How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon May 12, 2014 9:54 pm

brainpanhandler » Tue May 13, 2014 11:21 am wrote:Smoke and mirrors Ben. I'm not gonna waste much time on this.

I love the "I'm not gonna waste much time on this." bit....everyone here at RI is aware of your trolling/stalking me over the years with "It's the Sun Stupid" links....and now that I engage you on it, you don't have the time....creepy yeh!

Your verbal abuse, bluster, and the video prove nothing....you have egg on your face again...did you actually read the WUWT post and what Scafetta said...it is that on which my statement is based....why did Judith Lean use that slide in her presentation...did she ever say it was a joke? If you can provide for me evidence whereby she has no skepticism wrt the IPCC AGW team's climate models...I will most certainly then pay attention.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon May 12, 2014 10:34 pm

Ben D » Mon May 12, 2014 8:54 pm wrote:
brainpanhandler » Tue May 13, 2014 11:21 am wrote:Smoke and mirrors Ben. I'm not gonna waste much time on this.



why did Judith Lean use that slide in her presentation...did she ever say it was a joke?


She does exactly that at 33:30 in the video I posted. But you can interpret her laugh differently.




If you can provide for me evidence whereby she has no skepticism wrt the IPCC AGW team's climate models...I will most certainly then pay attention.


Well, now you're just boring me Ben. What right minded person has no skepticism about any climate model? But that's not what you said. What you said was:

Ben D » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:47 pm wrote:It's a given that Judith Lean aligns herself with the AGW skeptics. Get over it already and stop wasting my time and obfuscating the facts...
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5113
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Tue May 13, 2014 12:14 am

brainpanhandler » Tue May 13, 2014 12:34 pm wrote:
Ben D » Mon May 12, 2014 8:54 pm wrote:
brainpanhandler » Tue May 13, 2014 11:21 am wrote:Smoke and mirrors Ben. I'm not gonna waste much time on this.

why did Judith Lean use that slide in her presentation...did she ever say it was a joke?


She does exactly that at 33:30 in the video I posted. But you can interpret her laugh differently.

If you can provide for me evidence whereby she has no skepticism wrt the IPCC AGW team's climate models...I will most certainly then pay attention.


Well, now you're just boring me Ben. What right minded person has no skepticism about any climate model? But that's not what you said. What you said was:

Ben D » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:47 pm wrote:It's a given that Judith Lean aligns herself with the AGW skeptics. Get over it already and stop wasting my time and obfuscating the facts...


No.....I watched the relevant part of the video and I don't get to see her refuting it....fyi, Judith Lean appears to be quite respected among the WUWT crowd...and Anthony Watts must think she is ok as he personally covered her 2013 AGU lecture...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/dr-judith-lean-lecture-at-agu/......perhaps it is the same presentation as your video....she apparently always uses the 'It's the Sun stupid' slide in her presentations...

So, based on the WUWT blog post showing Lean using the 'Sun Stupid' article involving Bruce West and then West's solar scientist partner AGW skeptic Nicola Scafetta then telling us about Judith moving towards their position outlined in the 'It's the Sun Stupid' article, my comment was a reasonable opinion at the time and to imply I was being purposely deceptive is over the top. Though skeptics generally seem to see her onside....she's probably not in either camp....more like Judith Curry, just telling the solar science as she sees it....which is why the skeptics respect her, it's not the hype that will win out in the long term, but reality.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue May 13, 2014 12:43 pm

Ben D » Mon May 12, 2014 11:14 pm wrote: she apparently always uses the 'It's the Sun stupid' slide in her presentations...


Indeed, she does. For the purpose of showing the ignorance and /or deceitfulness of weasles like Anthony Watts, as is crystal clear from the context in the presentation. Are you sure you watched it?

But this is old ground that's already well covered Ben. Perhaps your memory is fading a bit. Not surprising. We tend to forget painful experiences.

C2W from the Global Warming, Eh? thread:


C2W wrote:The funny thing is: I imagine that you acquired your belief that she was endorsing that "It's the sun, stupid!" graphic from this here post by Anthony Watts, congratulating himself on having a web-page from his site featured in her presentation.

