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

[Ridgerunner]

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.

If I find the IPCC reference, I’ll cite it. It was in National Review perhaps a month ago. It said the IPCC’s estimates of MMGW are variable and within a fairly significant range. But most importantly, IPCC admitted that while it believes a lot of global warming is manmade, it cannot apportion the degree of warming among the various causes. The report you cited (at least in the summary) doesn’t either.

I believe there is MMGW. I simply dispute how much of it is caused by fossil fuel use, how harmful it might be, and what’s to be done about it. As to the “manmade” part, there are other human causes. Probably the worst of them is desertification. About 2/3 of the temperate surface of the earth is grassland and most of it is desertifying. The cause is not fossil fuel use, but mismanagement. North China, for instance, has been turned into a desert in fairly recent years due to Chinese attempts to achieve autarky in food. Much of central Asia has been, due to wholly misguided and massive Russian (and other) irrigation projects. Much of southern Africa has been desertified due to mismanagement. Much of the sub-Saharan drylands are too.

Desertification has a lot of negative consequences. It disrupts water and energy cycles. It heats the air through radiation. It increases demand on other food supplies. It exudes carbon into the air in massive quantities. It reduces fertility sharply. Those things are manmade without question.

It’s reversible, but nobody pays any attention to it other than a few writers and the agricultural departments of our universities.

Think about this. One acre of reasonably decent ground contains anywhere from 7.5 to 15 tons of carbon. About 90% of the composition of normal soil is carbon. (the rest being “rock dust”) With mismanagement, that carbon goes into the air. Much of it oxidizes and adds to CO2.

That’s huge. The losses are worldwide. But nobody pays any attention to it.

 

[Theo520]

All your links seem to be about projections for the future, not evidence Australia is experiencing excessive warming now.

FYI, global temps have been statistically flat the past couple decades. The only measurable increase is media use of “EXTREME WEATHER” to up the alarmism, all linked to faulty projection models.

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

 

[frobert]

If I find the IPCC reference, I’ll cite it. It was in National Review perhaps a month ago. It said the IPCC’s estimates of MMGW are variable and within a fairly significant range. But most importantly, IPCC admitted that while it believes a lot of global warming is manmade, it cannot apportion the degree of warming among the various causes. The report you cited (at least in the summary) doesn’t either.

so we don’t get distracted let’s stay on topic and focus on the IPPC.

Climate-Change Activists Are the Real Science Deniers

What does the IPCC actually say? While it is “extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in [temperature] from 1951 to 2010,” the attribution for the approximately 0.6°C of warming requires wide ranges that are “likely” to be accurate: between 0.5 and 1.3°C for greenhouse gases, between –?0.6 and +?0.1°C for other human activity, and between –?0.1 and +?0.1°C apiece for natural causes and internal variability.** For the slower warming observed during the period from 1998 to 2012, the IPCC could offer only low to medium confidence in its explanation**.

The IPCC did indeed give a low confidence to the 1998-2012 period, the problem is that** the IPCC was wrong** about there being a slowdown.

However, a new study published Thursday (June 04, 2015) in the journal Science by top climate researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) aims a kill shot at the hiatus once and for all. Led by Thomas R. Karl, who directs NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Asheville, North Carolina, scientists say that the so-called pause in warming during that period was an artifact of improperly adjusted surface-temperature data.

Source…

If you want to read the study you can find it here…

Emphasis added

 

[Roseeurekacross]

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.

i live in Australia. the centre is desert, there is a lot of non desert, look at a map to see the green areas

we have monsoon areas, and ordinary rainfall areas. when an el nino hits, USA gets a big wet, we get a big dry. we are heading into a big dry now. it means you will get a big wet on your el nino affected country.

watch and wait. let the year unfold.

you guys have as much desert country as we do almost.

lynne the diff in your 109c heat and ours , is in the sun. i have been to the states a bit, worked in usa desert country. its a hard concept to get around, the effect of the sun . but its different. we dont AC like you guys do. we AC to warmer temperatures. inalways have to put a jumped on in ac places in the states!

yes pook old uk is in a heat wave at the moment , it hit 30. but as you say thats acclimitisation.

as far as the works being cited yet again, i will get the conclusions to any relevant papers if people wish. then we can discuss the papers properly. the abstract and the conclusion can be quite anomolous.

as far as bushfire complexes pre 1980s , fire behaves very differently now. we learnt that in the fires of Black Saturday. Portugal just experienced it.

