A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

[lynnvinc]

Another issue about the ice age hypothesis – it was based on the idea that the cooling effect from aerosols emitted with CO2 would be the more powerful force. That was before we had SO2 controls on coal plants or car emission controls, etc, which later reduced the aerosols, which of themselves are pollutants harmful to the health and to ecosystems.

And they didn’t really know much about the impact of aerosols on the climate at that time or as much as they know now about CO2. They know now, for instance, that aerosol molecules usually only reside in the atmosphere a few weeks, whereas CO2 molecules can stay there 100s of years, a portion even up to 100,000 years.

Another factor that led those 2 scientists to suggest we were heading toward an ice age is that the global average temps really had gone down after the mid-40s up thru the 70s, maybe partly because of the aerosol cooling effect, and the sluggishness of the system in responding more quickly with warming to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Here is a chart that shows that cooling mid-40s thru 70s:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The chart also shows that GW is very much on track and happening, seeming almost to accelerate in recent years. The ups and downs in the curve are due to the other short-time cooling and warming factors, such as volcanic eruptions, el ninos & la ninos, deep ocean uptake of some of the warming, and solar irradiance cycles from minimum to maximum (usually about 11 to 15 years).

And that is why they really need some 20 or 30 years to make a pronouncement of whether there is global warming or global cooling. The “pause” after the extreme el nino of 1998 was less than 15 years, so that did not in any way prove GW had stopped, despite the denialsphere running wild with it…and some people still caught in the “pause” mentality, maybe from old posts on the denialsphere.

 

[lynnvinc]

…Your comments about consensus and studies and models are irrelevant. The FACT remains that they constantly change the Current Scare.

If by “they” you mean scientists – not so. If by “they” you mean the non-fiction and fiction media, then right on.

1. I’m living in a state that now routinely has many cool days. I currently have my heater on. This was unheard of when I lived here in high school.

Probably caused by CC, since the arctic melting is implicated in stronger and longer Rossby waves, bringing cold snaps down southward.

They say Superstorm Sandy was made worse in at least 3 ways by CC – those stronger/longer Rossby waves, greater hurricane intensity and range (heat to energy), and a few inches of sea rise that caused farther incursion of the water over slicker, frictionless water.

1. There is a long history of ‘climate change.’ Look into some reading on the weather of the 14th century and the centuries surrounding it.

In fact paleoclimatology, along with current evidence and observations, and computer modeling are 3 ways we can understand the CC of today.

No climate scientist is denying there has been global warming, even tremendous global warming, in the past. In fact some 95% of life on earth died out from global warming & its knock-on effects 252 million years ago during the end-Permian.

1. If Al Gore et al believe what they are saying, they’d be living accordingly. Their own behavior says they themselves don’t believe what they’re saying.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist, but I guess he knows the sea won’t rise worse case 6 feet until 2100, so I guess that’s why he bought beach front property. Also there is everything right with him traveling around the world to spread the message about CC. It is the fault of the denialists that he is having to do that.

If everyone would just chip in and do their part re GW, whatever is feasible for them, as JPII, BXVI, and Pope Francis have been telling us to do, then the problem would be solved – or at least not as bad as now projected. And you’d be greatly surprised and pleased to find out you’d be saving money to boot!

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I had no idea ozone was visible.

So what equipment are you using to view it?

 

[lynnvinc]

The biggest significant difference in my part of Australia in the last 50 years is in the effect of the heat of the sun.

Yes there is a hole in the ozone layer that contributes to this effect.

So rays of the sun are really intense, no matter the temperature. Famous comments by Africans I had visiting…we get the same temperatures, we have blue sky and sunlight, but the sun here we don’t get.

Btw we are heading into another drought. It’s dry, too dry, winter days are blue sky and sun, early morning frost. It should be wet, cloudy, cold and raining.

Global climate change is just that, Global. It’s real, it’s here, it’s already happening.

Just because you see no change where you are, does that negate its reality?

I think Australia is getting the brunt of GW, as well as the ozone hole/thinning. I’ve read about farmer suicides there due to the droughts. And then there are the wildfires.

