PDA

View Full Version : Warming: Where Is The Harm?



seer
07-01-2014, 06:20 AM
Ok, from what I can understand from the grafts linked, from the late 1880s to present the earth's average temperature has increased about one degree f. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

This has seemed to have topped off in the late 90s. And we remain fairly stable, but we are stable at a much warmer temperature. So has that warmer temperature really cause any empirical harm? From what I have read we just went through three years of the mildest hurricane seasons in recent memory. I mean what weather events can we point to that are worse now in either duration, frequency or intensity because of this warming?

Sparko
07-01-2014, 06:22 AM
Tell that to the Eskimos, whose pies keep melting!!! :glare:

seer
07-01-2014, 06:25 AM
Tell that to the Eskimos, whose pies keep melting!!! :glare:

Like those polar bears that keep melting!:flaming:

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 07:41 AM
Ok, from what I can understand from the grafts linked, from the late 1880s to present the earth's average temperature has increased about one degree f. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

This has seemed to have topped off in the late 90s. And we remain fairly stable, but we are stable at a much warmer temperature. So has that warmer temperature really cause any empirical harm? From what I have read we just went through three years of the mildest hurricane seasons in recent memory. I mean what weather events can we point to that are worse now in either duration, frequency or intensity because of this warming?

Seriously?

In the US alone changing wind patterns produced the Polar Vortex that did damage by dumping extra cold arctic air over the east coast and Midwest and cost the US economy an estimated $5 billion. Meanwhile the western states are still suffering through their worst drought in a century, causing significant damage to crops and an increase in food prices. In Alaska the melting permafrost has caused hundreds of millions of dollars' damage to infrastructure - roads, bridges, water and electricity distribution. Coastal sea trade cities on both coasts are having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to shore up their port infrastructure too against rising sea level effects. That doesn't even include the severe cost of the loss of biodiversity through loss of animal and plant habitats.

That's just in the US. The same effects over the whole globe are estimated to cost approx. $1.2 trillion dollars a year in damages.

Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy)

seer
07-01-2014, 08:09 AM
Seriously?

In the US alone changing wind patterns produced the Polar Vortex that did damage by dumping extra cold arctic air over the east coast and Midwest and cost the US economy an estimated $5 billion. Meanwhile the western states are still suffering through their worst drought in a century, causing significant damage to crops and an increase in food prices. In Alaska the melting permafrost has caused hundreds of millions of dollars' damage to infrastructure - roads, bridges, water and electricity distribution. Coastal sea trade cities on both coasts are having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to shore up their port infrastructure too against rising sea level effects. That doesn't even include the severe cost of the loss of biodiversity through loss of animal and plant habitats.

That's just in the US. The same effects over the whole globe are estimated to cost approx. $1.2 trillion dollars a year in damages.

Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy)

Really Beagle? So this drought is worse than the 1930's dust bowl? Some of the coldest US winters were in the 60 and 80s. Was the 1936 North American cold wave cause by global warming? And wouldn't a warmer planet eventually produce more growing areas and longer growing seasons? After all the earth was once much warmer than today and animals and plants thrived. As far as coastal areas, that is mostly our fault for building to close to the shore in the first place - I knew that when I was a kid in the 60s and saw what hurricanes did to our coastal towns. And since those days we have only built up those areas more.

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 08:21 AM
Really Beagle?

Yes seer, really. Reality doesn't go away just because you don't particularly care for it.


And wouldn't a warmer planet eventually produce more growing areas and longer growing seasons?

Productive growing areas may move northward into Nebraska / Montana / Canada but this will be offset by crop losses in the traditional breadbasket states. There's also the problem of moving billions of dollars' worth of food growing / food processing / transportation infrastructure from the drought areas to the new growing areas. Little details like that you probably never consider.


After all the earth was once much warmer than today and animals and plants thrived.

Animal and plant life will survive. However the Earth never had 7+ billion people on it to support before so that population will likely fall drastically. You'll be gone by that time so why should you care if a few billion people starve to death, right? :ahem:

tabibito
07-01-2014, 08:34 AM
Was the 1936 North American cold wave cause by global warming? Probably. Climate conditions over millenia show gradual average warming. No-one has been able to walk across the Thames River in mid winter since some time in the 1700s, for example, though it was a regular activity prior to that. well - except for only an extreme few exceptional winters.

And wouldn't a warmer planet eventually produce more growing areas and longer growing seasons? No. Warmer planet means loss of low lying plains, increased erosion and, because the increased temperatures result in an increased capacity for air to retain moisture, decreased rainfall.

After all the earth was once much warmer than today and animals and plants thrived. Increased expanses of desert in once fertile lands show that this is not so. Egypt and Ethiopia both had very good agricultural capacity 2000 - 3000 years ago.

As to man made global warming - that has ACCELERATED the pace without doubt, and that rate of acceleration is probably itself accelerating. The current hiatus in rising temperatures was predicted early in the piece (1960s - 1970s?).
Basic scenario goes that Polar ice melts - dumps inordinate quantities of very cold water into the oceans, that very cold water is carried to equatorial regions by currents. Temporary cooling of the deeper ocean results in a stay in increased temperatures. Cooling effects result in a partial recovery of ice caps. The cold water eventually gets warmer, increases the melt of the polar caps (which never recovered fully from the prior melt) and continue the cycle.
To give a thoroughly over-simplified example: Temperatures increase, melt 100 tons of polar ice. ice water creates hiatus, polar ice increases by 50 tons. ice water warms up - melting of ice caps resumes, melts 100 tons of ice. after a few repetitions, no ice is left.