why is fire behaving differently? weather . how is fire behaving differently, research black saturday.
i can put some info up later today.
why is weather different? depends who
you talk to.

but australia is quite on board with climate change and how to live with it. we are not stuck in the circular argument exhbited on CAF.

we cant afford to be stuck in circular arguments. coral reefs and koalas are dying out. today is a gorgeous sunny blue sky winter day. it should be cold wet, windy, cloudy.
we are scrambling to be prepared for drought heat and conditions for another black saturday starting in a few months.

thats another thing. fire season used to start after melb cup day, weel into
december. now it starts in september october.

we also have a major river system that is becoming eutrophic and producing acid mud.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

All your links seem to be about projections for the future, not evidence Australia is experiencing excessive warming now.

FYI, global temps have been statistically flat the past couple decades. The only measurable increase is media use of “EXTREME WEATHER” to up the alarmism, all linked to faulty projection models.

we must look at whats happening. because its already happening theo.

we must start using our eyes, looking around, asking why that river system is eutrophic , that reef is bleaching, that bushfire we all fought behaved the way it did,

extreme weather is a thing, its own entity. it doesnt need any help from the media to exist. our projection models are not faulty. the best people work on them and have already been proven right.

 

[Ridgerunner]

so we don’t get distracted let’s stay on topic and focus on the IPPC.

Climate-Change Activists Are the Real Science Deniers

The IPCC did indeed give a low confidence to the 1998-2012 period, the problem is that** the IPCC was wrong** about there being a slowdown.

However, a new study published Thursday (June 04, 2015) in the journal Science by top climate researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) aims a kill shot at the hiatus once and for all. Led by Thomas R. Karl, who directs NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Asheville, North Carolina, scientists say that the so-called pause in warming during that period was an artifact of improperly adjusted surface-temperature data.

Source…

If you want to read the study you can find it here…

Emphasis added

There are lots of studies. And there will undoubtedly be more.

I wasn’t talking about the “slowdown” or those who have other view about it. I was talking about the uncertainty as to human causes and the nature of them.

From the article:

“What does the IPCC actually say? While it is “extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in [temperature] from 1951 to 2010,” the attribution for the approximately 0.6°C of warming requires wide ranges that are “likely” to be accurate: between 0.5 and 1.3°C for greenhouse gases, between – 0.6 and + 0.1°C for other human activity, and between – 0.1 and + 0.1°C apiece for natural causes and internal variability.”

The high end of the “greenhouse gas” part of it is almost three times the low end. And that’s “likely to be accurate”? A fudge factor of three times?

I suspect some of the estimates of “other” human activities that cause MMGW are low. Supposedly CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from land mismanagement equal some 30-40% of cumulative CO2 concentrations due to fossil fuel use.

At present, and if one reads article after article on the subject, there isn’t a lot of research going on concerning mismanagement contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere, or potential effects of better management. That’s a shame. All the focus is on fossil fuels, likely because that’s where the funding is. I think it could be teased out of a number of articles, but that would take time I don’t presently have. I did read somewhere that improved grassland management could sequester something like .8 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere annually. I think the U.S. emissions are something like 1900 million tons. If, as some say, the U.S. contributes 25% of the world’s fossil fuel emissions, that would make the worldwide emissions something like 7600 million tons.

Apparently there are at least notions, if not active programs, promoting the idea of money being paid for carbon credits for agroforestry and plain grassland sequestration. I won’t hold my breath for any of that to happen, and suspect it would only really work in the U.S. where monitoring and accurate measurement could be effective.

 

[Poptech]

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 the latest findings from the NIPCC CCR-II Report

Here is what the scientists found:

• There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
• Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.
• Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.
• The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.

Here is what this means for public policy:

• Global warming is not a crisis. The threat was exaggerated.
• There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.
• It’s time to repeal unnecessary and expensive policies.
• Future policies should aim at fostering economic growth to adapt to natural climate change.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here are the latest findings from the NIPCC CCR-II Report

Despite the similarity in names, the NIPCC is not associated with the IPCC, in case anyone thought they were comparable.

 

[Theo520]

LOL, so what they are saying is that if they can apply their super secret algorithms to the already adjusted raw data, they can rationalize and further hide the obvious pause in the raw data.

The IPCC did indeed give a low confidence to the 1998-2012 period, the problem is that** the IPCC was wrong** about there being a slowdown.

