[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2013-June-02, 09:30, said:

I'm not sure how to reconcile these statements:



And it hit on the last week of October last year, causing damage as far west as Wisconsin. So I don't understand your original claim.

See the following:

http://www.propertyc...-hurricane-land

A major hurricane (category 3 or higher) has not made landfall in the U.S. since 2005, which is the longest such period in recorded history. Sandy came ashore as a category 1 hurricane with winds of 80 mph. Its destructiveness was a result of its timing. The storm merged with a continental low, causing its winds to broaden, and shift assymmetrically towards the northwest. The storm also made landfall during high tide of a full moon, leading to an additional foot or more of storm surge. Understand now?
The U.S. is not alone, 2012 marked the 4th consequetive below average year of tropical-cyclone landfalls worldwide. The following shows tropical cyclone energy, which considers both the number and strength of storms.

http://policlimate.c...running_ace.png

[Daniel1960]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-02, 09:55, said:

Misdirection by moving the goalposts in Forbes : (emphasis and notes added added)



note 1: How about that, there is a concensus. What's the problem?
note 2: Oh, that is the problem. How bad is it and what do we need to do. Funny, but no one ever said there was a consensus on those questions.
note 3: So, because a few are spinning the results in their favor, the results of the document must be flawed? Huh?

Although conservative Forbes author James Taylor admits that most skeptics and most alarmist agree that AGW is real, it cannot be a considered a consensus because we disagree on how significant a problem it is, a person we strongly dislike published the findings, and because there is no consensus on how this will affect the planet and what needs to be done now, it means there is no consensus on the question of AGW itself.

If you followed that logic, you may have a future in the Tea Party.

I think you hit the nail on the head. While most agree that humans have had some effect, there is a wide disagreement about what those effects will be. The error lies in extrapolating those findings to claim that a consensus agrees that the planet will warm 2+ degrees this century. A CO2-induced warming of 0.1C this century would still constitute agreement with that statement, but is that what AGW supporters are claiming? Also, how can those of us who agree with the statement that humans have affected the climate be consider both part of this so-called consensus and deniers of it simultaneously? I believe that is the logis that is being challenged.

[nige1]

The controversy about the cause of global warming is of academic interest. Of urgent and immediate practical concern are the questions:
Is global warming jeopardising human prospects and can we do anything to prevent or mitigate it?

[Daniel1960]

nige1, on 2013-June-03, 06:28, said:

The controversy about the cause of global warming is of academic interest. Of urgent and immediate practical concern are the questions:
Is global warming jeopardising human prospects and can we do anything to prevent or mitigate it?

Good question. Unfortunately, we do not have a good answer. Much will depend on the magnitude of any future warming. A moderate warming, similar to the past 2 centuries, would be beneficial to plantlife and agriculture, as the growing season has expanded recently in Northern latitudes, and an accompanying increase in precipitation has helped increase yields in many regions. Sea levels will continue to rise, another eight inches or so, causing coastal concern worldwide. Increased rainfall is likely to lead to increased flooding in those areas particularly prone, therefore mitigating action need be taken there also. Severe weather (tornadoes, tropical cyclones, blizzards, etc.) should continue its decades-long decline as the temperature and pressure differences lessen. General health should improve in the colder climates, resulting in less sickness and death. This could be partially offset by a decrease in the warmer regions, mostly due to a worsening of air pollution. Warmer temperatures will result in less use of natural gas and heating oil in colder climates, while increasing the use of electricity for air conditioning in warmer climates - this will result in less overall energy usage. A reminder, most of the temperature increase has been observed during nighttime and winter, with only minimal increases in summertime highs.

A better question might be, "at what temperature rise might we start to experience negative prospects for humans (and other lifeforms)?"

[Daniel1960]

This paper is making the rounds throughtout the blogosphere, with the usual comments from each side. An interesting conclusion, if true.

http://phys.org/print289149026.html

[Al_U_Card]

Daniel1960, on 2013-June-03, 07:31, said:

A better question might be, "at what temperature rise might we start to experience negative prospects for humans (and other lifeforms)?"