Sparko
07-01-2014, 08:35 AM
Really Beagle? So this drought is worse than the 1930's dust bowl? Some of the coldest US winters were in the 60 and 80s. Was the 1936 North American cold wave cause by global warming? And wouldn't a warmer planet eventually produce more growing areas and longer growing seasons? After all the earth was once much warmer than today and animals and plants thrived. As far as coastal areas, that is mostly our fault for building to close to the shore in the first place - I knew that when I was a kid in the 60s and saw what hurricanes did to our coastal towns. And since those days we have only built up those areas more.

doncha know? We never had bad weather till global warming, er I mean "climate change" came along! Earth was a paradise. Not too much rain, not too much sun. No floods, or earthquakes or hurricanes, or blizzards or tornadoes. Why, I bet until last year, Venice was on dry land in the middle of a tropical island.

seer
07-01-2014, 08:40 AM
Yes seer, really. Reality doesn't go away just because you don't particularly care for it.

I will ask again: So this drought is worse than the 1930's dust bowl? Some of the coldest US winters were in the 60 and 80s. Was the 1936 North American cold wave cause by global warming?



Productive growing areas may move northward into Nebraska / Montana / Canada but this will be offset by crop losses in the traditional breadbasket states. There's also the problem of moving billions of dollars' worth of food growing / food processing / transportation infrastructure from the drought areas to the new growing areas. Little details like that you probably never consider.

Why? Why would we lose our "traditional breadbasket?" You haven't shown that GW has caused more droughts, perhaps our traditional breadbasket will have longer, better growing seasons.



Animal and plant life will survive. However the Earth never had 7+ billion people on it to support before so that population will likely fall drastically. You'll be gone by that time so why should you care if a few billion people starve to death, right? :ahem:

Well first, I very much doubt that we can reverse anything at this point especially when countries like China and India are bringing new coal plants on line weekly. Second, longer growing seasons and more growing areas will help feed this growing population. And that would be a good thing.

Sparko
07-01-2014, 08:44 AM
Second, longer growing seasons and more growing areas will help feed this growing population. And that would be a good thing.

Where are your liberal sensibilities, Seer? That would be a BAD thing. Because then the planet could support more people and they would just ruin the planet faster. We need to eliminate the human race to save the planet!

seer
07-01-2014, 08:49 AM
No. Warmer planet means loss of low lying plains, increased erosion and, because the increased temperatures result in an increased capacity for air to retain moisture, decreased rainfall.

This does not make sense. When the earth was much warmer wasn't it also more lush? More tropical? Was there less rainfall back then, with more deserts? If I remember the Arctic once once very warm with lots of vegetation and life.

seer
07-01-2014, 08:50 AM
Where are your liberal sensibilities, Seer? That would be a BAD thing. Because then the planet could support more people and they would just ruin the planet faster. We need to eliminate the human race to save the planet!

Hehe...

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 09:16 AM
I will ask again: So this drought is worse than the 1930's dust bowl? Some of the coldest US winters were in the 60 and 80s. Was the 1936 North American cold wave cause by global warming?

Why? Why would we lose our "traditional breadbasket?" You haven't shown that GW has caused more droughts, perhaps our traditional breadbasket will have longer, better growing seasons.

Well first, I very much doubt that we can reverse anything at this point especially when countries like China and India are bringing new coal plants on line weekly. Second, longer growing seasons and more growing areas will help feed this growing population. And that would be a good thing.

Dealing with you is hopeless. We've had , what, at least half a dozen threads on AGW here and on the old TWeb? We've looked at dozens if not hundreds of scientific papers describing the physical effects, the monetary costs, the damage caused but you ignored every one. I could go to the time and trouble of posting dozens more but you'd just ignore them too. :ahem: So stay in your fantasy world of pretty butterflies and fuzzy kittens. The rest of us who have to deal with reality will continue to work the problems the best we can despite the dead-weight of the willfully ignorant folks like you.

Sparko
07-01-2014, 09:20 AM
Dealing with you is hopeless. We've had , what, at least half a dozen threads on AGW here and on the old TWeb? We've looked at dozens if not hundreds of of scientific papers describing the physical effects, the monetary costs, the damage caused but you ignored every one. I could go to the time and trouble of posting dozens more but you'd just ignore them too. :ahem: So stay in your fantasy world of pretty butterflies and fuzzy kittens. The rest of us who have to deal with reality will continue to work the problems the best we can despite the dead-weight of the willfully ignorant folks like you.

Translation: "I got nothing so I will insult you and run away :outtie:"

seer
07-01-2014, 09:24 AM
Dealing with you is hopeless. We've had , what, at least half a dozen threads on AGW here and on the old TWeb? We've looked at dozens if not hundreds of of scientific papers describing the physical effects, the monetary costs, the damage caused but you ignored every one. I could go to the time and trouble of posting dozens more but you'd just ignore them too. :ahem: So stay in your fantasy world of pretty butterflies and fuzzy kittens. The rest of us who have to deal with reality will continue to work the problems the best we can despite the dead-weight of the willfully ignorant folks like you.

But you claimed that the drought in California was caused by global warming, you gave that as an example:


But in doing so, they were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought. While a trend of increasing drought that may be linked to global warming has been documented in some regions, including parts of the Mediterranean and in the Southwestern United States, there is no scientific consensus yet that it is a worldwide phenomenon. Nor is there definitive evidence that it is causing California’s problems.

In fact, the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.


“I’m pretty sure the severity of this thing is due to natural variability,” said Richard Seager, a climate scientist who studies water issues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0


So how can you even begin to calculate monetary costs, when you can not even show that a particular weather event like this drought was actually the result of AGW?

