Ah guess we should ignore the 97% of climate scientists who dedicate their time to studying this issue then....

Ah yes the 97% argument.  This claim all started from a paper by John Cook in 2013 in which he said that 97% of papers he reviewed scientists agreed that climate was changing and they considered man was the major contributor.

This is the problem he did not review every paper so the claim that you use is fundamentally wrong. It is bad lazy science to continually use the 97% of Climate scientists say climate changing is down to mans co2 output.

If you want to prove you point on the 97% please go ahead and prove it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Ah yes the 97% argument.  This claim all started from a paper by John Cook in 2013 in which he said that 97% of papers he reviewed scientists agreed that climate was changing and they considered man was the major contributor.

This is the problem he did not review every paper so the claim that you use is fundamentally wrong. It is bad lazy science to continually use the 97% of Climate scientists say climate changing is down to mans co2 output.

If you want to prove you point on the 97% please go ahead and prove it

I'm more worried by what the 3% cite as their 'alternative' cause: is it the sun, space aliens, undersea volcanoes, or some as yet undiscovered gas? The options are as numerous as they are laughable, IMO. 

The MO seems to be centred simply on denying, with not a shred of scientific evidence, that (by some mysterious quirk of Nature) anthropogenic CO2 is not a greenhouse gas! 

All very reminiscent of the 'tobacco doesn't cause lung-cancer' mantra Big Cig used to trot out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Ah yes the 97% argument.  This claim all started from a paper by John Cook in 2013 in which he said that 97% of papers he reviewed scientists agreed that climate was changing and they considered man was the major contributor.

This is the problem he did not review every paper so the claim that you use is fundamentally wrong. It is bad lazy science to continually use the 97% of Climate scientists say climate changing is down to mans co2 output.

If you want to prove you point on the 97% please go ahead and prove it

There have been numerous consensus studies that land in and around that 97% figure.
As far as I'm aware, the 2013 Cook et al., paper has not been retracted either, so it appears not to be fundamentally flawed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Extinction brigade were out in force again over the weekend    Not quite sure what a 300 person death protest at the kelvingrove art gallery   will achieve  apparently they staged a death protest   right  by  the remains of  dippy the dinosaur.    Cuckoo 

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-27/green-campaigners-stage-mass-die-in-beneath-dippy-the-dinosaur/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/04/2019 at 11:49, Jayces said:

I've seen a similar comment to this one elsewhere in the media recently and I was genuinely wondering how this could be beneficial?

I'm 49 and there certainly seems to be more reports of natural disasters (fires, storms, flooding and heatwaves) in the news these days then when I was a child and we do have facts showing a rising temperature, melting ice, rising sea levels, shrinking forests and rising CO2 in the atmosphere so if the latter is indeed causing the former then I'm curious as to how this could be thought of as a good thing?

Would you say that the 1C warming we have seen so far is NOT  beneficial?.

We have expanded the population by 4 times during the last 100 year period. Without widespread gains in productivity from agriculture we would have had many millions who also would not have survived (death by starvation).

There is little doubt that our new eco (warmer/ wetter)  environment has assisted in feeding this population explosion.

If we do manage to stop temperatures increasing by reducing CO2, how would you propose that we  feed the further increases in humanity in the future?. An increase of 2C (and the resultant more moisture in the atmosphere) would surely assist here? 

 

 

Other points in your post -

1) the whole point is that the number of actual disasters  has been virtually unchanged. It is the reporting of them  that has exploded as communications around the around the world have improved.

Weather related disasters have always occurred.

It used to be of the order of 2 weeks before anyone heard about a cyclone in say Bangladesh  (1950's) . Now we can watch it online.

In fact in the early 20th century the number of deaths was 10 times greater than has occurred this century.

I will try and find a graph issued by the USA Insurance agency of the trends of disaster related deaths.

Re the second point -

2) I do not doubt that a slight trend in rising temperatures is occurring - 0.87C in the last 130 years.  I have already explained that in my first post.

Melting of ice has also varied during this time. At the moment the Arctic ice level is quite low but this also occurred in the 1930's, and has clearly occurred at other times during the last 1000 years. Otherwise how could Greenland have been colonised in the 1300's?.

Sea levels are still not a threat - Greenland and the Antarctic (the  areas of maximum and key ice) have actually gained ice very recently. These are the areas which will determine the height of the seas. Currently the change in sea level reflects that of a very small increase in oceanic temperatures.       Little more.        Remember that Arctic Sea ice has virtually  no affect on sea levels. 

Shrinking forests - I think this is much more to do with Mankind's exploitation of the earth. I am not sure about Climate Change. 

