Global Warming

[DaS Energy]

Its an odd thing that any child or adult can tell you because its hotter at the equator than the south pole, both regions have a different climate. Some claim the heating of the whole atmosphere around the earth makes no climate change. However the whole climate change debate is a political farce attempting to stop us taking on Governments medical advisers state a healthy environment has Carbon between 250 and 350 parts per million. People, that's us, get less and less healthy after that. Pity we exceeded 350 parts per million some time back and keep up the increasing!

[Rorschach]

Its an odd thing that any child or adult can tell you because its hotter at the equator than the south pole, both regions have a different climate. Some claim the heating of the whole atmosphere around the earth makes no climate change. However the whole climate change debate is a political farce attempting to stop us taking on Governments medical advisers state a healthy environment has Carbon between 250 and 350 parts per million. People, that's us, get less and less healthy after that. Pity we exceeded 350 parts per million some time back and keep up the increasing!

Please post a link to a reputable journal or body that states such about human health and atmospheric CO2 PPM.

[Outlaw Yogi]

I though everyone understood that climate change ... warming means greater extremes.

Yes, the concept is well known of and about, but some prefer to be ignorant. Just like the fact global warming can potentially trigger an ice age just by mymicly how a fridge/freezer functions.

No, Noah's flood, a reproduction of Gilgamesh's Deluge is/was an account of an event that is marked in the geological record.

Two points of calling bullshit here.

1. King Gilgamesh was an actual person. He was the fifth king of Uruk (Summeria, what's modern day Iraq), and his rule happened around 2500BC. You can do math, correct? Subtract 2500 from 11,600 (Your claim for the most recent "global flood") and you'll not that there's a 9100 year difference between when you say a "globalflood" happened and when King Gilgamesh actually walked the Earth.

You're playing the same game as the naysayers here, deliberate ignorance. Gilgamesh didn't have to live at the time of the flood, and I have not insunuated he did. As previously stated, the account is no doubt embelished, which is typical of post event records.

[2. "Global Flooding" myths are just that, myths. Unless you're confusing sea level rise for biblical style global floods, in which case I have to ask if you even know what the term "global' means.

Well what you claim is mythical happened in reality 3 times in the last 18,000 years. As a direct result of melt water on a planetary scale, for those who profess to hold sole authority of deffinition for 'global'

The legendary tale(s) is/are no doubt embelished, but the 3 global floods since the last glacial maximum (21,000 to 18,000 years ago) are recorded in rock strata ect.

Then show this evidence.

Rising sea levels, induced by increased global temps, are only one factor, with consequences of their own, like aquifer and ground salinity due to saline invasion.

Y'know if I'd put more than $2 in the slot, didn't have a dog outside demanding attention, I might take the time to retrieve such info, but as it's easily found, go get it yourself .. and stop wasting time the way Aussie does.

[If we took every bit of ice looked up at both poles and every damned glacier on earth the total global rise in sea level would be less than 100m

Already cited potential max rise of 97 metres.
I've looked into this stuff for 2 decades, considered alternative possibilities and excluded such ideas long before naysayers jumped on such excuses.

Now Greenland is melting away, which will impact Antarctica via currents, low lying land is being submerged, dwellings on permafrost are sinking, and we have some saying global warming isn't happening, and others saying it's not such a big deal, or like you, saying its not as bad as we thought. Well that's rubbish. The Russian and Swedish navies found large areas in the arctic where previously frozen methane clathrates are bubbling to the surface. That means we passed the tipping point into a runaway global warming scenario in 2007.
Y'know, I'm actually glad we are headed for catastrophiosm. It'll clean up a lot of foolish people.

[Rorschach]

Greenland was "green" in the days of the Vikings...
any thought?

[Chard]

You're playing the same game as the naysayers here, deliberate ignorance. Gilgamesh didn't have to live at the time of the flood, and I have not insunuated he did. As previously stated, the account is no doubt embelished, which is typical of post event records.

Of course it's embellished. It's a goddamn legend. Trying to use a myth as an example of actual geological events is goddamn retarded. That was my point.

Well what you claim is mythical happened in reality 3 times in the last 18,000 years. As a direct result of melt water on a planetary scale, for those who profess to hold sole authority of deffinition for 'global'

Sea level change and global flood myths are two entirely different concepts, numbnuts. By all means, show me a single peer-reviewed published geology paper that seriously uses the term "global flooding" when they're talking about sea level change. Take your time, I'll wait...

Y'know if I'd put more than $2 in the slot, didn't have a dog outside demanding attention, I might take the time to retrieve such info, but as it's easily found, go get it yourself .. and stop wasting time the way Aussie does.

Yes, because showing sources for your claims takes so much effort...

For once it'd be nice if people would just admit they were making shit up instead of dodging when I call for evidence for oulandish claims.

Already cited potential max rise of 97 metres.

No, you said you did your own estimate based on whatever it is you think of as science with no evidence to back your claim of 97m. No maths, no maps, no data, just your claim. Claim != citation

I've looked into this stuff for 2 decades, considered alternative possibilities and excluded such ideas long before naysayers jumped on such excuses.

I've been flying in commercial airliners for 37 years and it doesn't make me qualified to be an airline pilot.

Try again, chicken little.

[Chard]

Greenland was "green" in the days of the Vikings...
any thought?

Small parts of Greenland have been green for quite some time (as in thousands of years). Just like very little of Iceland has any ice on it. Again, not sure what your point is here other than you possibly attempting to demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge about geography and/or climate history.