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 09:33 AM
Translation: "I got nothing so I will insult you and run away :outtie:"

Here is a one of the many hundreds of similar reports on the negative economic impact of climate change easily available to anyone who bothers to look:


Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1687.html)
Hanewinkel et al
Nature Climate Change 3, 203–207 (2013)

Abstract: European forests, covering more than 2 million km2 or 32% of the land surface, are to a large extent intensively managed and support an important timber industry. Climate change is expected to strongly affect tree species distribution within these forests. Climate and land use are undergoing rapid changes at present, with initial range shifts already visible. However, discussions on the consequences of biome shifts have concentrated on ecological issues. Here we show that forecasted changes in temperature and precipitation may have severe economic consequences. On the basis of our model results, the expected value of European forest land will decrease owing to the decline of economically valuable species in the absence of effective countermeasures. We found that by 2100—depending on the interest rate and climate scenario applied—this loss varies between 14 and 50% (mean: 28% for an interest rate of 2%) of the present value of forest land in Europe, excluding Russia, and may total several hundred billion Euros. Our model shows that—depending on different realizations of three climate scenarios—by 2100, between 21 and 60% (mean: 34%) of European forest lands will be suitable only for a Mediterranean oak forest type with low economic returns for forest owners and the timber industry and reduced carbon sequestration

But the willfully ignorant will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring.

Sparko
07-01-2014, 09:41 AM
Here is a one of the many hundreds of similar reports on the negative economic impact of climate change easily available to anyone who bothers to look:



But the willfully ignorant will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring.

How does that prove anything? It is just another report trying to claim what MIGHT happen IN THE FUTURE (the year 2100??? sheesh).

You made the claim that AGW HAS been proven to be affecting our world and economy. Yet when Seer asked you a legitimate question, you just tossed out an insult and refused to back up your claim. It's easy to blamed bad weather on AGW. It makes a great political tool. But as seer has said, can you show that the weather is worse now than it has been in the past? One bad winter. Oh no! it's Climate Change!!! (note not called "global warming" any more because it's easier to blame any sort of weather on "climate change" even blizzards) - A mild summer? Climate Change!!! Flood? Climate change! No flood? Climate change!

AGW has become the "god of the gaps" for anything the liberals want to use it for. Good weather, bad weather, anything at all.

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 09:44 AM
How does that prove anything? It is just another report trying to claim what MIGHT happen IN THE FUTURE (the year 2100??? sheesh).

You made the claim that AGW HAS been proven to be affecting our world and economy. Yet when Seer asked you a legitimate question, you just tossed out an insult and refused to back up your claim. It's easy to blamed bad weather on AGW. It makes a great political tool. But as seer has said, can you show that the weather is worse now than it has been in the past? One bad winter. Oh no! it's Climate Change!!! (note not called "global warming" any more because it's easier to blame any sort of weather on "climate change" even blizzards) - A mild summer? Climate Change!!! Flood? Climate change! No flood? Climate change!

AGW has become the "god of the gaps" for anything the liberals want to use it for. Good weather, bad weather, anything at all.

Like I said, the willfully ignorant will refuse to read any scientific studies and will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring. :ahem:

seer
07-01-2014, 09:52 AM
Like I said, the willfully ignorant will refuse to read any scientific studies and will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring. :ahem:

No HMS, this is because you claim things that can't be proven, like that drought in California was caused by global warming. That is a claim without evidence.

tabibito
07-01-2014, 09:56 AM
This does not make sense. When the earth was much warmer wasn't it also more lush? More tropical? Was there less rainfall back then, with more deserts? Overall, no.

If I remember the Arctic once once very warm with lots of vegetation and life. The arctic circle was once warmer and lush, true enough - what were conditions in the rest of the world like at the time? Coastal regions will be OK, but interiors won't be. During the ice age, Australia had vegetation extending throughout most of its land mass. Now it is 70% desert. Even in the time since European settlement, large tracts of land that were at first marginal for agriculture have become suitable only for cattle.
Quick question: when do we see more rainfall, cooler seasons or warmer?

seer
07-01-2014, 10:06 AM
Overall, no.

Ok so you agree that when the earth was much warmer there wasn't less rainfall with more deserts. So why should it be any different going forward?


The arctic circle was once warmer and lush, true enough - what were conditions in the rest of the world like at the time? Coastal regions will be OK, but interiors won't be.

I suspect that when the ice caps were warm and lush that the rest of the world just just as lush and tropical. Why wouldn't they be? I mean back then the world was feeding and supporting dinosaurs.

"The flourishing of the dinosaurs and a range of other data indicates that the Cretaceous period was considerably warmer and boasted a high degree of CO2 in the atmosphere” Dr Price.



Quick question: when do we see more rainfall, cooler seasons or warmer?

I have no idea.

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 10:07 AM
No HMS, this is because you claim things that can't be proven, like that drought in California was caused by global warming. That is a claim without evidence.

You and Sparko sure love to trot out the Tobacco Company defense, don't you?

In the 60's and 70's science came up with a ton of evidence showing the negative health and economic impact of smoking tobacco. The Tobacco lobby responded with "science can't prove this specific case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. And here's Mary Jones, a two-pack-a-day smoker for 40 years and she doesn't have emphysema! Therefore the anti-smoking evidence is just a bunch of politically motivated lies!" :ahem:

I know you guys think the Earth was specially created for humans to rape and trash as they see fit, so rape and trash it you will. Screw those future generations, they can deal with our mess. Meanwhile those of us who do understand the science and the long term negative impacts of AGW will keep working the problem. All we ask is that the selfish lumps like you stay out of our way.

tabibito
07-01-2014, 10:21 AM
Quick question: when do we see more rainfall, cooler seasons or warmer?


