World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[Erich]

Bob, just curious but are you also a “Flat earther”, a “Birther” or a 9/11 “Truther”?

Not to derail the thread, but…

What qualifies a person for natural-born citizenship status under U.S. law can be quite complicated, depending on factors such as where the person was born, when he was born, where he and his parents lived, and the nationalities of his parents. usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html goes into some detail.

The law in effect at the time Obama was born specified that “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Since Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan national, Barack only had one U.S. citizen parent (his mother) – and she had not been residing in the U.S. for at least five years after the age of 16 when Barack was born (because she herself was only 18 at the time). Not only that, but his parents split up when he was still a toddler, and his mother soon afterwards married another foreign national and moved with Barack to Indonesia (which, according to the law at the time, means that she lost her U.S. citizenship by doing so).

Four years later she returned to Hawaii and divorced her Indonesian husband. She could have regained her U.S. citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the United States, but there is no record that she did. Thus, Obama would not have been able to regain his own citizenship until the age of 18 and himself take an oath of allegiance to the U.S., but there is no record of that ever happening either. Some folks have concluded from all this that not only is Barack not eligible to be President, but that he may very well be an illegal alien (which raises the questions about how Barack Obama came to have a social security number that begins with the Connecticut prefix “042”, or whether he’s hiding something in his college records that might have been a deal killer in '08 and again in '12 – like, whether he was using a foreign passport to get and prove his foreign student status for entrance into Occidental College, Columbia, and later Harvard Universities).

We now return to our regularly-scheduled AGW thread…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ok.
How about you find and post my “anti-agw” information?
I would be curious to see it.

Evidence that your views are formed from anti-AGW information is to be found in this post where you apparently have information that climate scientists have engaged in " misdirection, falsified science, and deceptive visuals". Since I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not the kind of person who just makes up stuff, I assume you got that information from somewhere. This post again demonstrates there is information that AGW science is based on “flawed science and dishonesty”. Who told you that? Then there is this post where you seem to have information the the climate models have been largely inaccurate. If that isn’t anti-AGW information, I don’t know what is.

 

[sps49]

Evidence that your views are formed from anti-AGW information is to be found in this post where you apparently have information that climate scientists have engaged in " misdirection, falsified science, and deceptive visuals". Since I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not the kind of person who just makes up stuff, I assume you got that information from somewhere. This post again demonstrates there is information that AGW science is based on “flawed science and dishonesty”. Who told you that? Then there is this post where you seem to have information the the climate models have been largely inaccurate. If that isn’t anti-AGW information, I don’t know what is.

Speaking only for myself, you have got the Heartland Institute occupying so much room in your head that if I were to look you in the eyes, I could see them staring back at me. You should really get that looked at. Soon.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Speaking only for myself, you have got the Heartland Institute occupying so much room in your head that if I were to look you in the eyes, I could see them staring back at me. You should really get that looked at. Soon.

I could say that same thing about how the “big, bad IPCC” dominates the thinking of many opponents of global warming, present company excluded, of course.

 

[estesbob]

Evidence that your views are formed from anti-AGW information is to be found in this post where you apparently have information that climate scientists have engaged in " misdirection, falsified science, and deceptive visuals". Since I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not the kind of person who just makes up stuff, I assume you got that information from somewhere. This post again demonstrates there is information that AGW science is based on “flawed science and dishonesty”. Who told you that? Then there is this post where you seem to have information the the climate models have been largely inaccurate. If that isn’t anti-AGW information, I don’t know what is.

So posters are only allowed to use sources that support AGW?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So posters are only allowed to use sources that support AGW?

You can use whatever sources you want. Just state what they are so they can be open to examination. After all, the supporters of AGW state their sources (IPCC and NOAA) and they get roundly beaten up for it. So don’t you think the opponents of AGW should be open to the same level of scrutiny? Or is scrutiny only for government agencies?

 

[estesbob]

washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/08/04/death-valley-was-cooler-than-missoula-mont-on-sunday/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/08/04/death-valley-was-cooler-than-missoula-mont-on-sunday/

That’s a fun little factoid, but saying that it shows there is no global warming is like noting that as of 9:30 this morning, the DJIA has fallen 491 points in the last 6 days, and therefore those who claim the stock market goes up in the long run must be full of hooey.

Good job on quoting a source! Unfortunately the quote doesn’t get you where you want to go.

 

[estesbob]

That’s a fun little factoid, but saying that it shows there is no global warming is like noting that as of 9:30 this morning, the DJIA has fallen 491 points in the last 6 days, and therefore those who claim the stock market goes up in the long run must be full of hooey.