[Rorschach]

I have a solution for your problem Chard... pay closer attention to the arguments.
At least we agree that Greenland was green...
therefore the temperature must have been?????
I'm sure you'll get it... eventually

[Rorschach]

Snowing in Egypt for first time in years
Many are saying it’s the first snow in 112 years, see News.com. Though there are reports the Egyptian Meteorological Authority disagrees that it has been that long. As a cold snap hits the Middle East, snow is falling in many places, including Israel, where it is said to have been the heaviest snow since 1953.

Global warming hitting Egypt hard. First snow in a century. http://t.co/w6gKC6VpUg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; pic.twitter.com/5y9TSwbhro

— Steve Goddard (@SteveSGoddard) December 13, 2013

LA Times: “In Cairo, where local news reports said the last recorded snowfall was more than 100 years ago, children in outlying districts capered in white-covered streets, and adults marveled at the sight, tweeting pictures of snow-dusted parks and squares.”

Huffington Post: ” In Jerusalem, local media reported that schools and roads were closed, and transport suspended after four inches of snow – the most since 1953. “

Cars stuck under snow in Amman, Jordan via @AmerSweidan @beamman pic.twitter.com/oUzgFm3QL8

— Curtis Ryan (@Curtisryan1) December 14, 2013

I hear snow in Amman is not that unusual. Still, that’s a decent kind of snowfall.

Washington Post reports that “Jerusalem was last snow-covered about 50 years ago. As these photos show, the snow has brought delight to some in the region but has exacerbated the misery of others, particularly those in the vast Syrian refugee camps,..”. The Washington Post article has many photos. Twitchy also has many shots of camels in the snow.

Plus: Over 2000 cold and snow records set in the USA this past week. Not that that means anything.

Safety Warning: This information may be misinterpreted. It is weather, not climate and it’s 95% likely a climate scientist predicted this would happen due to global warming, within non-standard variant deviations of undefined uncertainties.

h/t Larry and Gordon

[Rorschach]

IPCC spin translated – the leaked Synopsis admits 97% of models fail
Joint Post: Geoff Sherrington and JoNova


The IPCC Synthesis Report first order draft has been leaked (h/t Tallbloke) . It is part of the big Fifth Assessment report see the parts already released here. The Synthesis Report supposedly summarizes the science. In the real world the topic du jour is the plateau, pause, or hiatus in warming which the IPCC can no longer ignore. Instead the masters of keyword phrases test new bounds in saying things that are technically correct, while not stating the bleeding obvious. Luckily we are here to help them. : -)
Translating IPCC-spin:

“The rate of warming of the observed global-mean surface temperature has been smaller over the past 15 years (1998-2012) than over the past 30 to 60 years (Figure SYR.1a; Box SYR.1) and is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over the period 1951–2012. Nevertheless, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record (Figure SYR.1a).”

Translated: Yes temperatures are not rising faster as we predicted, even though more CO2 was pumped out faster than ever. Let’s ignore that this shows the models were wrong, the important thing is to use the words “warmest” and “record” as often as possible.

“The radiative forcing of the climate system has continued to increase during the 2000s, as has its largest contributor, the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Consistent with this radiative forcing, the climate system has very likely continued to accumulate heat since 1998, and sea level has continued to rise. The radiative forcing of the climate system has been increasing to a lesser rate over the period 1998-2011 compared to 1984 to 1998 or 1951-2011, due to a negative forcing trend from volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle over 2000-2009. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the surface-warming hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the forcing trend due to tropospheric aerosol. {WG1 8.5; WG1 Box 9.2}”

Translated: Despite the fact that the rate of warming is slower than it was before, theoretically CO2 is warming us faster. This is a fatal contradiction, but we hope you won’t notice. We will distract you by mentioning that the rate of increase in theoretical forcing has slowed in our estimates of volcanoes and solar stuff and hope this sounds like it sort of matches, and we know what we are talking about. But we do admit we really have no idea why the warming didn’t occur. Read between the lines — we know CO2 is important because our models don’t work without it — but our models don’t work anyway, we don’t understand the other forcings. The science is settled, except for the inconvenient, unpredictable bits that are not settled. Give us your money.

“For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable internal climate variability. Variability sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (Figure Box SYR.1). Internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. There are also possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors. {WG1 2.4, 9.3, 9.4; 10.3, 11.2, 11.3, WG1 Box 9.2}

Translated: This is what 95% certainty looks like: 97% of our models are wrong. (See also here). We blame that on unpredictable stuff that goes on inside the climate. Maybe we are also incorrect on solar, volcanic and dust too.

“In summary, the observed recent surface-warming hiatus is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). {WG1 8.5, Box 9.2}

Translated: This sentence looks quite confident because we are attributing the pause to something. Don’t look closely, it’s cooling from something we didn’t predict beforehand, still can’t predict now, and can’t measure, even if we could predict it. “Internal variability” is the new catch all term that covers all the things we don’t know. It’s is the multi-purpose-fudge for all occasions. We hope no one asks us if internal variability could have caused the warming before it caused the cooling.

Bonus: We like the words “expert judgment”. This makes us feel important.

“Footnote: The connection of the heat budget to equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is the long-term surface warming under an assumed doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, arises because a warmer surface causes enhanced radiation to space, which counteracts the increase in Earth’s heat content. How much the radiation to space increases for a given increase in surface temperature, depends on the same feedback processes that determine equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Translated: Feedback processes are the downfall of the whole scare, so we use the phrase only once and in a footnote on page 21 of a 92 page document (that right now has “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute” written on every page). We don’t expect any journalists to understand what this paragraph means, nor to ask about it, but if skeptics claim we deny that the feedbacks determine the end result we can point to this to show we are completely transparent.

[Chard]

Goddamn I love it when laymen take it upon themselves to "translate" the words of scientists. They always get it wrong.