I have no idea.

Says it all really

seer
07-01-2014, 10:27 AM
You and Sparko sure love to trot out the Tobacco Company defense, don't you?

In the 60's and 70's science came up with a ton of evidence showing the negative health and economic impact of smoking tobacco. The Tobacco lobby responded with "science can't prove this specific case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. And here's Mary Jones, a two-pack-a-day smoker for 40 years and she doesn't have emphysema! Therefore the anti-smoking evidence is just a bunch of politically motivated lies!" :ahem:

I know you guys think the Earth was specially created for humans to rape and trash as they see fit, so rape and trash it you will. Screw those future generations, they can deal with our mess. Meanwhile those of us who do understand the science and the long term negative impacts of AGW will keep working the problem. All we ask is that the selfish lumps like you stay out of our way.

HMS, I quoted a NY Times article that quoted scientists in the field. And the NY Times is not a right wing paper. Your claim was false, there is no evidence that the drought in California was the result of AGW. And there was no evidence that the recent Midwest drought was the result of AGW. The fact is HMS is that these events have been happening forever and even more intensely in the past. And remember you made these SPECIFIC claims.

seer
07-01-2014, 10:29 AM
Says it all really

So what is your point? You agree that there wasn't less rainfall or more desert when the earth was much warmer - so what are you getting at?

Truthseeker
07-01-2014, 10:35 AM
H.M.S. Beagle and tabibito, please! What is your definition of "climate"? I am willing to discuss the subject on the basis of your definition, but I have no idea what that is. Some events (e.g., drought in California) can be blamed on El Nino and La Nino; are they climate changes or not? I would say, no, weather, but maybe you disagree, insisting, "NAY! CLIMATE CHANGE!"

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 10:36 AM
HMS, I quoted a NY Times article that quoted scientists in the field. And the NY Times is not a right wing paper. Your claim was false, there is no evidence that the drought in California was the result of AGW. And there was no evidence that the recent Midwest drought was the result of AGW. The fact is HMS is that these events have been happening forever and even more intensely in the past. And remember you made these SPECIFIC claims.

""science can't prove this specific case of lung cancer was caused by smoking!!"

:lol::lol::lol:

Meanwhile the data shows the precipitation average in the US west with a steadily decline over the last 100 years

http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/drought-western-us-1900-2100.png

Sparko
07-01-2014, 10:42 AM
Like I said, the willfully ignorant will refuse to read any scientific studies and will stay willfully ignorant. Ignorance is so much easier than learning or caring. :ahem:

well, you should know, since you are an expert at willful ignorance. :yes:

Sparko
07-01-2014, 10:46 AM
""science can't prove this specific case of lung cancer was caused by smoking!!"

:lol::lol::lol:

Meanwhile the data shows the precipitation average in the US west with a steadily decline over the last 100 years

http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/drought-western-us-1900-2100.png

Why do you need a model to show what has already happened? You don't. You use actual data. That should give you a small clue.

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 10:47 AM
Why do you need a model to show what has already happened? You don't. You use actual data. That should give you a small clue.

The blue part of the graph is actual data. :ahem:

Sparko
07-01-2014, 11:19 AM
The blue part of the graph is actual data. :ahem:

yeah and it shows nothing. one blip in 2004 and they "predict" catastrophe using a model. That's all we have been hearing for 30 years. Why in just a few years, by the year 2000, er 2010, er 2020, er 2100, we will have ruined the world! The end is nigh!

tabibito
07-01-2014, 11:46 AM
Carelessness on my part.

When the earth was much warmer wasn't it also more lush? More tropical?

Overall, no.

Was there less rainfall back then, with more deserts?
Rainfall increases with increased temperature at high latitudes. In the lower latitudes, it decreases. The grain growing areas would shift farther from the equator. The Sahara would become larger.
Central Sudan - 9500 BC lush land supporting high population - today Desert.
The Sahara Desert - 4000 BC well watered savannah grass land - the desert didn't exist. 9 400 000 sq km today, including 250 000 square mile expansion during the past 50 years.
Gobi Desert - 1994 to 1999 expanded 20 000 square miles
As the world average temperatures increase, and up to a threshold, it will get hotter and drier. Desert range will continue to increase (maybe up to 185% increase on today's area) and tropical rainforest areas will decrease. Above that threshold, it gets wetter, deserts will contract (maybe to 65% of today's area) ... OK (maybe) if that threshold is crossed within a few years span, but that isn't likely. Before the threshold is crossed, even if it only takes 10 years, widespread famine is likely.

Fertile Crescent - 20 000 square km in 2300 BC down to 2 000 sq km today. (Not due to global warming, just human stupidity)

Sparko
07-01-2014, 11:47 AM
Pssst. You wanna know the real reason there are droughts and not much rainfall in California?




































...because it is a freaking DESERT!!!! That's why! :ahem:

seer
07-01-2014, 12:11 PM
Carelessness on my part.
As the world average temperatures increase, and up to a threshold, it will get hotter and drier. Desert range will continue to increase (maybe up to 185% increase on today's area) and tropical rainforest areas will decrease. Above that threshold, it gets wetter, deserts will contract (maybe to 65% of today's area) ... OK (maybe) if that threshold is crossed within a few years span, but that isn't likely. Before the threshold is crossed, even if it only takes 10 years, widespread famine is likely.

Ok, perhaps I'm not getting this. When the earth was much warmer (by far) are you saying that there were more and larger deserts back then? Didn't we actually have more and larger rainforests back in then?

