Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile. some more current science

Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium

Andrew P. Schurer, Simon F. B. Tett & Gabriele C. Hegerl

Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo2040

Received 02 August 2013 Accepted 14 November 2013 Published online 22 December 2013

The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (AD 950–1250; ref. 1).

Now, lemme get this straight...
The author acknowledges that the climate can naturally "vary substantially" over small time scales. Ok.
The author claims that solar forcing can selectively affect areas of the planet. Ok.
The author calls a 300 year period an "anomaly", yet a 166 year period is an open ended catastrophe in the making. Ok.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Just exactly what do you think is greening? Leaves and trees!

Food crops increases are more closely correlated to increased irrigation, pesticide use and fertilizer use, none which is sustainable.

Hmm, global warming will result in increased rainfall in some regions. This rainfall can be harvested for both power generation and irrigation schemes. CO2 at a level of around 1200 ppm is optimal for most vegetation, so faster natural growth rates will reduce the need for fertilizers. And there's no valid reason for pesticides (or even natural controls) to diminish.

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

LOL... any evidence that disproves the MMGW people is "localized"

In other words... they don't like the data so it doesn't count.

Yep, I've noticed that too.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile. some more current science

Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium

Andrew P. Schurer, Simon F. B. Tett & Gabriele C. Hegerl

Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo2040

Received 02 August 2013 Accepted 14 November 2013 Published online 22 December 2013

The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions for the past millennium. Our methodology also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

OPEN ACCESS FOCUS ON HIGH ENERGY PARTICLES AND ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES

T Sloan and A W Wolfendale 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045022
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022

Abstract

Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535

Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments <computer models are NOT experiments> designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

Apparently you still don't understand what "current science" means

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You just forgot one...
Posting in this thread thinking you are going to change anyone mind = The definition of insanity.

Probably right, but the thread has been rather illuminating. On the science for sure, but also on the politics, economics & self-indulgent psychologies driving the MMGW movement.

This is like a "I'm better than you" thread where the MMGW Cultists get to take a superior moral high ground for being better people and caring more than the other neanderthals, racists, hater, deniers.

And don't forget conservatives, Republicans, Americans, religious people, uneducated, ignorant, oil cos., skeptical scientists, Baptist ministers . . . WAIT!! . . . Baptist ministers??? That's right -- despite repeated failed attempts to get Jack to provide any evidence of a religious bias on the part of Drs. Christy & Spencer on their scientific work, I guess having the superior moral high ground means getting a pass on criticizing people for their religious beliefs without cause. Funny, I didn't even have to learn that one in school. Somehow I just caught on to such basic civilities early on.

But then, despite his best efforts, Dr. Mears winds up only confirming Christy & Spencer's satellite data which shows a modest warming trend more consistent with natural cycles than human influences, so hard to say anything other than "I accept the data" when that same data -- now confirmed by two indpt. sources -- pulls the rug out of a large part of the GW "science."

I only hope this thread is attracting a lot of viewers.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You just forgot one...
Posting in this thread thinking you are going to change anyone mind = The definition of insanity.

This is like a "I'm better than you" thread where the MMGW Cultists get to take a superior moral high ground for being better people and caring more than the other neanderthals, racists, hater, deniers.

Now here is something I can agree with...

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You just forgot one...
Posting in this thread thinking you are going to change anyone mind = The definition of insanity.

This is like a "I'm better than you" thread where the MMGW Cultists get to take a superior moral high ground for being better people and caring more than the other neanderthals, racists, hater, deniers.

People's minds are being changed

Republican Attitudes on Climate Change Thaw

Subtly but steadily, Republican attitudes on climate change have been changing. That evolution was confirmed this week by a Yale University/George Mason University poll that found that 56 percent of Republicans nationwide believe that the climate is warming (although many still dispute the idea that human activity is the cause). Five years ago that figure was less than 40 percent.

These Republican voters disagree with the party’s likely presidential nominee, Donald Trump, who has dismissed the threat of climate change. But there’s evidence that even Republican politicians on Capitol Hill are becoming less intransigent on the issue: The Energy Policy Modernization Act, which contains a number of landmark provisions to reduce energy consumption and promote renewable energy, passed the Senate with bipartisan support earlier this month (see “The Five Dumbest Things in the U.S. Energy Bill”). And a new House group, the Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, began meeting this month to seek consensus on energy and climate issues.

