Additional Climate stuff, but please stay calm

[conachair]

Deleted. Double post.

[SailOar]

Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 | NOAA

Human influences are having an impact on some extreme weather and climate events, according to the report Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective (pdf) released September 5, 2013 by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Scientists from NOAA served as three of the four lead editors on the report. Overall, 18 different research teams from around the world contributed to the peer-reviewed report that examined the causes of 12 extreme events that occurred on five continents and in the Arctic.

Location and type of events analyzed in “Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective.” Credit: NOAA

The report shows that the effects of natural weather and climate fluctuations played a key role in the intensity and evolution of many of the 2012 extreme events. However, in several events, the analyses revealed compelling evidence that human-caused climate change was a secondary factor contributing to the extreme event. “This report adds to a growing ability of climate science to untangle the complexities of understanding natural and human-induced factors contributing to specific extreme weather and climate events,” said Thomas R. Karl, LHD, director of NCDC. “Nonetheless, determining the causes of extreme events remains challenging.”

In addition to investigating the causes of these extreme events, the multiple analyses of four of the events—the warm temperatures in the United States, the record-low levels of Arctic sea ice, and the heavy rain in both northern Europe and eastern Australia—allowed the scientists to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of their various methods of analysis. Despite their different strategies, there was considerable agreement between the assessments of the same events.

Thomas Peterson, PhD, principal scientist at NCDC and one of the lead editors on the report, said, “Scientists around the world assessed a wide variety of potential contributing factors to these major extreme events that, in many cases, had large impacts on society. Understanding the range of influences on extreme events helps us to better understand why extremes are changing." See more of what Dr. Peterson has to say on global warming and weather in this Climate Q&A from Climate.gov.

[scoobert]

yesterday was colder then today, i think i see global warming, its over here ------>

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Emmm, not so much....

Al Gore's billion-dollar mistake - SFGate

The editorial (from a columnist who's on the record as anti-AGW and anti-Gore) states that in 1994, Gore cast ONE tie-breaking vote, while still in office, that approved the initial ethanol subsidy. (Translated - a serving VP seeking to run as president, breaks a tie in a way that he thought would get some farmers' votes). And he's since admitted that this was an error.

That was one vote 19 years ago... that Gore has publicly regretted.. Have a look at who's kept the ethanol subsidy alive for nearly 20 years.

[SailOar]

Global warming in one unmistakably compelling chart | WASHINGTON POST

Produced by NASA, the chart illustrates how temperatures have compared to “normal” (or the 1951-1980 average) from 1880 to present, from pole to pole (-90 latitude to 90 latitude).

From the 1880 to the 1920s, blue and green shades dominate the chart, signaling cooler than normal temperatures in that era. Then, from the 1930s to the 1970s, warmer yellow, oranges, and reds shades ooze in, balancing the cooler shades. But since the 1970s, the blue and green shades rapidly erode and oranges and reds take over, dramatically.

The rapid warming at the northern high latitudes especially jumps out in recent decades, reflecting “Arctic amplification” or more intense warming in the Arctic. Although the warming is most pronounced up north, it is apparent at almost every latitude…

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You never fail to astound me for your willingness to state that black is white, and white is black!

As you correctly stated, the IPCC models predict that Arctic summer sea-ice will continue to diminish. Arctic sea ice area, in fact, has indeed fallen, as advertised, but at an even faster rate then expected!! The following graph was created in 2010. Since then the sea ice minimum for 2012 smashed the records (again)!


Observed (red line) and modeled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km2, the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

I suppose it should be rational of me to expect you to now admit that your arguments have been irrational, but I don't think I am that irrational...

Psst....it's 2013....



In addition to this comparison of ice coverage currently to that 12 months ago, a period during which CO2 continued to rise, is a BBC report from 2007 based on the IPCC predictions du jour of an ice free Arctic by 2013. Kind of like Paul Erlich's prediction of mass famine from over population made in 1970. So wrong as to be silly.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Global warming in one unmistakably compelling chart | WASHINGTON POST

It's noteworthy that the NOAA data, which is accurate, doesn't agree with this. The above chart shows warming from .8 to perhaps 2.0 degrees C. The NOAA satelitte data over the same period shows less than 1/10th that amount, or about .15 degrees of warming. So, you have two choices. Accept the satellite data that is now undisputed, and correct and accurate, or go with Rolling Stone, or the Washington Post or the Huffington Post if you like for your data source. I know which one I feel comfortable with, but perhaps that's just me.

Perhaps all this will get sorted out at the 'crisis meeting' the government payers of inaccurate modeling are demanding with the '1,500 changes' they want. I know how much is at stake for the modelers, and their careers, and I can see how much variance exists between those models and reality, so the resolution should be fascinating.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

........the Washington Post or the Huffington Post if you like for your data source. I know which one I feel comfortable with, but perhaps that's just me.