For instance:


Plant Life During the Cretaceous Period

As far as plants are concerned, the main innovation of the Cretaceous period was the rapid diversification of flowering plants, which spread across the separating continents, along with thick forests and other varieties of dense, matted vegetation. All of this greenery not only sustained the dinosaurs, but it also allowed the co-evolution of a wide variety of insects, especially beetles.

And that all happened when it was much warmer than today.

tabibito
07-01-2014, 12:19 PM
A lot warmer leads to the kind of climates you are thinking of. A bit warmer and the climate gets drier. Whether global warming produces a major problem or not (in terms of actual rainfall) depends on how long it takes to go from a bit warmer to a lot warmer. Fast transition might be less of a problem than slow.

seer
07-01-2014, 12:24 PM
""science can't prove this specific case of lung cancer was caused by smoking!!"

:lol::lol::lol:

Meanwhile the data shows the precipitation average in the US west with a steadily decline over the last 100 years

http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/drought-western-us-1900-2100.png



According to a paper published today in Atmospheric Science Letters, global precipitation has either decreased, increased, or not changed over the past 30 years, depending upon which of 3 global datasets are examined:

“Decadal trends of global precipitation are examined using the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation (CMAP), Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP), and National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reanalysis data. The decadal trends of global precipitation average diverge a decreasing trend for the CMAP data, a flat trend for the GPCP data, and an increasing trend for the reanalysis data.”

Thus, the actual trend of global precipitation, if any, remains a mystery. Several peer-reviewed papers have shown climate models are unable to simulate decadal trends in precipitation, unable to simulate regional trends in precipitation, and that the claim “wet gets wetter, dry gets drier” is without basis.



http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/no-consensus-among-three-global-precipitation-datasets/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/27/a-trifecta-of-uncertainty-study-finds-global-precipitation-is-increasing-decreasing-not-changing/

Sparko
07-01-2014, 12:27 PM
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/no-consensus-among-three-global-precipitation-datasets/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/27/a-trifecta-of-uncertainty-study-finds-global-precipitation-is-increasing-decreasing-not-changing/

I would like sea biscuit, er beagle to explain how you get negative precipitation. I can understand zero precipitation, but how do you get negative numbers? Anti-rain?

seer
07-01-2014, 12:42 PM
A lot warmer leads to the kind of climates you are thinking of. A bit warmer and the climate gets drier. Whether global warming produces a major problem or not (in terms of actual rainfall) depends on how long it takes to go from a bit warmer to a lot warmer. Fast transition might be less of a problem than slow.

Then we should accelerate warming?

Sparko
07-01-2014, 12:44 PM
Then we should accelerate warming?

We need more cow farts!

tabibito
07-01-2014, 12:57 PM
Records show that deserts are expanding - though not in a smooth line - the overall trend is one of expansion.
So, are there any records showing that other environments are expanding?
Rainfall in semi arid areas is reducing, particularly in autumn (fall), and the zones are expanding and shifting away from the equator.
But that is an over-all pattern - in some areas semi arid zones are expanding but not shifting, in others shifting but not expanding, in yet other areas it is both. Over all - semi arid area is increasing.
Tropical climates are showing a modest annual average expansion.
Mediterranean climates shifting poleward - already altering the viability of some grape growing areas.
Temperate climate zones - shifting poleward. Increase of average 2 degrees centigrade will turn large parts of these areas into desert.
So - graphs or no graphs, projections or no projections ... observed trends show climate change. Moreover, most food groups (if I remember rightly) depend on temperate or Mediterranian climates. Those zones are the hardest hit in the short term.

seer
07-01-2014, 12:58 PM
We need more cow farts!

Isn't there a better way? More coal plants?

Sparko
07-01-2014, 01:02 PM
Isn't there a better way? More coal plants?

yeah. And I am willing to go buy a gas guzzling, oil burning, smokemobile to help out.

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 01:02 PM
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/no-consensus-among-three-global-precipitation-datasets/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/27/a-trifecta-of-uncertainty-study-finds-global-precipitation-is-increasing-decreasing-not-changing/

I'm sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW denier sites with all sorts of manipulated data on short term trends. Lying for their cause is what they do. When you can present something from the primary scientific literature on rainfall in the US west over the last 100 years let me know.

For the one-eyed science illiterate - you can have negative trends in rainfall, in temperature, in any physically measurable parameter. Geez...:ahem:

Sparko
07-01-2014, 01:09 PM
I'm sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW denier sites with all sorts of manipulated data on short term trends. Lying for their cause is what they do. When you can present something from the primary scientific literature on rainfall in the US west over the last 100 years let me know.

For the one-eyed science illiterate - you can have negative trends in rainfall, in temperature, in any physically measurable parameter. Geez...:ahem:

Translation: "I still got nothing. But I am really good at regurgitating the party line"

I am sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW supporters sites with all sorts of manipulated data. Lying for their cause is what they do.

Gee that was easy.

--

So, how about producing a chart of the actual rainfall (not TRENDS) measured in the last 100 years in California? Hmmm? Your chart said "precipitation" not "trends". And you claimed it was the actual data. Apparently it wasn't. So... where's the real measured data?

tabibito
07-01-2014, 01:12 PM
As I said in post 40 - projections and charts are pretty much meaningless in the face of measurable changes in climate zones.

seer
07-01-2014, 01:15 PM
I'm sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW denier sites with all sorts of manipulated data on short term trends. Lying for their cause is what they do. When you can present something from the primary scientific literature on rainfall in the US west over the last 100 years let me know.