Good job on quoting a source! Unfortunately the quote doesn’t get you where you want to go.

Thank you for making my point. Sandy proves global warming but record low temperatures are meaningless.As I stated:
Weather events that bolster the theory of global warming are proof of Global Warming. Weather events that weaken the theory of global warming are just weather events

 

[lynnvinc]

Stretching it a bit here, Lynnvinc. They don’t say it’s caused by MMGW. They say nobody knows, but that some ideas are loss of arctic ice, decadal variability, etc.

Need to be careful about that. We’re all guilty of over-interpreting our source information at times.

I don’t think I used the word cause. There is the issue of A impacting B, which impacts C.

It is well known that neg arctic oscillations or Rossby waves tend to shift the weather pattern in northern latitude from a west-to-east to a north-to-south pattern. It is also related to nor’easters. I don’t think any meteorologist worth his salt denies that.

The question then becomes is climate change having anything to do with increasing the frequency or severity of these neg arctic oscillations or Rossby waves. There is some research that indicate that might be the case. The research is not robust or solid yet, just a few studies, with some climate scientists doubting it. Time will tell.

The reason I’m so interested in it is bec when I moved here to the RGV in 2002 I thought, well with AGW at least there will be less and less chance as times goes by for winter killing freezes destroying our tropical plants and veggie gardens. So when it seemed we were getting more frequent killing freezes than what the locals had said we would get, I started looking into it and found these studies.

Believe me, I’m hoping they are dead wrong… bec that would be a find how-do-you-do for us people here if we not only have to suffer from higher temps during most of the year (it gets well past 100F during July and Aug here), but also killing freezes in winter.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

But we can’t omit talking about the Heartland Insitute since their people are the ones saying that Mann was hiding data and these other accusations of fraud. It is only right to look into the credibility of the accusers when considering the accusation.

Weak sauce… still trying to deflect.

While it has been more difficult to establish more intense and frequent hurricanes from AGW, mainly because the dataset is more meager than temp datasets and there was a “statistical threat to validity.” However, it is fairly well settled now.

Again like establishing proof of AGW when they already knew thru laws of physics that it would be happening 100 years earlier (the GH effect has been established in science for over 100 years), they had good reason to expect AGW to increase hurricanes, since an important factor (a necessary, but not sufficient cause) is higher sea surface temps. Also more heat content in earth systems relates to higher probability of heat energy going into the kinetic energy of storms…

I detect arrogance in this assumption that <100 years of storm data is sufficient to “prove” your point.

“Trick to hide the decline” is referring to a method of how to splice two datasets together, one for the tree ring proxy data (which was used before instrumental data) and the instrumental data.

The tree ring data pretty much jived with the instrumental data until the 1960s, when it started diverging downward, while the instrumental (more accurate) data from thermometers showed an increase in the warming.

Mann and others don’t know why that is, but I have some idea from my research and readings. With GW due to the increasing GH effect the night (minimum diurnal) temps are increasing faster than the day (maximum diurnal) temps. And this has a negative impact on plants (and people). They need the cooler night temps to recoup from the high day temps.

Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. 2010. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33): 14562-14567.

And re people, they have analyzed that the high level of deaths from the heat in Europe in 2003 were due more to the high night-time temps not giving people a chance to recoup from the stress from the high day temps.

How do you know warm night time temps have never happened to this extent in the past? That’s a rather large assumption. The answer is, you don’t. We had the Medieval Warming Period, during which it was so warm they grew wheat in Greenland. Something we still can’t do today for all the chatter about GW. How do you know warm night time temps didn’t happen then to a great extent?

These are different datasets, and for Mann some aspects of it had to be purchased and there are proprietary rights involved. Everyone is free to buy the same data from the same sources Mann got his data…

How do you know that wasn’t the case with Michaels? A rather poor explanation of the disparate treatment of these two.

I don’t know about the Legates case, but it could be the same thing. However, here is some info on Legates and his funding from the AGW Skeptic Industry: desmogblog.com/david-legates and exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=18

Again, classic deflection from the issue at hand. If that’s all you have to go on, that’s really weak. I expected better arguments than that.

What I’m hearing from you two is that it’s perfectly acceptable to tar the skeptics while hiding the good guys behind the same shield used to expose the skeptics. Further, it’s perfectly acceptable to you to deflect the tough questions like mine away by pointing at someone else.