So he's evidently:

(a) not scientifically literate enough to understand that the data-sets she showed say "It's not the sun, stupid!";

(b) not self-aware enough to know when his work is being used as an example of confusion and ignorance;

(c) not very honest; or

(d) all of the above.

_______________

None of which is at all surprising. But still. Unwittingly boasting on yourself for having been singled out as a poster-child for idiocy by a world-class expert in the field you write about does kind of take things to whole a new level. Don't you think?

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... &start=315


From her latest presentation on April 23rd 2014 she inserts a new It's the Sun Stupid graphic into that particular slide:

Image

Which comes from here:

http://blog.doodooecon.com/2012/03/sola ... hange.html

Which is an I'll-do-anything-for-$ right wing whacko blog.


So, based on the WUWT blog post showing Lean using the 'Sun Stupid' article involving Bruce West and then West's solar scientist partner AGW skeptic Nicola Scafetta then telling us about Judith moving towards their position outlined in the 'It's the Sun Stupid' article, my comment was a reasonable opinion at the time and to imply I was being purposely deceptive is over the top.


Calling you a lying piece of shit is over the top, you lying peice of shit.

Though skeptics generally seem to see her onside....she's probably not in either camp....more like Judith Curry, just telling the solar science as she sees it....which is why the skeptics respect her, it's not the hype that will win out in the long term, but reality.


Clearly, unequivocally, without the slightest shadow of a doubt she is not on the 'skeptics' side. That is plain for anyone to see. There is no doubt whatsoever.

You knew it then. You know it now.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

And now I really am done with your silly shenanigans.

:sun:
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5113
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Tue May 13, 2014 7:46 pm

brainpanhandler » Wed May 14, 2014 2:43 am wrote:
Ben D » Mon May 12, 2014 11:14 pm wrote: she apparently always uses the 'It's the Sun stupid' slide in her presentations...


Indeed, she does. For the purpose of showing the ignorance and /or deceitfulness of weasles like Anthony Watts, as is crystal clear from the context in the presentation. Are you sure you watched it?

But this is old ground that's already well covered Ben. Perhaps your memory is fading a bit. Not surprising. We tend to forget painful experiences.

C2W from the Global Warming, Eh? thread:


C2W wrote:The funny thing is: I imagine that you acquired your belief that she was endorsing that "It's the sun, stupid!" graphic from this here post by Anthony Watts, congratulating himself on having a web-page from his site featured in her presentation.

So he's evidently:

(a) not scientifically literate enough to understand that the data-sets she showed say "It's not the sun, stupid!";

(b) not self-aware enough to know when his work is being used as an example of confusion and ignorance;

(c) not very honest; or

(d) all of the above.

_______________

None of which is at all surprising. But still. Unwittingly boasting on yourself for having been singled out as a poster-child for idiocy by a world-class expert in the field you write about does kind of take things to whole a new level. Don't you think?

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... &start=315


From her latest presentation on April 23rd 2014 she inserts a new It's the Sun Stupid graphic into that particular slide:

Image

Which comes from here:

http://blog.doodooecon.com/2012/03/sola ... hange.html

Which is an I'll-do-anything-for-$ right wing whacko blog.


So, based on the WUWT blog post showing Lean using the 'Sun Stupid' article involving Bruce West and then West's solar scientist partner AGW skeptic Nicola Scafetta then telling us about Judith moving towards their position outlined in the 'It's the Sun Stupid' article, my comment was a reasonable opinion at the time and to imply I was being purposely deceptive is over the top.


Calling you a lying piece of shit is over the top, you lying peice of shit.

Though skeptics generally seem to see her onside....she's probably not in either camp....more like Judith Curry, just telling the solar science as she sees it....which is why the skeptics respect her, it's not the hype that will win out in the long term, but reality.


Clearly, unequivocally, without the slightest shadow of a doubt she is not on the 'skeptics' side. That is plain for anyone to see. There is no doubt whatsoever.