Yet you are happy to link to Christopher Booker in the telegraph.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The editorial (from a columnist who's on the record as anti-AGW and anti-Gore) states that in 1994, Gore cast ONE tie-breaking vote, while still in office, that approved the initial ethanol subsidy. (Translated - a serving VP seeking to run as president, breaks a tie in a way that he thought would get some farmers' votes). And he's since admitted that this was an error.

That was one vote 19 years ago... that Gore has publicly regretted.. Have a look at who's kept the ethanol subsidy alive for nearly 20 years.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The editorial (from a columnist who's on the record as anti-AGW and anti-Gore) states that in 1994, Gore cast ONE tie-breaking vote, while still in office, that approved the initial ethanol subsidy. (Translated - a serving VP seeking to run as president, breaks a tie in a way that he thought would get some farmers' votes). And he's since admitted that this was an error.

That was one vote 19 years ago... that Gore has publicly regretted.. Have a look at who's kept the ethanol subsidy alive for nearly 20 years.

You mean like these guys?

California Ethanol Vehicle Coalition - CalEVC.org - About

or these guys, whose co-Chairman is former General Wesley Clark:

National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to become Growth Energy Market Development - Growth Energy

Some confusion on my part - are the environmental groups and General Clark who are founders of these revered organizations part of big agri business, or just confused? Trying to sort that out, and square it with your statement:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No greenie worthy of their "save the whales" bumper-sticker has ever advocated for the diversion of food-crops or prime agricultural land to producing ethanol. The idea was that ethanol could be produced from all the organic waste that already comes out of agricultural processing. But the big agricultural corporations finagled some subsidies and ran with it.

Very confusing, since SailOar's go-to site for information, Skeptical Science, list ethanol as one of the solutions to anthropogenic global warming, and I thought they were hyper reliable.

Can we fix global warming?

L-E, debating global warming from the skeptics side is just shooting fish in a barrel given what is happening, and like I said, I'm not that interested in starting another food fight. The data is what the data is, and if the current cessation of warming that everyone acknowledges (including Jim Hansen of all people) or God forbid, cooling trends continue, the argument will be settled, and AGW fanatics can become AGC fanatics. And be ignored for yet another reason by sensible people worldwide.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Yet you are happy to link to Christopher Booker in the telegraph.

You reckon he photo shopped the images, C-chair?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You reckon he photo shopped the images, C-chair?

You post about not trusting media sources but will quite happily link to someone who argues ,amongst many things, that asbestos, passive smoking and BSE have not been shown to be dangerous when it suits.

No consistency.

[Travelnik]

And now for something completely different...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You mean like these guys?

California Ethanol Vehicle Coalition - CalEVC.org - About

or these guys, whose co-Chairman is former General Wesley Clark:

National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to become Growth Energy Market Development - Growth Energy

Some confusion on my part - are the environmental groups and General Clark who are founders of these revered organizations part of big agri business, or just confused?

...Very confusing, since SailOar's go-to site for information, Skeptical Science, list ethanol as one of the solutions to anthropogenic global warming, and I thought they were hyper reliable.

Earth to delfin: Growth Energy, American Ethanol, National Corn Growers Association... are lobbyists for the corn growers and ethanol makers, not environmentalists or "greenies".

Originally Posted by Delfin

L-E, debating global warming from the skeptics side is just shooting fish in a barrel given what is happening, and like I said, I'm not that interested in starting another food fight.

Yet, after your lofty start to this thread, you just dove right back into the wallow. Nice.

You're convinced that short-term cooling invalidates the models used by those who claim that AGW is a serious position. Not a completely unreasonable position, since it apparently is supported by some recent data. So, leave it at that. Crap like trying to pin the corn-ethanol boondoggle on genuinely environmentally-concerned groups is lame.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

It's noteworthy that the NOAA data, which is accurate, doesn't agree with this. The above chart shows warming from .8 to perhaps 2.0 degrees C. The NOAA satelitte data over the same period shows less than 1/10th that amount, or about .15 degrees of warming. So, you have two choices. Accept the satellite data that is now undisputed, and correct and accurate, or go with Rolling Stone, or the Washington Post or the Huffington Post if you like for your data source. I know which one I feel comfortable with, but perhaps that's just me.

Referring to the above graph, which was published in the Washington Post; since it appears to be important to you, here is the NASA url for the graph. Without changing any of the default parameters click on SHOW MAP.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/time_series.html

Providing that they report from recognized scientific sources, I often prefer citing general news sources because it negates one of your other contentions, which is that “no one is paying attention.” Yes, as a matter of fact, many people are paying attention. In fact I might go so far as to say that you are the one who is not paying attention.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're convinced that short-term cooling invalidates the models used by those who claim that AGW is a serious position. Not a completely unreasonable position, since it apparently is supported by some recent data. So, leave it at that.

Splendid idea!