However, a new study published Thursday (June 04, 2015) in the journal Science by top climate researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) aims a kill shot at the hiatus once and for all. Led by Thomas R. Karl, who directs NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Asheville, North Carolina, scientists say that the so-called pause in warming during that period was an artifact of improperly adjusted surface-temperature data.

Source…

If you want to read the study you can find it here…

Emphasis added

For all those concerned about Australia, I just checked and they’ve had flat mean temperatures the past couple decades. No need to panic as of yet.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

LOL, so what they are saying is that if they can apply their super secret algorithms to the already adjusted raw data, they can rationalize and further hide the obvious pause in the raw data.

For all those concerned about Australia, I just checked and they’ve had flat mean temperatures the past couple decades. No need to panic as of yet.

So how accurate then is measuring mean ?

Does it give an accurate portait of whats going on?

Is it going to tell you about shift in seasons? Shift in rainfall and climate?

Is it going to tell you anything about potential of bushfire complexes today as compared to20, 30 , 40 or 50 years ago?

What exactly does mean measure? What info in mean is solid?

I live in Australia, Theo.

If you are going to tell me nothings changed because the mean says so, you would be wrong.

 

[Theo520]

I replied to a paper on global temp, read their paper if you want to get picky on terms.

Since you live in Australia, by all means provide us with measured evidence that GW is NOW causing increased temps, heatwaves and droughts, not projections for the future. Your own official measurement office reports the mean data.

So how accurate then is measuring mean ?

Does it give an accurate portait of whats going on?

Is it going to tell you about shift in seasons? Shift in rainfall and climate?

Is it going to tell you anything about potential of bushfire complexes today as compared to20, 30 , 40 or 50 years ago?

What exactly does mean measure? What info in mean is solid?

I live in Australia, Theo.

If you are going to tell me nothings changed because the mean says so, you would be wrong.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I replied to a paper on global temp, read their paper if you want to get picky on terms.

Since you live in Australia, by all means provide us with measured evidence that GW is NOW causing increased temps, heatwaves and droughts, not projections for the future. Your own official measurement office reports the mean data.

Answer my question.

What does mean measure.

Btw we have long since outgrown the term global warming. We use climate change. You might want to question why.
Do you propose
We ignore the future like a bunch of future eaters?

And do you understand that study at all? Yes i will be picky, about the education of those rwading that data.

Especially if they cant answer questions about what mean temperature is and what its ability is to give a picture of climate change.

So answr my questions theo.

 

[Theo520]

i think it’s evident to all you are deflecting, the definition of mean is well understood and candidly not disputed by either skeptics or alarmists.

If you lack a background in stat on the definition of mean, this is not the place to educate you. If you have an objection to how scientists use the term, make your supported points.

Yes, we should worry about the future but we shouldn’t rely upon models that have already been shown to be in error. To appease some of your apparent angst on CAGW, suggest you dig into the science behind this video where CERN scientists are proving that model assumptions about CO2 feedbacks need to be adjusted.
youtu.be/8M3up6T9Zeg

Answer my question.

What does mean measure.

Btw we have long since outgrown the term global warming. We use climate change. You might want to question why.
Do you propose
We ignore the future like a bunch of future eaters?

And do you understand that study at all? Yes i will be picky, about the education of those rwading that data.

Especially if they cant answer questions about what mean temperature is and what its ability is to give a picture of climate change.

So answr my questions theo.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The IPCC computer models are/were suggesting that in one hundred years, the temp would be up by ONE DEGREE.

NOT ENOUGH TO EVEN NOTICE.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

ONE DEGREE.

 

[frobert]

Here are the latest findings from the NIPCC CCR-II Report

Here is what the scientists found:

• There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
• Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.
• Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.
• The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.

Here is what this means for public policy:

• Global warming is not a crisis. The threat was exaggerated.
• There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.
• It’s time to repeal unnecessary and expensive policies.
• Future policies should aim at fostering economic growth to adapt to natural climate change.

Several questions, the answers of which will better enable us to discuss the science.

1. • Who funds the NICCP?
   • What are their scientific publications?
   • What peer reviewed are there?
   Thank you in advance

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The IPCC computer models are/were suggesting that in one hundred years, the temp would be up by ONE DEGREE.

NOT ENOUGH TO EVEN NOTICE.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

ONE DEGREE.

How do you conclude that is not enough to notice? (That is Celsius, right?)

 

[Roseeurekacross]

i think it’s evident to all you are deflecting, the definition of mean is well understood and candidly not disputed by either skeptics or alarmists.