You knew it then. You know it now.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

And now I really am done with your silly shenanigans.

:sun:

Well you sure are a believer that the best from of defence is attack....haha ..but all your ad hominem bluster and OCD recycling of 2 year old stuff from a locked thread, even invoking C2W who, while being a good friend, does not mean we don't do climate wars.....doesn't obscure the facts...Bruce West and Nicola Scafetta are the solar scientists behind the 'It's the Sun Stupid' article, and are fellow solar scientist associates of Lean and know Lean values the relevant paper.

I know that I am repeating this stuff but you still haven't acknowledged it, that is apart from calling me a "lying peice (sic) of shit", and instead post endless 'It's the Sun Stupid' images as though this constitutes logical argument....I repeat....Bruce West and Nicola Scafetta who are responsible for the science behind the 'It's the Sun Stupid' article are friends and fellow solar science associates of Lean and have no problem with her using it because they talk to her and know there is mutual respect for each other's solar science work....here...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/#comment-887909

Nicola Scafetta says: February 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm

In her last slide shown above, Lean is clearly referring to an interview to Bruce West who was asked to comment the results of our papers. For example:

Nicola Scafetta, and Bruce J. West, “Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the NH surface temperature records since 1600.” J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437 (2007).

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf

where it is clearly proven that solar activity could count between 40% and 70% of the warming since 1850 according to whether PMOD or ACRIM total solar irradiance are used.

Indeed, our results contradict Lean’s estimate of a small secular solar effect on climate in Lean and Rind (2008). However, the reason why Lean gets a smaller contribution is because she uses her TSI proxy model that would agree with PMOD TSI composite and, more importantly, she uses a purely linear model to determine the secular solar impact on climate, which has nothing to do with physics because a purely linear regression model assumes that the heat capacity of the climate system does not have a relaxation time response.

A detailed rebuttal of Lean linear regression model argument is not only present in my papers, but it is explicitly presented in my later paper:

N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf

Lean essentially appears to move away from her previous claims and she is moving to acknowledge our empirical results.

So now please wipe the egg from your face and do something on this thread other than using your poopy mouth to bad mouth people who are able to bring facts to the climate debate....you can start by showing us your understanding of the climate science by responding to this post you appear to be ignoring....you made some claims, I responded...now what do you have to say?

Ben D » Mon May 12, 2014 10:36 am wrote:
brainpanhandler » Mon May 12, 2014 4:31 am wrote:There is a pause. Clearly. Models have not and are not predicting various effects, like the rapid ice loss in the arctic and the ice gains in the antarctic. It's a relatively new field of investigation and wildly complex. Our understanding is evolving. Some here seem to have a basic lack of understanding that that is the way science works.

What is not in doubt is that the long term trends are toward a warming climate and that there is a strong signal in the data of human induced changes which correspond with industrialization and increasing man made ghg emissions.

You'd have to be a complete ignoramus to point to the pause in spite of the continued rise in CO2 emissions and claim that was evidence that anthropogenic climate change is incorrect. There are many other inputs which can and are offsetting the warming of ghg emissions on shorter time scales. This is well known and documented.

You can't be serious when you imply that the models are imperfect on the one hand while the 17 years pause continues, and then say there is no doubt the warming will continue in the long term. The models did not predict the pause...they predicted continuous warming over these last 17 years...so until and unless the models produce reliable long term projections, they are in question by reasonable folk.

Most skeptics are not ignoramuses, they acknowledge the warming effect of CO2 emissions, but they question the degree of forcing of CO2 factored into the models....even the IPCC admits there may be less forcing than previously thought. They also know, along with most scientists, that natural climate change is a factor the models can't predict with accuracy at this stage...so as the pause proves...computer model projections are imperfect and thus we can't know what the long term future will bring.

All those possibilities in the Economist article are just that...possible factors mitigating the CO2 forcing...every dick can have an opinion but reality trumps predictions.