Rising CO2 levels - yes it is happening, but not at the rate which we are producing it. Why might this be? It would seem as though the Carbon sinks on earth are actually taking in more as the levels in the atmosphere rise. This was not predicted and is still being investigated.

So yes I agree that the latter  is having some effect on the above.  But the overall size of the effect, (either  direct or indirect)  has not been ascertained. It is only the models (which are still in their infancy) which dictates that there may be problems ahead  (CAGW).

The early models assumptions that the rise in temperatures compared to CO2 levels would be logarithmic and therefore would be directly related to temperature has proved incorrect. We now recognise that 'feedbacks' are the reason. The problem is that these feedbacks are still largely not understood. That is the reason we have a divergence of from 1.5C up to more than 6C in the models for the prediction for the end of this century,   even now..

My position is that some warming is occurring related to 'CC' . Probably about 1.5C.

I find, however,  that I am still not convinced by CAGW, and therefore the need for immediate and panic measures.

MIA

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, weirpig said:

I see the Extinction brigade were out in force again over the weekend    Not quite sure what a 300 person death protest at the kelvingrove art gallery   will achieve  apparently they staged a death protest   right  by  the remains of  dippy the dinosaur.    Cuckoo 

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-27/green-campaigners-stage-mass-die-in-beneath-dippy-the-dinosaur/

C'mon, the point they were making isn't difficult to grasp - surely? You must just feel the need to jeer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Would you say that the 1C warming we have seen so far is NOT  beneficial?.

We have expanded the population by 4 times during the last 100 year period. Without widespread gains in productivity from agriculture we would have had many millions who also would not have survived (death by starvation).

There is little doubt that our new eco (warmer/ wetter)  environment has assisted in feeding this population explosion.

If we do manage to stop temperatures increasing by reducing CO2, how would you propose that we  feed the further increases in humanity in the future?. An increase of 2C (and the resultant more moisture in the atmosphere) would surely assist here?

Would your view be that more humans is always beneficial? I have, you'll note, left you the opportunity to attack me as anti human - lets see what you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Devonian said:

C'mon, the point they were making isn't difficult to grasp - surely? You must just feel the need to jeer.

No  i really dont   Why a dinosaur ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

 

 

Ah guess we should ignore the 97% of climate scientists who dedicate their time to studying this issue then....

this is what i found just looking for 10 mins regarding the US summer temps..heatwave index and hurricanes..the trouble i find is there is lots of conflicting reports and graphs..even from NOAA and NASA..that you can spin which ever way you want to.

2018-09-13073010_shadow.png

hot6.png

Hurricane_Daniel.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jonboy said:

in your face media coverage does alter ones perspective and only when you look at the historic record dispassionately do you get the truth 

To do as you do: Prove it. Prove you are dispassionate. Prove you have found the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wales declare a national emergency on Climate change.  Ed Miliband    Also stating that England should follow suit.   But again i ask the question what will that solve?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, weirpig said:

Wales declare a national emergency on Climate change.  Ed Miliband    Also stating that England should follow suit.   But again i ask the question what will that solve?.

People undoubtedly said similar when it was said that the state of the Thames was a sanitary emergency and we needed to build sewers. For years, decades, nothing was done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Devonian said:

People undoubtedly said similar when it was said that the state of the Thames was a sanitary emergency and we needed to build sewers. For years, decades, nothing was done...

So we are comparing the state of the Thames  (A River that runs through the South East)  to that of a global emergency  which can really only be stopped by a few countries   none of which are us. So again what good will it do?   It yet again is doing nothing to Address  the elephant in the room.  China,  Russia,l USA , Austrailia, Saudi Arabia,Canada,Japan.  heck even Ireland      All of which are in the bottom 10 for climate change.   We can all be taxed in this country to the heavens  we can all travel around on horseback  and eat nothing but lentils   But the worst case scenarios will still happen.   People say we are in a time of crisis  the world will be doomed in a few years   Fight the big war  not little skirmishes which will help nothing   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

this is what i found just looking for 10 mins regarding the US summer temps..heatwave index and hurricanes..the trouble i find is there is lots of conflicting reports and graphs..even from NOAA and NASA..that you can spin which ever way you want to.