If the good guys actually have a case, why not publish all their underlying data? What are they hiding?

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Need to remember that the IPCC is the same happy crew that said in its 2005 report that the Himalayan glaciers would totally disappear by 2035.

As it turned out, the non-peer-reviewed prediction was traced to a speculative magazine article authored by an Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain, with no supporting science behind it. He worked for a research company headed by none other than IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. IPCC author Marari Lai admitted the reason for including it to the Daily Mail, “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take action.”

Quote is from Forbes Magazine. By the way, Chairman Pachauri’s training is not at all close to climate science. He trained as a railway engineer and economist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Thank you for making my point. Sandy proves global warming but record low temperatures are meaningless.As I stated:
Weather events that bolster the theory of global warming are proof of Global Warming. Weather events that weaken the theory of global warming are just weather events

A mischaracterization of the scientific argument for global warming.

 

[lynnvinc]

I detect arrogance in this assumption that <100 years of storm data is sufficient to “prove” your point.

It all depends on how great the increase is. You’d need data over a much longer period if the increase were very slowly happening. Apparently the increase was happening and happening fast enough that they only needed some 30 years data to make an initial assessment. Here is a list of Kerry’s research papers that might help you with this problem: eaps4.mit.edu/faculty/Emanuel/publications/research_papers

The list includes a lot of succeeding studies, as well, that further strengthens the AGW-hurricane/storm connection. For instance this one:

Kossin, J. P., K. A. Emanuel, and G. A. Vecchi, 2014: The poleward migration of the location of tropical cyclone maximum intensity. Nature, 509, 349-352 at texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/KEV_manuscript_2014.pdf

Temporally inconsistent and potentially unreliable global historical data hinder detection of trends in tropical cyclone activity. This limits the confident evaluation of proposed linkages between observed trends in tropical cyclones and in the environment. Here we mitigate this difficulty by focusing on a metric that is comparatively insensitive to past data uncertainty, and we identify a pronounced poleward migration in the average latitude where tropical cyclones have achieved their lifetime-maximum intensity (LMI) over the past 30 years. The poleward trends are evident in the global historical data in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres with rates of 53 and 62 km decade−1, respectively, and are statistically significant. When considered together, the trends in each hemisphere depict a global-average migration of tropical cyclone activity away from the tropics at a rate of about 1° latitude decade−1, which lies within the range of estimates of the observed expansion of the tropics over this same period. The global migration remains evident and statistically significant under a formal data homogenisation procedure and is unlikely to be a data artifact. The migration away from the tropics is apparently linked to marked changes in the mean meridional structure of environmental vertical wind shear and potential intensity and can be plausibly linked to tropical expansion, which is generally thought to have anthropogenic contributions.

How do you know warm night time temps have never happened to this extent in the past? That’s a rather large assumption. The answer is, you don’t. We had the Medieval Warming Period, during which it was so warm they grew wheat in Greenland. Something we still can’t do today for all the chatter about GW. How do you know warm night time temps didn’t happen then to a great extent?

I’m sure more quickly warming night temps did happen in the past during GH effect-caused warming periods.

The MWP lends support to our current AGW. I’m not sure why some skeptics keep harping on it – seems like skeptics are in a circular firing squad.

I have no idea re MWP night temps. I’m not much concerned about the MWP, since it was not the greatest warming period in earth’s history. The PETM and end-Permian were a lot warmer, causing big extinction events. And since our temps are projected to get a lot higher than the MWP, I think we should be focusing on these other events to get a better idea of what to expect if we don’t shape up and start mitigating.

IF the MWP were caused by an enhanced GH effect, then yes, they probably would have experienced a faster increase in night temps than in day temps. That is a signal of the GH effect.

Even if the MWP were caused by some other factors, like earth’s wobble and orbit, then once warming begins, that initial warming would lead to several positive feedbacks, including release of GHGs that would cause warming to spiral. In that case – to the extent that GH effect was involved at least as a positive feedback – then it seems the MWP would have experienced night (minimum diurnal) temps warming more quickly than day temps. I call it the GH blanket effect.

How do you know that wasn’t the case with Michaels? A rather poor explanation of the disparate treatment of these two.

I don’t think he was working with tree-ring data he had to purchase. If so, why don’t you investigate and launch a court case? I don’t have time for such investigation.

You know, this obsession with Mike Mann, is really pretty sick – even sicker the skeptic harassment of him and death threats to him and his child. Even if Mann had never done the studies and never come up with the hockey stick image, AGW was already a done deal before Mann’s publications and has become more and more robust from many different angles ever since. You can delete Mann’s studies entirely and it doesn’t even put a dent in AGW research.