Think about it...there had not been any warming for 10 years before I joined RI, and I have been posting here on RI for about 7 years ... and still the AGW alarmists here go ballistic because I refer them to the fact of the 17 years and counting continuing pause....one wonders really who should be called the deniers?
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Tue May 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Anthony Watts is a paid shill, who lies for petrodollars - his opinion and that of his website is tainted forever in the knowledge that he is a charlatan.

Anyone who deliberately quotes from his steaming sack of shit, whattsupwithoildisinfoandlies.bollocks, is also not worthy of serious consideration.

Youre a liar, Ben, and you quote from liars
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Tue May 13, 2014 9:49 pm

Rory » Wed May 14, 2014 11:05 am wrote:Anthony Watts is a paid shill, who lies for petrodollars - his opinion and that of his website is tainted forever in the knowledge that he is a charlatan.

Anyone who deliberately quotes from his steaming sack of shit, whattsupwithoildisinfoandlies.bollocks, is also not worthy of serious consideration.

Youre a liar, Ben, and you quote from liars

Oh yeah....you keep calling me a liar Rory...but never provide any evidence.....are you OCD? And all the AGW brain washed alarmists hate Anthony and his Watts Up With That? because it is...the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change!

The Blog Stats 186,085,943 views "...the world's most viewed climate website"

Image . Image . Image . Image
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Tue May 13, 2014 10:08 pm

BWHAHAHAHAHA, that's hilarious. And desperate.

Dude - you seriously posted a load of blog award pics? As if that diminishes the fact that Anthony Watts is paid by Heartland Foundation to lie. He's a liar and his blog is full of shit. An echo chamber for bullshit artists and paid oil shills.

You know what, Ben: bph detailed your lies re Judith Lean. You also promised never to post here again.
Yet here you are - you are a liar.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Tue May 13, 2014 11:35 pm

So this is all so off topic wrt global warming....perhaps that's your intention, to have me respond to distractions so that the fact of total lack of any increase in global warming for 17 years plus is forgotten....

Poor Rory...what will you do with yourself when the penny drops that the AGW religion is a false one....AGW is soon to be forgotten just like the Y2K scam is forgotten....but not before a lot of money is made.

ps...but I suppose I must respond to your claim that I 'promised never to post here again'. Show me the evidence?
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Wed May 14, 2014 12:20 am

http://nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/e ... &referrer=

A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries.

Global warming caused by the human-driven release of greenhouse gases has helped to destabilize the ice sheet, though other factors may also be involved, the scientists said.

The rise of the sea is likely to continue to be relatively slow for the rest of the 21st century, the scientists added, but in the more distant future it may accelerate markedly, potentially throwing society into crisis.

“This is really happening,” Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research, said in an interview. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.”


Two scientific papers released on Monday by the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters came to similar conclusions by different means. Both groups of scientists found that West Antarctic glaciers had retreated far enough to set off an inherent instability in the ice sheet, one that experts have feared for decades. NASA called a telephone news conference Monday to highlight the urgency of the findings.

The West Antarctic ice sheet sits in a bowl-shaped depression in the earth, with the base of the ice below sea level. Warm ocean water is causing the ice sitting along the rim of the bowl to thin and retreat. As the front edge of the ice pulls away from the rim and enters deeper water, it can retreat much faster than before.

In one of the new papers, a team led by Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, used satellite and air measurements to document an accelerating retreat over the past several decades of six glaciers draining into the Amundsen Sea region. And with updated mapping of the terrain beneath the ice sheet, the team was able to rule out the presence of any mountains or hills significant enough to slow the retreat.

“Today we present observational evidence that a large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone into irreversible retreat,” Dr. Rignot said in the NASA news conference. “It has passed the point of no return.”

Video | West Antarctic Glacier Ice Flows A NASA animation shows glacier changes detected in the highly dynamic Amundsen Embayment of West Antarctica.
Those six glaciers alone could cause the ocean to rise four feet as they disappear, Dr. Rignot said, possibly within a couple of centuries. He added that their disappearance will most likely destabilize other sectors of the ice sheet, so the ultimate rise could be triple that.