I remember the movie, ON THE BEACH (1959), about nuclear war, and Australia was the last place to get the effects, but re GW it seems pretty much the first place, except for some island nations that are having to evacuate due to sea rise, such as the Carteret Islands – see SUN COME UP trailer at vimeo.com/11537535. Some Catholic bishops concerned about climate change are urging we watch it.

I am concerned and praying for Australia.

Some years back when I was dabbling in screenwriting & wanting to get the message out about GW, I thought of a plot involving Australia, FAREWELL, SYDNEY. It was about a young pregnant woman concerned about GW. Her favorite uncle, a farmer, committed suicide over the drought and crop loss. Others she knew and loved were experiencing various harms from GW. She finally decided to emigrate to Canada, seeing the handwriting on the wall re GW, but her boyfriend was totally against going, so they were splitting up. She wanted to move before giving birth so her child could grow up in a place not so badly affected by GW on into the future and also not have to experience the wrenching pain of separating from loved ones and loved places.

Maybe if I had some first hand experience of Australia, I would have pursued that. But my day career became too demanding and I came to realize it’s nearly impossible to break into the movie business.

 

[vz71]

Hey look! That myth again.

There was no scientific consensus that there was a coming ice age and even in that period there were more studies and models showing that the earth was warming than cooling.

I suspect in the coming decades that same argument will be used to answer for the manmade global warming hoax.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

So not only is there a cabal of global warming deniers but they also deny global cooling. Whats left ? Global sameness?

Lynne , the two biggest things here are that sun. If people want to understand what its like, go sit in an oven on a mild but sunny day. Wildfires- bushfire complexes are significantly different. Portugal just experienced what we live with.

Re your movie plot, i kniw people who have moved to New Zealand because they wont run out of water !

Basically Australia is drying out. Its pretty marginal now.

 

[lynnvinc]

So not only is there a cabal of global warming deniers but they also deny global cooling. Whats left ? Global sameness?

Lynne , the two biggest things here are that sun. If people want to understand what its like, go sit in an oven on a mild but sunny day. Wildfires- bushfire complexes are significantly different. Portugal just experienced what we live with.

Re your movie plot, i kniw people who have moved to New Zealand because they wont run out of water !

Basically Australia is drying out. Its pretty marginal now.

We live in the Rio Grande Valley and it got to 109 F yesterday and the canicula (heat wave) hasn’t even started (it goes from mid-July to end of August, when it can get up to 112 F or so). We also have a water problem, but there’s the Rio Grande River (without much water as it is mainly taken up-river), and some lakes and canals, and ground water which has trihalomethanes in it (causing cancer), which probably is due to fracking…shaking up the soil, loosening salt – when that comes in contact with city chlorine is creates trihalomethanes.

We don’t get a much rain as the Gulf coast and it is much drier (deserty) to the west of us, so we are in an area that is hard for scientists to predict if we will get more rain with CC or less rain. I think the SE of US is slated for more rain, perhaps up to Houston, TX. We already do get droughts some years and floods some other times, and occasionally some floods during official droughts.

We are also in a hurricane zone and that can be very harmful. We got Emily the same year they had Katrina, and Dolly another year. The biggy was Beulah I think in 1965 (so it wasn’t being impacted by CC), which came right up the RG River. That could happen again.

I think most people in already hot climates know how to manage (always have water with you, stay in cool, AC places, like shopping malls, etc) – it is mainly when there are unusual heat waves, as in Europe in 2003, and people don’t have ACs to cool down at night that put people at more risk.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think Australia is getting the brunt of GW, .

Australia is mostly a very harsh desert, and always has been within the memory of man. A good deal more of it is a very brittle environment that suffers tremendously under El Nino conditions; disasterously, in fact. Supposedly we’re not in an official “El Nino”, but the weather sure acts like it, here, in the American southwest and apparently in Australia.

Only a small part of Australia is lush and green. Most of it is not, and that’s whether there is global warming or there isn’t.

 

[Theo520]

Are you sure Australia didn’t have droughts and wildfires before the 80’s.

Are you sure increased land usage for agriculture, where more marginal land is put to work doesn’t have a role?

Where is your evidence they are seeing actual effects of global warming? If you don’t have evidence, it’s just more unsubstantiated alarmism.

I think Australia is getting the brunt of GW, as well as the ozone hole/thinning. I’ve read about farmer suicides there due to the droughts. And then there are the wildfires.