If proxy-hate is one’s flavor, why not go after the ice core, borehole, fossil leaf, coral, carbonate speleothem, and foraminifera people for a change. Maybe it’s because tree-rings are more sexy, or something??

If the good guys actually have a case, why not publish all their underlying data? What are they hiding?

As mentioned you too can purchase the underlying data (it’s all secondary data, not something they went out into the wilderness and got themselves). The researchers are not at liberty to release it for free without compensation to its sources.

In fact it is rather astonishing that with all that Exxon and Koch money for such an effort, someone hasn’t done just that. Or maybe the data sources don’t trust the so-called “skeptics” to protect their data, since the “skeptics” are notorious for hacking computers and other criminal antics.

I personally wouldn’t trust them at all.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think I used the word cause. There is the issue of A impacting B, which impacts C.

It is well known that neg arctic oscillations or Rossby waves tend to shift the weather pattern in northern latitude from a west-to-east to a north-to-south pattern. It is also related to nor’easters. I don’t think any meteorologist worth his salt denies that.

The question then becomes is climate change having anything to do with increasing the frequency or severity of these neg arctic oscillations or Rossby waves. There is some research that indicate that might be the case. The research is not robust or solid yet, just a few studies, with some climate scientists doubting it. Time will tell.

The reason I’m so interested in it is bec when I moved here to the RGV in 2002 I thought, well with AGW at least there will be less and less chance as times goes by for winter killing freezes destroying our tropical plants and veggie gardens. So when it seemed we were getting more frequent killing freezes than what the locals had said we would get, I started looking into it and found these studies.

Believe me, I’m hoping they are dead wrong… bec that would be a find how-do-you-do for us people here if we not only have to suffer from higher temps during most of the year (it gets well past 100F during July and Aug here), but also killing freezes in winter.

Your cited article, of course, says none of that.

There have been lots of freezes in the Rio Grande Valley over the years. Some of them into the single digits. Last winter was actually pretty mild compared to some of these:
raingardens.com/psst/articles/artic02.htm

So I think you can rest easier knowing now that you were wrong in believing that somehow winters are getting colder in the Rio Grande Valley.

It’s called the “Continental Influence”. Where I live in southern Mo is on about the same latitude as southern Spain and North Africa. But it gets colder here in the winter than in those places because cold northern air passing over land stays colder than it does passing over oceans.

So, no palm trees in southern Missouri and no year-round warmth guarantee for South Texas.

 

[lynnvinc]

Need to remember that the IPCC is the same happy crew that said in its 2005 report that the Himalayan glaciers would totally disappear by 2035.

I know well about that mistake, no harm done, and after all the glaciers are melting and may completely melt, but much later. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater of a few such mistakes in their 1000s of pages citing many 1000s of studies.

I say “no harm done” bec I was working on a paper for publication at the time and was about to quote that very same mistake (on pg. 493, Ch. 10, Asia, of WGII Impacts), except it didn’t look right. I had been in contact with climate scientists about sea rise and glacier melt and they had told me it would take many centuries for the glaciers to melt. So I looked up the source – WWF – and was surprised to see it was not a peer-reviewed study (WGI The Science is much more stringent about its sources), even though orgs such as WWF do pull together great reports, using a lot of good studies. So I looked up the WWF report to see their source – The New Scientist. At that point I decided not to put that quote in my paper (which was going up for peer-review itself). I guess I should have alerted my climate science friends about what looked to me to be an error.

Later a glaciologist (not a skeptic) found the mistake.

It seems WGII was not as carefully reviewed as WGI The Science was.

I don’t think they will ever make such mistakes again with all the flack they got for it.

You have to understand that 100s of scientists work on producing the IPCC reports on their own free time, taking time away from their research. The IPCC reports are wonderful works and the gold standard of climate science, even though I tend to bash it for being too reticent and conservative in its claims (that’s just the way science is – claim averse until very confident…unlike blog “wisdom”).

The bigger issue of this fiasco is that no one except myself and a long glaciologist was reading about AGW impacts in Asia, because, let’s face it, NO ONE REALLY CARES. That’s the biggest take-away from this, not the mistake. NO ONE CARES!

Quote is from Forbes Magazine. By the way, Chairman Pachauri’s training is not at all close to climate science. He trained as a railway engineer and economist.