A separate team led by Ian Joughin of the University of Washington studied one of the most important glaciers, Thwaites, using sophisticated computer modeling, coupled with recent measurements of the ice flow. That team also found that a slow-motion collapse had become inevitable. Even if the warm water now eating away at the ice were to dissipate, it would be “too little, too late to stabilize the ice sheet,” Dr. Joughin said. “There’s no stabilization mechanism.”

The two teams worked independently, preparing papers that were to be published within days of each other. After it was learned that their results were similar, the teams and their journals agreed to release the findings on the same day. 

The new finding appears to be the fulfillment of a prediction made in 1978 by an eminent glaciologist, John H. Mercer of the Ohio State University. He outlined the vulnerable nature of the West Antarctic ice sheet and warned that the rapid human-driven release of greenhouse gases posed “a threat of disaster.” He was assailed at the time, but in recent years, scientists have been watching with growing concern as events have unfolded in much the way Dr. Mercer predicted. (He died in 1987.)

Video | Pine Island Glacier This “airborne” tour was created from a small portion of the images collected during a flight over the Pine Island Glacier crack on Oct. 26, 2011.
Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because relatively warm water that occurs naturally in the depths of the ocean was being pulled to the surface by an intensification, over the past several decades, of the powerful winds that encircle Antarctica.

And while the cause of the stronger winds is somewhat unclear, many researchers consider human-induced global warming to be a significant factor. The winds help to isolate Antarctica and keep it cold at the surface, but as global warming proceeds, that means a sharper temperature difference between the Antarctic and the rest of the globe. That temperature difference provides further energy for the winds, which in turn stir up the ocean waters.

Some scientists believe the ozone hole over Antarctica — caused not by global warming but by an entirely different environmental problem, the human-caused release of ozone-destroying gases — may also be adding energy to the winds. And natural variability may be contributing as well, though scientists do not believe it is the primary factor.

The global sea level has been rising since the 19th century, but Antarctica so far has been only a small factor. The biggest factor to date is that seawater expands as it warms.


Photographs | Rising Seas Some areas of the globe are especially vulnerable to rising sea levels and inhabitants are being forced to make stark changes in their lives.
But the melting from both Greenland and Antarctica is expected to be far more important in the future. A United Nations scientific committee, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has warned that the global sea level could rise as much as three feet by the end of this century if stronger efforts are not made to control greenhouse gases. The new findings suggest the situation is likely to get far worse in subsequent centuries.

The effects will depend in part on how much money future governments spend to protect shorelines from a rising sea. Research published in 2012 found that a rise of less than four feet would inundate land on which some 3.7 million Americans live today. Miami, New Orleans, New York and Boston are all highly vulnerable.

Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University who was not involved in the new research but has studied the polar ice sheets for decades, said he found the new papers compelling. Though he had long feared the possibility of ice-sheet collapse, when he learned of the new findings, “it shook me a little bit,” Dr. Alley said.

He added that while a large rise of the sea may now be inevitable from West Antarctica, continued release of greenhouse gases will almost certainly make the situation worse. The heat-trapping gases could destabilize other parts of Antarctica as well as the Greenland ice sheet, potentially causing enough sea-level rise that many of the world’s coastal cities would eventually have to be abandoned.

“If we have indeed lit the fuse on West Antarctica, it’s very hard to imagine putting the fuse out,” Dr. Alley said. “But there’s a bunch more fuses, and there’s a bunch more matches, and we have a decision now: Do we light those?”

Correction: May 12, 2014
An earlier version of this article misstated the surname of the lead author of a paper in Science about the accelerated flow of glaciers in West Antarctica. He is Ian Joughin, not Joaquin.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Wed May 14, 2014 12:26 am

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/fou ... sk-n104751

A new report from a panel of former Pentagon leaders calls climate change a direct threat to national security and the U.S. economy, as extreme weather stands to stretch troops thin, spark unrest in unstable regions, and unravel global networks of trade and resources.

The authors –- 16 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals who compose the CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board (MAB) -- blame a warming planet for, in part, aggravating tensions among some nations.