Although the presence of dinosaurs might be problematic for human prospects higher temperatures (up to 10 deg. C more than today) and CO2 values (up to thousands of ppm) would seem to have been pretty propitious for the development of life and its survival.



Volcanism and asteroid impacts notwithstanding.

[Al_U_Card]

And lest we forget the past and how lower temperatures affect humanity...

(excerpted from Prof. Parker's analysis of climate induced calamities discussed at http://judithcurry.c...phe/#more-11802 )

The evidence for major climate change in the 17th century is both copious and unambiguous. Consider the year 1675. In July, the Paris socialite Madame de Sévigné complained to her daughter, who lived close to the Mediterranean: “It is horribly cold: We have the fires lit, just like you, which is very remarkable.” She added: “We think the behavior of the sun and of the seasons has changed.”

Madame de Sévigné was correct on both scores: 1675 is one of the few years with an exceptionally cool summer on record, and the narrow tree rings from that time reveal unusually poor growth; both grape and grains ripened later than at any other time in the previous five centuries.

Nevertheless, it took human stupidity to turn crisis into catastrophe. The meager French harvest of 1675 occurred just as the king raised new taxes to pay for his wars, with predictable results. Many people died of hunger, many more migrated in search of food, and in the west of France, many took part in the “red bonnets” revolts.

The earth also experienced an unusually cold winter in 1620-1, when the Bosporus froze so hard that people could walk across the ice between Europe and Asia—a climatic anomaly. The summer of 1627 was the wettest recorded in Europe for 500 years, and 1628 was another “year without a summer,” with temperatures so low that in many areas food crops never ripened. From 1629 to 1632, northern India suffered a catastrophic drought, while much of Europe suffered excessive rains. In the Alps, unusually narrow tree rings reflect poor growing seasons throughout the 1640s, and glaciers advanced more than a mile. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1641 saw the third-coldest summer recorded over the past six centuries; 1641-2 was the coldest winter ever recorded in Scandinavia; and 1649-50 was the coldest winter on record in both northern and eastern China.

In France, the river Seine has experienced 62 recorded floods, 18 of which occurred in the 17th century. Grape harvests in western France between 1640 and 1643 began a full month later than usual, producing wine too bitter to drink, while grain prices surged as a result of poor cereal harvests. Unseasonable weather in England ruined the corn and hay each year from 1646 to 1651, with five more bad harvests from 1657 to 1661: 11 harvest failures within the space of 16 years. Such abnormal climatic conditions lasted from the 1620s until the 1690s, the longest as well as the most severe episode of global cooling recorded in the past 12,000 years.

That century witnessed more cases of state breakdown around the globe than did any previous or subsequent age. In the coldest decade, the 1640s, Ming China, the most populous state in the world, collapsed; the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the largest state in Europe, disintegrated; much of the Spanish monarchy seceded; and the entire Stuart monarchy rebelled—Scotland, Ireland, England, and its North American colonies. In addition, in 1648 alone, rebellions paralyzed both Russia (the largest state in the world) and France (the most populous state in Europe); while in Istanbul (Europe’s largest city), irate subjects strangled Sultan Ibrahim, and in London King Charles I went on trial for war crimes (the first head of state to do so).

The frequency of popular revolts also increased. In China the number of major armed uprisings rose from under 10 in the 1610s to over 80 in the 1630s, affecting 160 counties and involving well over one million participants. In Switzerland and what is now Germany, of the 25 major peasant revolts recorded in the 17th century, more than half took place between 1626 and 1650. In England, the number of food riots rose from 12 between 1600 and 1620 to 36 between 1621 and 1631, with 14 more in 1647-9. In France, popular revolts peaked, both absolutely and relatively, in the mid-17th century.