I remember the movie, ON THE BEACH (1959), about nuclear war, and Australia was the last place to get the effects, but re GW it seems pretty much the first place, except for some island nations that are having to evacuate due to sea rise, such as the Carteret Islands – see SUN COME UP trailer at vimeo.com/11537535. Some Catholic bishops concerned about climate change are urging we watch it.

I am concerned and praying for Australia.

Some years back when I was dabbling in screenwriting & wanting to get the message out about GW, I thought of a plot involving Australia, FAREWELL, SYDNEY. It was about a young pregnant woman concerned about GW. Her favorite uncle, a farmer, committed suicide over the drought and crop loss. Others she knew and loved were experiencing various harms from GW. She finally decided to emigrate to Canada, seeing the handwriting on the wall re GW, but her boyfriend was totally against going, so they were splitting up. She wanted to move before giving birth so her child could grow up in a place not so badly affected by GW on into the future and also not have to experience the wrenching pain of separating from loved ones and loved places.

Maybe if I had some first hand experience of Australia, I would have pursued that. But my day career became too demanding and I came to realize it’s nearly impossible to break into the movie business.

 

[frobert]

Are you sure Australia didn’t have droughts and wildfires before the 80’s.

Are you sure increased land usage for agriculture, where more marginal land is put to work doesn’t have a role?

Where is your evidence they are seeing actual effects of global warming? If you don’t have evidence, it’s just more unsubstantiated alarmism.

Climate Council - Austraila
The Facts

Fact Sheet: Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change

Factsheet: Climate Change and Intense Rainfall and Flooding

1. 
   *]Climate change is influencing all extreme rainfall events. The warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, about 7% more than previously. This increases the risk of heavier downpours.
   *] Extreme rainfall events are expected to increase in intensity in Australia.
   *]For Queensland and New South Wales, the two states most badly affected by ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie, extreme rainfall events are likely to worsen. For example, maximum one-day rainfall is expected to increase by up to 17 and 18% for New South Wales and Queensland respectively.
   *]It is critical that communities and emergency services have access to information about rainfall in a changing climate to ensure they can prepare for the future, particularly when rebuilding damaged infrastructure.
   
   Fact Check: “Clean Coal” & Turnbull’s Energy Speech
   
   A timeline of Earth’s average temperature: in comic form
   
   An official welcome to the Anthropocene epoch
   
   Global warming passes critical one degree mark
   
   5 reasons why climate change may be worse than we think
   
   Pollution and Price: The Cost of Investing in Gas
   
   Risky Business: Health, Climate and Economic Risks of the Carmichael Coalmine

 

[lynnvinc]

Australia is mostly a very harsh desert, and always has been within the memory of man. A good deal more of it is a very brittle environment that suffers tremendously under El Nino conditions; disasterously, in fact. Supposedly we’re not in an official “El Nino”, but the weather sure acts like it, here, in the American southwest and apparently in Australia.

Only a small part of Australia is lush and green. Most of it is not, and that’s whether there is global warming or there isn’t.

What the climate scientist have been pointing out for decades is that the arid areas of the world will get dryer under GW and the wetter areas wetter – that there will actually be more precipitation, bec warmer air hold more water vapor.

So areas that are already fairly dry are going to suffer extremely, while areas that get good precip now will get deluges and floods.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What the climate scientist have been pointing out for decades is that the arid areas of the world will get dryer under GW and the wetter areas wetter – that there will actually be more precipitation, bec warmer air hold more water vapor.

So areas that are already fairly dry are going to suffer extremely, while areas that get good precip now will get deluges and floods.

I realize some people who claim to be “climate scientists” say things like that. it doesn’t make them true.

Warm air or even moist warm air does not, in itself, cause or prevent precipitation. What causes precipitation is the confluence of warm (moist in my part of the country, usually) air and cooler (usually dry) air. The lowered temperatures cause water to condense and fall out (precipitate) because colder air will not hold as much moisture as warmer air. It can also happen in super high-energy environments like hurricanes that shove warm moist air into higher altitudes where the air is cooler.

 

[frobert]

Wow, really, Wesrock? A myth? I hope you’re not suggesting I’m propagating a ‘myth’ THAT ‘the coming ice age’ was being taught in the 70s/80s. If so, you are calling me a liar. I was there, and I clearly remember the constant push on ‘the coming ice age.’.’