Their study, released Tuesday night, dubs climate change “a catalyst for conflict” against a backdrop of increasingly decentralized power structures around the world.



“Political posturing and budgetary woes cannot be allowed to inhibit discussion and debate over what so many believe to be a salient national security concern for our nation,” the generals and admirals wrote. “… Time and tide wait for no one.”

Key findings include:

“…climate change impacts are already accelerating instability in vulnerable regions," including the Arctic.
“Projected climate change impacts within the United States will place key elements of our National Power at risk and threaten our homeland security.”
“The projected impacts of climate change will threaten major sectors of the U.S. economy.”
The panel –- a non-government group -- offered a 2007 forecast predicting a collision between climate change and U.S. security interests. That original study was cited by the 2007 New York Times “Year in Ideas” section.

"Political posturing and budgetary woes cannot be allowed to inhibit discussion and debate over what so many believe to be a salient national security concern for our nation."

The latest analysis is an update to their 2007 findings: “We gather again because of our growing concern over the lack of comprehensive action by both the United States and the international community to address the full spectrum of projected climate change issues.”

In a foreword to the report, former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the generals’ and admirals’ latest assessments should serve as a bipartisan call to action, asserting that climate change is no longer a future threat but “is taking place now.”

“It identifies threats to elements of national power here at home, particularly those associated with our infrastructure and our ability to maintain military readiness,” Chertoff and Panetta wrote.


What’s causing our weather extremes?TODAY


The group pointed specifically to the Artic as one region already prompting U.S. national security experts to gaze northward.

The vast polar sea will see increased traffic from international fleets as glaciers shrink. With the ice disappearing, the region presents a potential, watery turf battle: The Arctic may account for as much as 20 percent of the world’s untapped oil and natural gas resources.

"We see areas around the globe where projected climate change causes us concern, but the most immediate is in the Arctic,” retired U.S. Army Gen. Paul Kern, panel chairman, told NBC News.

“Accelerated melting of ice is already opening the area," Kern said. "The U.S. and international community are not ready to respond to disasters or to resolve territory and resource disputes. We see this as not only a risk to the environment, but a risk to security of the area.”
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed May 14, 2014 2:53 pm

Rory » Tue May 13, 2014 11:20 pm wrote:http://nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html?_r=0&referrer=

A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries.


Thanks Rory. I found this article complemented their findings in showing what this might look like:

This is what the United States looks like after a 10 foot sea level rise
By Climate Central
Tuesday, May 13, 2014 15:46 EDT

By Ben Strauss

New research indicates that climate change has already triggered an unstoppable decay of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The projected decay will lead to at least 4 feet of accelerating global sea level rise within the next two-plus centuries, and at least 10 feet of rise in the end.

What does the U.S. look like with an ocean that is 10 feet higher? The radically transformed map would lose 28,800 square miles of land, home today to 12.3 million people.
Image
Click on the image above to check for threats from sea level rise and storm surge.

These figures come from Climate Central research published in 2012, analyzing and mapping every coastal city, county and state in the lower 48 states. (A next generation of research is currently under way.)
Cities with the Most Population
on Affected Land
CITY POPULATION
1. New York City
2. New Orleans
3. Miami
4. Hialeah, FL
5. Virginia Beach
6. Fort Lauderdale
7. Norfolk
8. Stockton, CA
9. Metairie, LA
10. Hollywood, FL 703,000
342,000
275,000
224,000
195,000
160,000
157,000
142,000
138,000
126,000
All cities


More than half of the area of 40 large cities (population over 50,000) is less than 10 feet above the high tide line, from Virginia Beach and Miami (the largest affected), down to Hoboken, N.J. (smallest). Twenty-seven of the cities are in Florida, where one-third of all current housing sits below the critical line — including 85 percent in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Each of these counties is more threatened than any whole state outside of Florida – and each sits on bedrock filled with holes, rendering defense by seawalls or levees almost impossible.