2018-09-13073010_shadow.png

hot6.png

Hurricane_Daniel.png

Problem is those charts are a classic case of cherry picking to suit one's agenda. There is no doubt the 1930s consisted some notably hot weather, persistently high temperatures boosting the heatwave indices. However a UK chart would show a similar thing for 1976. The flaw in that chart is that it hides the ratio of cold to warm records, which you can see below. Minima is warming faster then maxima but the maxima today is also pretty close to the 1930s. Warming trends become even clearer when looking at annual means with warming in the US being particularly pronounced in Spring and Autumn

image.thumb.png.2f475f7cf776fc0b51a395580368189f.pngimage.thumb.png.0ef2930b59731c68b2599b6cb4c01450.png

Climate change is like a loaded dice with warm spells becoming more frequent then cold spells so overall there is a warming trend especially when looking at annual global data. There are times in the past when the dice may have more frequently thrown a six in a region that sees knock on effect from ENSO or other influences. However when averaging all the numbers globally over a period of time you still get a warming trend. So picking 1 season over a country is a classic case of charry picking indeed. The global temperature plots below show conditions over the US were not representative of global conditions as a whole:

image.thumb.png.665070529fa2f74aa4f10972d9d54c37.png image.thumb.png.232b5f0471a58dfe43f1efa7e38f0ac7.pngimage.thumb.png.f5a8fb6116a606c5857ba2a599290711.png 

Compare this to recent years...

image.thumb.png.fe5543c26972c06efc57a4da15e6062e.pngimage.thumb.png.403c53d276b7804d2080086cf0e24b30.pngimage.thumb.png.db39373673852e2cc30c8b48ce625cea.png  

As for the plot on Atlantic hurricanes, the same point applies. The US can still have landfalling hurricanes during a quiet hurricane season. Hurricane Andrew (category 5) hit Florida in 1992 when there was just 7 storms that formed! Contrast this to 2010 which spared the US but was still exceptionally active when looking at the North Atlantic basin as a whole.
image.thumb.png.f5a7d979f4990f148ace5c6a3322dd0c.pngimage.thumb.png.3409ba9ead2a600019ad575a0c1570ee.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, weirpig said:

So we are comparing the state of the Thames  (A River that runs through the South East)  to that of a global emergency  which can really only be stopped by a few countries   none of which are us. So again what good will it do?   It yet again is doing nothing to Address  the elephant in the room.  China,  Russia,l USA , Austrailia, Saudi Arabia,Canada,Japan.  heck even Ireland      All of which are in the bottom 10 for climate change.   We can all be taxed in this country to the heavens  we can all travel around on horseback  and eat nothing but lentils   But the worst case scenarios will still happen.   People say we are in a time of crisis  the world will be doomed in a few years   Fight the big war  not little skirmishes which will help nothing   

I don't know, if millions of people can be coerced into self-harming, by a bunch of blatant liars, why can't they be encouraged to do what is right - by being told the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/04/2019 at 13:33, jonboy said:

Ah yes the 97% argument.  This claim all started from a paper by John Cook in 2013 in which he said that 97% of papers he reviewed scientists agreed that climate was changing and they considered man was the major contributor.

This is the problem he did not review every paper so the claim that you use is fundamentally wrong. It is bad lazy science to continually use the 97% of Climate scientists say climate changing is down to mans co2 output.

If you want to prove you point on the 97% please go ahead and prove it

A scientific paper is as good as it can get, where is your evidence to prove otherwise. Even in 2013 the IPCC said the human influence on our climate is 'unequivocal'

If you want to prove your point against the 97% please go ahead and prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ed Stone said:

I don't know, if millions of people can be coerced into self-harming, by a bunch of blatant liars, why can't they be encouraged to do what is right - by being told the truth?

You are missing the point.  shockingly so.   This world only has a few years  left before we pass the tipping point   A Climate emergency in this country will not stop this.  sure it will look great on our CV   "look at us"  but nothing will be solved   and lets be honest if Trump gets in for a second term   the earths death warrant could be signed.   if this is the best as a country,World  we can come up with   then we deserve to be doomed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, weirpig said:

You are missing the point.  shockingly so.   This world only has a few years  left before we pass the tipping point   A Climate emergency in this country will not stop this.  sure it will look great on our CV   "look at us"  but nothing will be solved   and lets be honest if Trump gets in for a second term   the earths death warrant could be signed.   if this is the best as a country,World  we can come up with   then we deserve to be doomed 

So, what do you suggest we do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ed Stone said:

So, what do you suggest we do?

We have to get the countries who are not towing the line  to do so.  How can we do that is the big question.  Governments are unwilling to but pressure on other governments  because of many factors (Money Trade etc)  So its down to the people.  If the people in the know  are correct.  Then this only leaves one avenue to go down.  Because however you look at it   how often does peaceful protest really get  the job done  .  just ask Emily davison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...