… there really were news articles in the 1970s about scientists predicting a coming ice age. Time had a piece called “Another Ice Age?” in 1974. Time’s competition, Newsweek, joined in with “The Cooling World” in 1975. People have collected lists and lists of “Coming Ice Age” stories from newspapers, magazines, books, tv shows, etc. throughout the 1970s.

But if it was such a big news story why did it never make the cover of America’s flagship news magazine like the faked image implies? Perhaps there is more to the story.

In the 1970s there were a few developments in climate science:

• Scientists were finding answers to the puzzle of what caused ice ages in the past: variations in earth’s orbit.

• Scientists were gathering data from around the world to come up with global average temperatures, and they found that temperatures had been cooling since about the 1940s.

• Scientists were realizing that some of this cooling was due to increasing air pollution (soot and aerosols, tiny particles suspended in the air) which was decreasing the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere.

• Scientists were also quantifying the “greenhouse effect” of another part of our increasing pollution: carbon dioxide (CO2), which should cause the climate to warm.

The realization that very long cycles in earth’s orbit could cause the waxing and waning of ice ages, coupled with the fact that our soot and aerosols were already causing cooling, led some scientists to conclude that we may be headed for another ice age. Exactly when was still a little unclear. However, the warming effects of CO2 had been known for over a century, and new research in the 1970s was showing that CO2 warming would more than compensate for the cooling caused by aerosols, resulting in net warming.

This, in a very brief nutshell, was the state of climate science in the 1970s. And so the media of the time published many stories about a coming ice age, which made for timely reading during some very cold winters. But many news stories also mentioned that other important detail about CO2: that our climate might soon change due to global warming. In 1976 Time published “The World’s Climate: Unpredictable” which is a very good summary of the then current scientific thinking: some scientists emphasized aerosols and cooling, some scientists emphasized CO2 and warming. There was no consensus either way. Many other 1970s articles which mention a Coming Ice Age also mention the possibility of increased warming due to CO2. For instance, here, here and here.

Fake-skeptics read these stories and only focus on the Coming Ice Age angle, and they enlarge the importance of those scientists who focused on that angle. They totally ignore the rest of the picture of 1970s climate science: that increasing CO2 would cause global warming.

Source: The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers

 

[frobert]

I realize some people who claim to be “climate scientists” say things like that. it doesn’t make them true.

There are many people who claim to be what they are not but climate scientists who have their work published in peer reviewed journals are not fake climate scientists.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are many people who claim to be what they are not but climate scientists who have their work published in peer reviewed journals are not fake climate scientists.

Sometime look up “climate science” in university registries and see how many actually offer a degree in “climate science”. The last time I looked (granted, it was perhaps three years ago) there were two. And even then, they were combined degrees, like “climate and anthropology” or “climate and social work”.

If you look at the degrees of those who publish, some are not scientists in any meaningful way. Some are, but always in something else; physics, meteorology, dendrology. Always something other than “climate science”.

Publication in peer reviewed journals does not guarantee accuracy of the conclusions, and particularly not when it comes to MMGW in which there can be no experimentation, reproduction, or falsification other than of some narrow slice of natural science thought to be indicative of MMGW.

Even the IPCC recently admitted that, while it believes there is global warming, they are very unsure as to the causes, even among the manmade causes (of which fossil fuel use is only one).

 

[meltzerboy]

Australia is mostly a very harsh desert, and always has been within the memory of man. A good deal more of it is a very brittle environment that suffers tremendously under El Nino conditions; disasterously, in fact. Supposedly we’re not in an official “El Nino”, but the weather sure acts like it, here, in the American southwest and apparently in Australia.

Only a small part of Australia is lush and green. Most of it is not, and that’s whether there is global warming or there isn’t.

Given this, I think I might cross off Australia from my bucket list of places to visit.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sometime look up “climate science” in university registries and see how many actually offer a degree in “climate science”.

That is a red herring. There are many scientific fields for which there is no named degree program in universities.

The last time I looked (granted, it was perhaps three years ago) there were two. And even then, they were combined degrees, like “climate and anthropology” or “climate and social work”.

Those two were not on climate science. That does not mean there is no climate science.