Actually the skeptics (incl Bush) got rid of Houghton (a climate scientist) and picked Pachauri, bec they thought they could control him. That was my take on it at the time they dumped Houghton.

 

[lynnvinc]

Your cited article, of course, says none of that.

There have been lots of freezes in the Rio Grande Valley over the years. Some of them into the single digits. Last winter was actually pretty mild compared to some of these:
raingardens.com/psst/articles/artic02.htm

So I think you can rest easier knowing now that you were wrong in believing that somehow winters are getting colder in the Rio Grande Valley.

I’m hopeful that is the case. Or that even if there are more frequent or intense neg arctic oscillations, with the warming they won’t do too bad a job on us.

I don’t think my specific area has had single digit freezes in the past 100 years. Just enough of a deep freeze in the 20s for enough hours to kill our topical plants – some of which pop back after some time. Usually not enough to harm our citrus crops.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m hopeful that is the case. Or that even if there are more frequent or intense neg arctic oscillations, with the warming they won’t do too bad a job on us.

I don’t think my specific area has had single digit freezes in the past 100 years. Just enough of a deep freeze in the 20s for enough hours to kill our topical plants – some of which pop back after some time. Usually not enough to harm our citrus crops.

No, not in the past 100 years. The last recorded single digit temps in Houston was 5 degrees in 1930, but that’s not the Rio Grnde Valley. It was 24 degrees in Brownsville.

In 1899 (more than 100 years ago) it got down to 7 1/2 degrees in Corpus Christi. The sea froze from the barrier islands to the mainland. That same year it got down to 5 degrees in Laredo.

The lowest I see for the Rio Grande Valley in the 20th Century were 25 in 1933, 20 in 1951 and 10 in 1962. So, those were not single digits, but cold enough.

From what little I read, it appears the Rio Grande Valley goes through cycles of very mild winters with an occasional arctic blast, and it has been that way for more than 100 years.

That’s what the Continental Influence does for you. There are no barriers between the north pole and the Rio Grande Valley other than barbed wire fences.

 

[vz71]

. This post again demonstrates there is information that AGW science is based on “flawed science and dishonesty”. Who told you that?..If that isn’t anti-AGW information, I don’t know what is.

I’m not allowed to have an opinion based upon common sense and basic math?
People cannot apply their own knowledge? You believe people have to be told something to have an understanding of it?
I don’t know if I should be insulted or dismayed at the apparent disregard for human intelligence.

Would you like me to provide a list of elementary school teachers that taught me how to read a graph?
Perhaps my science and arithmetic teachers for teaching me that an average cannot be more accurate then the numbers it is derived from? Or that a graph with no labels is meaningless.
My history teachers and science teachers for teaching me how weather events were measured in the past.
I also have been around a while. I have been witness first hand to the lack of warming.
I do not need some third party to tell me it is not getting hotter year after year.

Perhaps if the global warming science was based on something more substantive I would need something more then basic logic and common sense to see the problems with the theory.

 

[lynnvinc]

No, not in the past 100 years. The last recorded single digit temps in Houston was 5 degrees in 1930, but that’s not the Rio Grnde Valley. It was 24 degrees in Brownsville.

In 1899 (more than 100 years ago) it got down to 7 1/2 degrees in Corpus Christi. The sea froze from the barrier islands to the mainland. That same year it got down to 5 degrees in Laredo.

The lowest I see for the Rio Grande Valley in the 20th Century were 25 in 1933, 20 in 1951 and 10 in 1962. So, those were not single digits, but cold enough.

From what little I read, it appears the Rio Grande Valley goes through cycles of very mild winters with an occasional arctic blast, and it has been that way for more than 100 years.

That’s what the Continental Influence does for you. There are no barriers between the north pole and the Rio Grande Valley other than barbed wire fences.

That’s pretty much what I was told when we moved down here. We are south of Corpus and somewhat warmer, and much warmer than Houston, where my niece lives…and dryer. Not sure it would have gotten down to 10F right where I live, but maybe 40 miles to our west or north it may have (I’ll ask our elderly neighbor who has lived here since birth).

It did snow here a few years ago (the temps were in the 20s), the first snow the weatherman said since the late 1800s. The kids were all excited, going out and making snowmen and having snowball fights, which they usually only read about in the north. We adults were fretting over our tropical plants, covering them up.

I feel sorry for all the weather problems people are having around the US and world, and the wildfires in the West. So far so good with us, just very hot now during the cunicula. We did have a super hurricane cat 5 come here in 1967 right up the Rio Grande River – Hurricane Beulah. I pray we get spared.