For the one-eyed science illiterate - you can have negative trends in rainfall, in temperature, in any physically measurable parameter. Geez...:ahem:

HMS, those stats for global precipitation rates over a 30 year period came from this paper. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl2.514/abstract


Abstract

Decadal trends of global precipitation are examined using the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation (CMAP), Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP), and National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reanalysis data. The decadal trends of global precipitation average diverge a decreasing trend for the CMAP data, a flat trend for the GPCP data, and an increasing trend for the reanalysis data. The decreasing trend for the CMAP data is associated with the reduction in high precipitation. The flat trend for the GPCP data is related to the offset between the increase in high precipitation and the decrease in low precipitation. The increasing trend for the reanalysis data corresponds to the increase in high precipitation.

The fact is there is no consensus on this. A fact that you don't like or will not admit.

And this link has the actual NOAA graphs:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/no-consensus-among-three-global-precipitation-datasets/

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 01:25 PM
Translation: "I still got nothing. But I am really good at regurgitating the party line"

I am sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW supporters sites with all sorts of manipulated data. Lying for their cause is what they do.

Gee that was easy.

--

So, how about producing a chart of the actual rainfall (not TRENDS) measured in the last 100 years in California? Hmmm? Your chart said "precipitation" not "trends". And you claimed it was the actual data. Apparently it wasn't. So... where's the real measured data?

Funny that I'm the only one of us posting research papers from the primary scientific literature, ain't it? :lol:

The blue part of the chart was the real measured data. It was from this paper


Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America
Schwalm et al
Nature Geoscience 5, 551–556 (2012)

Abstract: Fossil fuel emissions aside, temperate North America is a net sink of carbon dioxide at present. Year-to-year variations in this carbon sink are linked to variations in hydroclimate that affect net ecosystem productivity. The severity and incidence of climatic extremes, including drought, have increased as a result of climate warming. Here, we examine the effect of the turn of the century drought in western North America on carbon uptake in the region, using reanalysis data, remote sensing observations and data from global monitoring networks. We show that the area-integrated strength of the western North American carbon sink declined by 30–298 Tg C  yr−1 during the 2000–2004 drought. We further document a pronounced drying of the terrestrial biosphere during this period, together with a reduction in river discharge and a loss of cropland productivity. We compare our findings with previous palaeoclimate reconstructions and show that the last drought of this magnitude occurred more than 800 years ago. Based on projected changes in precipitation and drought severity, we estimate that the present mid-latitude carbon sink of 177–623 Tg C yr−1 in western North America could disappear by the end of the century.


From the paper:


For the 800 -2006 period we used summer PDSI reconstructed from a network of dendrochronological records in western North America. We first averaged all grid points in the study domain across the full five-year period to quantify the severity of the turn of the century drought. We then applied this threshold We then applied this threshold to the full 1,205-year record to estimate the amount of similar events in the past, that is, a similar event matched or exceeded (had a larger negative value) for at least one five-year period.

All the data up to 2006 was based on historical dendrochronological records.

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 01:27 PM
As I said in post 40 - projections and charts are pretty much meaningless in the face of measurable changes in climate zones.

These guys are heavy into reality denial. No amount of data will change their views because God gave them the Earth to use and abuse as they please. :ahem:

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 01:29 PM
HMS, those stats for global precipitation rates over a 30 year period came from this paper.

Short term fluctuations don't negate long term trends. After all the data that's been presented you still can't grasp the basics.

Omniskeptical
07-01-2014, 02:42 PM
It doesn't matter, if the presenter has rigged the data falsely and continuously. The "climate changers" want us to ruin our industrial base, while countries like China won't follow the new pollution rules. They have yet to prove anthropic climate change.

Sparko
07-01-2014, 03:03 PM
Funny that I'm the only one of us posting research papers from the primary scientific literature, ain't it? :lol:

The blue part of the chart was the real measured data. It was from this paper



From the paper:



All the data up to 2006 was based on historical dendrochronological records.

well if it was real measured precipitation then there is no way it can go negative, huh? :ahem:

Sparko
07-01-2014, 03:04 PM
It doesn't matter, if the presenter has rigged the data falsely and continuously. The "climate changers" want us to ruin our industrial base, while countries like China won't follow the new pollution rules. They have yet to prove anthropic climate change.

but we have models!!!! they prove AGW!!!! Just ask beagle.

Truthseeker
07-01-2014, 03:42 PM
Short term fluctuations don't negate long term trends. After all the data that's been presented you still can't grasp the basics.If you don't have a definition of "climate," you're just producing wind. And too much hot air.

HMS_Beagle
07-01-2014, 03:48 PM
If you don't have a definition of "climate," you're just producing wind. And too much hot air.

There's no such thing as climate. It's all a conspiracy led by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton to keep TrueChristianstm from their rightful place as Earth's slum landlords. Just ask the pirate. :teeth:

Truthseeker
07-01-2014, 04:58 PM
Let's not reply to the beagle as long as it doesn't come up with a definition of "climate" that makes sense and seems helpful.

seer
07-02-2014, 04:48 AM
Short term fluctuations don't negate long term trends. After all the data that's been presented you still can't grasp the basics.

Ok, so a thirty year trend when man made Co2 has grown exponentially doesn't count. That is nonsense HM, if we did see a negative effect on global precipitation rates from AGW this is exactly where we should see it. The other real problem HM is that there is no consensus on the rate of precipitation. Three different studies come to three different conclusions - why should I believe that their long term trends are any more accurate?

Sparko
07-02-2014, 05:58 AM
There's no such thing as climate. It's all a conspiracy led by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton to keep TrueChristianstm from their rightful place as Earth's slum landlords. Just ask the pirate. :teeth:

Nobody is saying we should destroy our earth. But creating artificial restrictions just to satisfy political agendas disguised as "science" only serves to harm the economy.