If you look at the degrees of those who publish, some are not scientists in any meaningful way.

But most of them are - at least in the scholarly journals.

Some are, but always in something else; physics, meteorology, dendrology. Always something other than “climate science”.

See red herring above. This is the same fish repackaged.

Publication in peer reviewed journals does not guarantee accuracy of the conclusions…

There are no guarantees in life. But peer-reviewed journals are generally more reliable than ones that are not.

, and particularly not when it comes to MMGW in which there can be no experimentation.

False. There certainly can be - both in principle and in practice.

reproduction, or falsification.

wrong on both counts.

Even the IPCC recently admitted that, while it believes there is global warming, they are very unsure as to the causes, even among the manmade causes (of which fossil fuel use is only one).

“Very unsure” is not a quantitative statement. Of course there is a degree of uncertainty, as in any scientific claim.

 

[frobert]

Sometime look up “climate science” in university registries and see how many actually offer a degree in “climate science”. The last time I looked (granted, it was perhaps three years ago) there were two. And even then, they were combined degrees, like “climate and anthropology” or “climate and social work”.

If you look at the degrees of those who publish, some are not scientists in any meaningful way. Some are, but always in something else; physics, meteorology, dendrology. Always something other than “climate science”.

Publication in peer reviewed journals does not guarantee accuracy of the conclusions, and particularly not when it comes to MMGW in which there can be no experimentation, reproduction, or falsification other than of some narrow slice of natural science thought to be indicative of MMGW.

Even the IPCC recently admitted that, while it believes there is global warming, they are very unsure as to the causes, even among the manmade causes (of which fossil fuel use is only one).

I assumed that when discussing climate scientists we would be discussing scientists actually involved in climate research. Who do you obtain your information about climate from?

Do you have a reference for the IPCC? It would be a lot easier to discuss if you provided sources.

Here is the latest IPPC AR5 Synthesis Report

The key findings of the AR5 Synthesis Report are:

• Human influence on the climate system is clear;
• The more we disrupt our climate, the more we risk severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts; and
• We have the means to limit climate change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future.

Even though we may have the means, so far, the world governments in general haven’t shown much willingness to anything about it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I think Australia is getting the brunt of GW, as well as the ozone hole/thinning. I’ve read about farmer suicides there due to the droughts. And then there are the wildfires.

I remember the movie, ON THE BEACH (1959), about nuclear war, and Australia was the last place to get the effects, but re GW it seems pretty much the first place, except for some island nations that are having to evacuate due to sea rise, such as the Carteret Islands – see SUN COME UP trailer at vimeo.com/11537535. Some Catholic bishops concerned about climate change are urging we watch it.

I am concerned and praying for Australia.

Some years back when I was dabbling in screenwriting & wanting to get the message out about GW, I thought of a plot involving Australia, FAREWELL, SYDNEY. It was about a young pregnant woman concerned about GW. Her favorite uncle, a farmer, committed suicide over the drought and crop loss. Others she knew and loved were experiencing various harms from GW. She finally decided to emigrate to Canada, seeing the handwriting on the wall re GW, but her boyfriend was totally against going, so they were splitting up. She wanted to move before giving birth so her child could grow up in a place not so badly affected by GW on into the future and also not have to experience the wrenching pain of separating from loved ones and loved places.

Maybe if I had some first hand experience of Australia, I would have pursued that. But my day career became too demanding and I came to realize it’s nearly impossible to break into the movie business.

Before attempting to convince us of knowledge of Australia, maybe perhaps read something from an actual Australian:

joannenova.com.au

Or, from this one:

carbon-sense.com

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I assumed that when discussing climate scientists we would be discussing scientists actually involved in climate research. Who do you obtain your information about climate from?

Do you have a reference for the IPCC? It would be a lot easier to discuss if you provided sources.

Here is the latest IPPC AR5 Synthesis Report

The key findings of the AR5 Synthesis Report are:

• Human influence on the climate system is clear;
• The more we disrupt our climate, the more we risk severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts; and
• We have the means to limit climate change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future.

Even though we may have the means, so far, the world governments in general haven’t shown much willingness to anything about it.

Here are some quotes from the Muddled Models of the IPCC:

carbon-sense.com/2017/02/03/muddled-models-ipcc/