This new willingness to recognize reality stems partly from the fact that a strong majority of American voters view climate change deniers as flat-earthers. As Keith Gaby of the Environmental Defense Fund points out, it’s also driven by the fact that many clean energy jobs are located in Republican congressional districts...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

People's minds are being changed

Republican Attitudes on Climate Change Thaw

I read the article you linked and no there isn't really any change in attitudes it just looks that way. The MMGW political side tied DOD budget funds to the stuff that they want to fund. If the republicans want defense funded they have to vote to allow the other stuff to be funded
So its all about politics and nothing about what the climate is or isn't doing.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Apparently you still don't understand what "current science" means

I look forward to seeing some current uncategorical climate science with 100% certainty., as well as some current science that meets your criteria.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I read the article you linked and no there isn't really any change in attitudes it just looks that way. The MMGW political side tied DOD budget funds to the stuff that they want to fund. If the republicans want defense funded they have to vote to allow the other stuff to be funded
So its all about politics and nothing about what the climate is or isn't doing.

Since all governmental funding is controlled by the House of Congress, and Republicans control the House, your argument isn't very persuasive.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,

Heading back to post #1 again:

Why do you feel that humans living hundreds of years from now will be unable to move a few miles inland if their coastline changes, and will starve to death as a result of increased greening?

If all your predictions come true, the change (8 inches sea rise over a 100 year period) will hardly be noticed... even by those living at waterfront properties.

It's easy enough for people to move; what's difficult is moving the infrastructure. While the deniers close their eyes and stuff fingers into their ears (and, we wish, put duct tape over their mouths too ), realists around the world are exploring options to save cities.

Why the City of Miami Is Doomed to Drown | Rolling Stone

Billions on Flood Barriers Now Might Save New York City - Bloomberg

This is how rising seas will reshape the face of the United States | Washington Post

Swiss Re provides expert input for New York City study | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

Climate Change Adaptation in New York City | The New York Academy of Sciences

Hurricane-proofing New York City: Dutch-style storm-surge barriers across Arthur Kill, the Verrazano Narrows, and from Sandy Hook to the Rockaways could protect the city.

Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Study for the City of Los Angeles

Could a Titanic Seawall Save This Quickly Sinking City? (Jakarta)

The impact of sea level rise on Singapore

Ho Chi Minh City: Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change 'triple threat' increases severe flooding risk in biggest US cities (NYC, LA, Boston) | The Guardian

[Kenomac]

SailOar,

So... You believe that cities and people will be basically static 400-1000 years into the future when water is supposedly risen enough to have any impact? No new imovation will take place, people won't be able (for whatever reason) to ever so slowly move out of the way of the 8 inches per hundred years rising water.

Places like New York City will look pretty much as it does today 100-400-1000 years from now, which is just as it was 400-100 years ago?

Oh wait.... Where did all the horses go? Now that I look more closely at your New York scare simulation.... things there look a little different than the 1800's.

Even the citizens of Rome new enough to move to Istambul 1700 years ago when economic forces forced a mass migration of 80% of the city's population... and the Romans didn't have cars. New Yorkers won't be able to do the same?

Need more recent examples? Just look at Detroit.... the people didn't just sit there and starve to death when the jobs dried up.... They moved.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Since all governmental funding is controlled by the House of Congress, and Republicans control the House, your argument isn't very persuasive.

Are you really that naive to believe that that is how the political machine in Washington really works.

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Are you really that naive to believe that that is how the political machine in Washington really works.

most voters are that stupid...

If voters were not stupid we wouldn't have 90% re-election rates with 90% disapproval of what congress is doing.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

SailOar,

So... You believe that cities and people will be basically static 400-1000 years into the future when water is supposedly risen enough to have any impact? ...

400-1000 years??? You deniers have been belly-aching about wanting current science, not old science:


Sea level rise - Projections | Wikipedia

21st century

The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4) projected century-end sea levels using the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). SRES developed emissions scenarios to project climate-change impacts.[31] The projections based on these scenarios are not predictions,[32] but reflect plausible estimates of future social and economic development (e.g., economic growth, population level).[33] The six SRES "marker" scenarios projected sea level to rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1 to 23.2 in).[34] Their projections were for the time period 2090–99, with the increase in level relative to average sea level over the 1980–99 period. This estimate did not include all of the possible contributions of ice sheets.