But I suppose your philosophy is just "well so what if it isn't true? We still need to control x,y,z just in case"

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 06:58 AM
Nobody is saying we should destroy our earth. But creating artificial restrictions just to satisfy political agendas disguised as "science" only serves to harm the economy.

Still in Tobacco Company defense mode I see. :ahem:

We have overwhelming scientific evidence the problem is real and will only get worse if we don't act to mitigate the damage. You don't like it for political reasons but your political motivations don't change empirically measured reality.


But I suppose your philosophy is just "well so what if it isn't true? We still need to control x,y,z just in case"

My philosophy is that real problems don't vanish if you stick your head in the sand and pretend they aren't there. My philosophy is to accept reality and to work to solve the problem.

Sparko
07-02-2014, 07:12 AM
Still in Tobacco Company defense mode I see. :ahem:

We have overwhelming scientific evidence the problem is real and will only get worse if we don't act to mitigate the damage. You don't like it for political reasons but your political motivations don't change empirically measured reality.

:lmbo:




My philosophy is that real problems don't vanish if you stick your head in the sand and pretend they aren't there. My philosophy is to accept reality and to work to solve the problem.

The reality is that you believe anything the democrats tell you to believe. You have not shown us any actual "overwhelming scientific evidence" at all. All you have done is make claims, show us some chart that shows negative precipitation and is based on a computer model, and hand-waved away anything anyone else says as "wingnut" even though your "evidence" does not correspond with the actual recorded data.

You haven't even been able to answer one of seer's questions, or back up any of your claims, or even define "climate"

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 07:23 AM
The reality is that you believe anything the democrats tell you to believe. You have not shown us any actual "overwhelming scientific evidence" at all. All you have done is make claims, show us some chart that shows negative precipitation and is based on a computer model, and hand-waved away anything anyone else says as "wingnut" even though your "evidence" does not correspond with the actual recorded data.

"Tobacco smoke doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer, honest! That's just Democrat political lies!"

:lmbo: :rofl: :lol:


You haven't even been able to answer one of seer's questions, or back up any of your claims, or even define "climate"

Yeah, we know. It's all a big conspiracy to take your rum money. :ahem: There's no evidence at all. There aren't thousands of scientific papers published every year with documenting the problem. Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world doesn't have a dedicated scientific publication Nature Climate Change. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html) It's all Al Gore's lies.

Sparko
07-02-2014, 07:30 AM
"Tobacco smoke doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer, honest! That's just Democrat political lies!"

:lmbo: :rofl: :lol:

Yeah you make absofreakinglutely no sense. But that is what I have come to expect of your posts recently. You and Jorge are pretty much two sides to the same coin. Idealogues without a lick of sense.




Yeah, we know. It's all a big conspiracy to take your rum money. :ahem: There's no evidence at all. There aren't thousands of scientific papers published every year with documenting the problem. Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world doesn't have a dedicated scientific publication Nature Climate Change. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html) It's all Al Gore's lies.

Has climate changed? sure. It ALWAYS changes. There is no proof that man is causing it though, or that he will cause some runaway greenhouse effect. The actual climate trends do not match the CO2 outputs. The predictions of the models over the last 30 years have failed to come true.

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 07:54 AM
Has climate changed? sure. It ALWAYS changes. There is no proof that man is causing it though, or that he will cause some runaway greenhouse effect. The actual climate trends do not match the CO2 outputs. The predictions of the models over the last 30 years have failed to come true.

Just curious - how do you suppose Al Gore got all of those tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of professional science journals to buy into his lies? Who pays for this huge worldwide conspiracy? It it the same funding source that pays all those life science professionals to accept the Theory of Evolution lies? :lol:

Sparko
07-02-2014, 08:07 AM
Just curious - how do you suppose Al Gore got all of those tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of professional science journals to buy into his lies? Who pays for this huge worldwide conspiracy? It it the same funding source that pays all those life science professionals to accept the Theory of Evolution lies? :lol:
wow "tens of thousands" scientists and "hundreds" of professional science journals?

LOL. I hope that was hyperbole. If not, you are dumber than you act.


By the way, is that how they proved Copernicus wrong? By touting the thousands of scientists and journals?

shunyadragon
07-02-2014, 08:24 AM
Ok, from what I can understand from the grafts linked, from the late 1880s to present the earth's average temperature has increased about one degree f. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

This has seemed to have topped off in the late 90s. And we remain fairly stable, but we are stable at a much warmer temperature. So has that warmer temperature really cause any empirical harm? From what I have read we just went through three years of the mildest hurricane seasons in recent memory. I mean what weather events can we point to that are worse now in either duration, frequency or intensity because of this warming?

This is short of a sound bit to reflect reality.

(1) Three years of hurricane records is not reflective of a pattern. In fact the historical record of hurricanes does not at present provide sufficient evidence for the influence of Climate change. There is more evidence that tornadoes frequency an intensity have more of a relationship to climate change.

(2) What you call leveling off as far as average temperatures in recent years is somewhat of an illusion. You need to evaluate different factors of temperature change and distribution across the globe.

(3) The greatest impact of climate change is aridification of the regions bordering the arid and semi-arid regions, and as it progresses it could easily be easily catastrophic for world agriculture.

(4) Raising sea level has already caused some coastal areas and islands to be abandoned.

This is only the beginning . . .

seer
07-02-2014, 08:33 AM
(4) Raising sea level has already caused some coastal areas and islands to be abandoned.

This is only the beginning . . .