The fatal synergy among climate change, revolution, war, and rebellion produced human mortality on a scale seldom seen before and never since. In China, the emperor acknowledged that “over half of the population perished” in the violent transition from Ming to Qing.

[Zelandakh]

Stop the presses! We have a new headline:

2013 warmer than 1600s!

[Winstonm]

We have run the gamut of warming doubt from "it isn't happening" to "it's the sun" to "it's a conspiracy" to "it's happening but we don't know how much or how little" to finally this: "warming is good for you". I suppose if you keep the water cloudy long enough something good might happen.

Thanks for playing.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-05, 08:51, said:

Stop the presses! We have a new headline:

2013 warmer than 1600s and NOT caused by man!

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-05, 10:32, said:

We have run the gamut of warming doubt from "it isn't happening" to "it's the sun" to "it's a conspiracy" to "it's happening but we don't know how much or how little" to finally this: "warming is good for you". I suppose if you keep the water cloudy long enough something good might happen.

Thanks for playing.

What was that Ghandi quote? Oh, yes:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Now, I wonder how that applies here....

[Zelandakh]

I see no link between the quote provided and your suggested headline.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2013-June-03, 10:26, said:

This paper is making the rounds throughtout the blogosphere, with the usual comments from each side. An interesting conclusion, if true.

http://phys.org/print289149026.html

Interesting to see how this plays out. Thanks for the link.

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2013-June-06, 07:21, said:

Interesting to see how this plays out. Thanks for the link.

Here is a rather complete and technical (mathematical) analysis and demonstration of why [CO2] does not control global temperature to any significant extent (because its concentration relates only to the integral of global temperature).

Maybe the advocates will soon propose CFC credits or ....?

[Winstonm]

The response

Quote

You will note that every time the data disagrees with Salby's 'model', he trusts his 'model' over the data. Which contravenes the 'skeptic lore' that models are worthless and must be bashed, and only data should be trusted.

[ArtK78]

NYC Lays Out $20 Billion Plan to Adapt to Climate Change


http://www.cnbc.com/...wells%201984%20

[Winstonm]

Here is a peer-reviewed refutation of the basic Salby argument, albeit made by by another professor at an earlier time (Essenhigh, R. H. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 2773−2784) .

Quote

it is straightforward to show, with considerable certainty, that the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era, taking in significantly more carbon than it has emitted, and therefore, the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon.

[Al_U_Card]

The environment acted as a net carbon sink during the industrial age....so maybe now it is acting as a carbon source as a gradually warming world and oceans gives it back?
Either way, if CO2 is the GHG it is cracked up to be, then temperatures should continue to rise...unless the environment is once again acting as a sink...which would explain the increased greening of the planet.
Opposing views provide room for discussion. The climate system is chaotic and cannot be easily modeled nor "controlled" by any given forcing. Science continues to discover and divulge despite attempts to stifle the debate and process with claims of consensus.

SkepticalScience....hmmmn

I wonder who pays their bills? Big Green? Maybe...

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-June-12, 11:11, said:

Opposing views provide room for discussion.

Discussion is usually a positive force, certainly. But it is important to listen to "opposing views" with the same skeptical approach as is taken for anything else in science. It is also important to understand that people often lose some of that skepticism when an opposing view happens to match their own viewpoint.

[Daniel1960]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-13, 02:33, said:

Discussion is usually a positive force, certainly. But it is important to listen to "opposing views" with the same skeptical approach as is taken for anything else in science. It is also important to understand that people often lose some of that skepticism when an opposing view happens to match their own viewpoint.

So true. People attribute greater significance to that which corresponds to their own viewpoint. Witness the recent climate dialogue, whereby one group is lauding the Cook/Nucitelli paper about 97% consenesus, while the opposing group is praising Lu's work on CFCs. Each group is then overly critical of the other's work (in Dana's case, he is both). Of course, the media like to fan these flames, as two diametrically opposed positions seem to garner more and juicier press coverage.