If you lack a background in stat on the definition of mean, this is not the place to educate you. If you have an objection to how scientists use the term, make your supported points.

Yes, we should worry about the future but we shouldn’t rely upon models that have already been shown to be in error. To appease some of your apparent angst on CAGW, suggest you dig into the science behind this video where CERN scientists are proving that model assumptions about CO2 feedbacks need to be adjusted.
youtu.be/8M3up6T9Zeg

look, you can answer my questions or not, its up to you. your opinion, and for that matter anyones, wont stop whats already happening.

but frankly to resort to insulting me so you can win a point is uncharitable.

either answer my questions about using MEAN and its impact, or scroll on by. either way works for me.

my background, my work is easy enough to figure out, given I have stated it more then once. and strange thing, i have access to any journal artical, conference proceeding, dissertation you want, or people continually spew forth as abstracts because they cant access the rest.

To whomever thinks there is no significance, again in the MEAN temp rising by 1 degree, celcius. what is the maximum rise that climate bodies are looking at. and why?

its not enough to spew forth stats. they must have meaning.

statistically sharks eat more people on days icecream consumption is higher.

 

[frobert]

There are lots of studies. And there will undoubtedly be more.

That is the nature of science.

I wasn’t talking about the “slowdown” or those who have other view about it. I was talking about the uncertainty as to human causes and the nature of them.

From the article:

“What does the IPCC actually say? While it is “extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in [temperature] from 1951 to 2010,” the attribution for the approximately 0.6°C of warming requires wide ranges that are “likely” to be accurate: between 0.5 and 1.3°C for greenhouse gases, between – 0.6 and + 0.1°C for other human activity, and between – 0.1 and + 0.1°C apiece for natural causes and internal variability.”

The high end of the “greenhouse gas” part of it is almost three times the low end. And that’s “likely to be accurate”? A fudge factor of three times?

I suspect some of the estimates of “other” human activities that cause MMGW are low. Supposedly CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from land mismanagement equal some 30-40% of cumulative CO2 concentrations due to fossil fuel use.

You are making an interpretation. Good! Can you point to any scientific studies this is discussed.

At present, and if one reads article after article on the subject, there isn’t a lot of research going on concerning mismanagement contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere, or potential effects of better management. That’s a shame.

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

 

[frobert]

All your links seem to be about projections for the future, not evidence Australia is experiencing excessive warming now.

Perhaps you didn’t read the articles which are chuck full of FACTS

FYI, global temps have been statistically flat the past couple decades. The only measurable increase is media use of “EXTREME WEATHER” to up the alarmism, all linked to faulty projection models.

Read post #141 for more FACTS

 

[frobert]

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

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

Bad climate science in US schools: an open letter to Heartland & NIPCC

The NIPCC report claims to be a ‘scientific’ document ‘faithful to the scientific method’. When you represent it, perhaps it would be better to use terminology that is equally faithful? Global warming may, to the popular media, be synonymous with ‘climate change’, but in climate science they are two different things. Global warming is a process, climate change is the result. It may seem like a small point, but science is irritatingly full of them. When discussing a curriculum with our educators, accuracy is a great virtue. It would be unfortunate if teachers were to gain the impression that such casual laxity was representative of the entire NIPCC report.

…Let’s hope they take your sage advice. The NIPCC report is indeed important, as is its origin, the reason for its production, and the motives of its sponsors – but mainly for the qualities of the science it describes. Conventional climate change science, the kind documented by the IPCC, is a paradigm accepted by 97% of the world’s climate scientists. It is worthy and noble of Heartland to lend its clarion voice to the other 3%.


Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience

How does the NIPCC spread doubt, given the temperature record and consensus of professional scientists? The answer is manufactured partisanship.

The IPCC (no N) produces a comprehensive and critical overview of climate change science for governments. It is written by hundreds of scientists, anyone can volunteer to review drafts, and those comments appear online.

Does the NIPCC fairly and robustly assess the science? No. It is all too easy to find “debunked” papers getting a second life in latest NIPCC report.

…Sea levels around Australia have risen by roughly 100mm during the past century, but Boretti (2012) claimed sea levels rose by only 50mm over that period. However, John Hunter and I found that Boretti’s own flawed analysis gives an answer of 78mm. While Boretti himself grudgingly accepts that 50mm is wrong, this erroneous value is reported as fact by the NIPCC.