The sea level has been rising for thousands of years - and?

seer
07-02-2014, 08:36 AM
Just curious - how do you suppose Al Gore got all of those tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of professional science journals to buy into his lies? Who pays for this huge worldwide conspiracy? It it the same funding source that pays all those life science professionals to accept the Theory of Evolution lies? :lol:

So HMS - what would you have us do to reverse this? And if you can not get countries like China, India, most of Asia and Africa to join in, what real good would our efforts do?

Omniskeptical
07-02-2014, 09:39 AM
Still in Tobacco Company defense mode I see. :ahem:

We have overwhelming scientific evidence the problem is real and will only get worse if we don't act to mitigate the damage. You don't like it for political reasons but your political motivations don't change empirically measured reality.No we don't have overwhelming evidence. But if you want to base it on pollution, the industrial revolution of the past was easily worse.

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 10:03 AM
The sea level has been rising for thousands of years - and?

And thousands of years ago we didn't have a few billion people living in low lying coastal areas whose food supply infrastructure / living areas will be severely compromised when the level rises.

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 10:09 AM
So HMS - what would you have us do to reverse this? And if you can not get countries like China, India, most of Asia and Africa to join in, what real good would our efforts do?

We can lead by example and continue to present evidence to other world powers so they will finally recognize the nature of the problem and take the required active steps. Any action is better than no action.

seer
07-02-2014, 10:11 AM
And thousands of years ago we didn't have a few billion people living in low lying coastal areas whose food supply infrastructure / living areas will be severely compromised when the level rises.

Yes, and the sea levels would still be rising even without our input since the earth has been warming for thousands of years, and continues to do so, after all we are still coming out of the last Ice Age. You could make the case that we would add to the speed of that rise, but no one really knows by how much. With or without our Co2 building in low lying coastal areas was never a good idea.

seer
07-02-2014, 10:16 AM
We can lead by example and continue to present evidence to other world powers so they will finally recognize the nature of the problem and take the required active steps. Any action is better than no action.

Ok, while we lead we literally undermine our economy with much higher energy costs, while the energy costs of our competitors remain flat. Thereby insuring higher unemployment rates and creating more poverty in the West. It simply will not work unless every developing country comes on board.

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 10:33 AM
Ok, while we lead we literally undermine our economy with much higher energy costs, while the energy costs of our competitors remain flat. Thereby insuring higher unemployment rates and creating more poverty in the West. It simply will not work unless every developing country comes on board.

Which is exactly what we're trying to get to happen. But if we do nothing until we get a 100% consensus it will be far too late to do anything.

Sparko
07-02-2014, 10:35 AM
Which is exactly what we're trying to get to happen. But if we do nothing until we get a 100% consensus it will be far too late to do anything.

first you have to actually prove that something needs to be done.

Truthseeker
07-02-2014, 10:41 AM
We can lead by example and continue to present evidence to other world powers so they will finally recognize the nature of the problem and take the required active steps. Any action is better than no action.Compared to the probability that anthropogenic atmospherical CO2 level is generating serious problems or will generate, the probability that politicians can ameliorate them and will, I guess, is practically zero. The beagle is a dreamer, not a hero.

HMS_Beagle
07-02-2014, 10:41 AM
first you have to actually prove that something needs to be done.

That's already been accomplished to the satisfaction of the worldwide scientific community and a large portion of world leaders.

There are of course scientifically illiterate whackjobs who still think it's all a big Evil Scientist/Government conspiracy. Fortunately their willfully ignorant bluster does little more than add to the gaseous heating. :shrug:

Sparko
07-02-2014, 10:47 AM
That's already been accomplished to the satisfaction of the worldwide scientific community and a large portion of world leaders.

There are of course scientifically illiterate whackjobs who still think it's all a big Evil Scientist/Government conspiracy. Fortunately their willfully ignorant bluster does little more than add to the gaseous heating. :shrug:

Then why haven't we had the global warming they predicted by now? They have been preaching gloom and doom for 40 years now. By now we should be living in a steam oven, or floating around on rafts like in Water World. Yet, the climate today is the same as it was 40 years ago. We have hot and mild summers, cold and mild winters, we have floods and droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes. Just like we did in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, 2010's... Practically half a century of "global warming" scares and still nothing.

So now instead of crying "global warming" they change it to "climate change" - that way they have it covered whether the earth warms up or cools down. Genius.

Truthseeker
07-02-2014, 10:49 AM
That's already been accomplished to the satisfaction of the worldwide scientific community and a large portion of world leaders.Does that include China's and India's leaders? No lip service, actual actions. In any case, solar power will finally--if you can stand some word play--have its day in the sun. Hawaii, for example, is expected to have even competition between solar power plus storage and conventional (actually diesel-fueled) power sometime next year. California to follow suit in 2017. Texas sometime after. The beagle does not need to yelp any more.

seer
07-02-2014, 11:05 AM
Which is exactly what we're trying to get to happen. But if we do nothing until we get a 100% consensus it will be far too late to do anything.

Then it won't happen, if you don't get at least the major industrial nations, specifically India and China, on board then we need to start making other plans. Like how to adapt.

fm93
07-02-2014, 11:19 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png

Truthseeker
07-02-2014, 03:18 PM
Ah, square_peg, can you define "climate"? The Beagle either has me on ignore or is unable to define "climate."

shunyadragon
07-02-2014, 07:31 PM
The sea level has been rising for thousands of years - and?

The rate of rising is increasing.

seer
07-03-2014, 05:03 AM
The rate of rising is increasing.

Perhaps, but we really still don't know how much of that increase is cause by man. Nor do we really know the rates of rise in the far distant past. Perhaps what is happening today is actually less than what was happening ten thousands years ago.