By the metric of most people living on land less than 10 ft above the high tide line, New York City is most threatened in the long run, with a low-lying population count of more than 700,000. Sixteen other cities, including New Orleans, La.; Norfolk, Va.; Stockton, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; St. Petersburg, Fla.; and Jacksonville, Fla.; are on the list of places with more than 100,000 people below the line. (Much of New Orleans is already below sea level, but is protected at today’s level by levees.)

Climate Central’s enhanced analysis paints a much more detailed pictured for completed states. For example, more than 32,000 miles of road and $950 billion of property currently sit on affected land in Florida. Threatened property in New York and New Jersey totals more than $300 billion. And New England states all face important risks.

The predicted sea level rise will take a long time to unfold. The numbers listed here do not represent immediate or literal threats. Under any circumstances, coastal populations and economies will reshape themselves over time. But the new research on West Antarctic Ice Sheet decay — and the amount of humanity in the restless ocean’s way — point to unrelenting centuries of defense, retreat, and reimagination of life along our coasts.

NEW YORK CITY
Image
New York City projections showing water levels 10 feet above high tide line. Click on the map to explore.


ST. PETERSBURG
Image
St. Petersburg, Fla., projections showing water levels 10 feet above high tide line. Click on the map to explore.


BOSTON
Image
Boston projections showing water levels 10 feet above high tide line. Click on the map to explore.

Dr. Ben Strauss is Vice President for Climate Impacts and the Director of the Program on Sea Level Rise at Climate Central.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed May 14, 2014 8:49 pm

It pains me to have scant time to peruse the latest without enough to post at length. However, I do owe some direct and promised responses, which I may be able to provide sometime this weekend.

But for now, this is directed to slim with the hope that this perspective he may find helpful. Perhaps some of this has already been offered, but I do not recall seeing anyone put it quite like this before.

Slim, Thousands of scientists are conducting research into every aspect of what is contributing to climate change across nearly every field of science. Their research has been peer reviewed and approved for publication in one of many of the various science's recognized and well established journals. The consensus of scientists who agree human contributions to warming our atmosphere must be curtailed immediately to prevent disastrous irreversible consequences amount to 97% of all.

Those climate scientists who some deem "deniers" amount to 3% of all involved in climate research.

None have produced peer reviewed and published research supporting their claims. Not one.

Now here's an important point not paid enough attention to, but all climate research scientists, fully 100% of them, know and admit human contributions do indeed help to warm our climate!

Honestly, it's true.

The argument between "denier scientists," the 3 percent of climate research scientists and those who some term "pro AGW scientists," (an oxymoron, btw), who comprise the 97 percent consensus is merely one of quantity. They both agree human contributions are warming our climate, but the 3% argue that the human contributions alone are not enough to cause irreversible consequences.

And, of course both viewpoints are entirely correct. Ironic, huh.

So let me use an analogy, slim, one you and perhaps a few other may find interesting. I wish you well, always, so allow me to ask you directly, without any ill will in my heart:

If 97% percent of the doctors you visited told you that based upon diagnosis confirmed by biopsy that you had cancer and that you would die if you didn't receive immediate treatment, and 3% of the doctors you visited, after taking only your vital signs proclaimed you should exercise and you'd feel better if you did, which group of doctors would you believe?

Oh, and slim, google "IPCC Geoengineering" and you will see what some have proposed. Most are opposed to adding geoengineering materials into our environment though every avenue to avert disaster is and will be explored, and many are not to my liking nor good for anything else but such an emergency. Most I know of are not all that enduring insofar as effectively cooling our climate goes and some have serious disconcerting impacts themselves.

Google to read more about geoengineering, please. Much revealing information awaiting you!.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby conniption » Wed May 14, 2014 11:10 pm

Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy

By Kiley Kroh May 13, 2014

1 of 119 comments
Nancy Gotwalt · Senior Logistician at Leidos
Germany has brains. We have the Koch brothers. Need I say more?
· 22 · Yesterday at 1:44pm
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby norton ash » Thu May 15, 2014 10:06 am

Thanks, Iam. In the same vein, here is a fine mathematically-representative climate-change debate.

Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 111 guests