Hansen (2007), assumed an ice sheet contribution of 1 cm for the decade 2005–15, with a potential ten year doubling time for sea-level rise, based on a nonlinear ice sheet response, which would yield 5 m this century.[35]

Research from 2008 observed rapid declines in ice-mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica, and concluded that sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be at least twice as large as that presented by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters.[36]

Projections assessed by the US National Research Council (2010)[37] suggest possible sea level rise over the 21st century of between 56 and 200 cm (22 and 79 in). The NRC describes the IPCC projections as "conservative".[37]

In 2011, Rignot and others projected a rise of 32 centimetres (13 in) by 2050. Their projection included increased contributions from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Use of two completely different approaches reinforced the Rignot projection.[38][39]

In its Fifth Assessment Report (2013), The IPCC found that recent observations of global average sea level rise at a rate of 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm per year is consistent with the sum of contributions from observed thermal ocean expansion due to rising temperatures (1.1 [0.8 to 1.4] mm per year, glacier melt (0.76 [0.39 to 1.13] mm per year), Greenland ice sheet melt (0.33 [0.25 to 0.41] mm per year), Antarctic ice sheet melt (0.27 [0.16 to 0.38] mm per year), and changes to land water storage (0.38 [0.26 to 0.49] mm per year). The report had also concluded that if emissions continue to keep up with the worst case IPCC scenarios, global average sea level could rise by nearly 1m by 2100 (0.52−0.98 m from a 1986-2005 baseline). If emissions follow the lowest emissions scenario, then global average sea level is projected to rise by between 0.28−0.6 m by 2100 (compared to a 1986−2005 baseline).[40]

The Third National Climate Assessment (NCA), released May 6, 2014, projected a sea level rise of 1 to 4 feet by 2100 (30–120 cm). Decision makers who are particularly susceptible to risk may wish to use a wider range of scenarios from 8 inches to 6.6 feet by 2100.[41]

A 2015 study by sea level rise experts concluded that based on MIS 5e data, sea level rise could rise faster in the coming decades, with a doubling time of 10, 20 or 40 years. The study abstract explains: We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming, and we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years. Paleoclimate data reveal that subsurface ocean warming causes ice shelf melt and ice sheet discharge.

Our climate model exposes amplifying feedbacks in the Southern Ocean that slow Antarctic bottom water formation and increase ocean temperature near ice shelf grounding lines, while cooling the surface ocean and increasing sea ice cover and water column stability. Ocean surface cooling, in the North Atlantic as well as the Southern Ocean, increases tropospheric horizontal temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, which drive more powerful storms.[42] However, Greg Holland from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who reviewed the study, noted “There is no doubt that the sea level rise, within the IPCC, is a very conservative number, so the truth lies somewhere between IPCC and Jim.”[43]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly | New York Times

For half a century, climate scientists have seen the West Antarctic ice sheet, a remnant of the last ice age, as a sword of Damocles hanging over human civilization.

The great ice sheet, larger than Mexico, is thought to be potentially vulnerable to disintegration from a relatively small amount of global warming, and capable of raising the sea level by 12 feet or more should it break up. But researchers long assumed the worst effects would take hundreds — if not thousands — of years to occur.

Now, new research suggests the disaster scenario could play out much sooner.

Continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases could launch a disintegration of the ice sheet within decades, according to a study published Wednesday, heaving enough water into the ocean to raise the sea level as much as three feet by the end of this century...

The situation would grow far worse beyond 2100, the researchers found, with the rise of the sea exceeding a pace of a foot per decade by the middle of the 22nd century. Scientists had documented such rates of increase in the geologic past, when far larger ice sheets were collapsing, but most of them had long assumed it would be impossible to reach rates so extreme with the smaller ice sheets of today...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why the U.S. East Coast could be a major ‘hotspot’ for rising seas | Washington Post

...And the simulation found that at high emissions scenarios similar to current rates, the Atlantic sea levels rise considerably faster than the Pacific, with particularly noteworthy impacts for the U.S. East Coast. (Other recent research by scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey has suggested this increased rate of sea level rise is already happening — finding sea level rise rates “~ 3–4 times higher than the global average” along a large stretch of the U.S. East Coast, which the researchers dubbed a sea level rise “hotspot.”)...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise | Climate Central

[Kenomac]

SailOar,

Regarding rising sea levels predicted over the past 20 years.....

Let me quote Bachman, Turner and Overdrive:

"You ain't seen nothing yet."

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

400-1000 years??? You deniers have been belly-aching about wanting current science, not old science:


Sea level rise - Projections | Wikipedia

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly | New York Times

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wikipedia really now that's rich. BTW about 200 pages ago I posted actual data from 2014 from NASA that shows the facts about the Antarctic ice sheet and the fact that it is growing in volume as a whole not loosing anything. The increases are more than offsetting the melt that is happening .