Study Finds More of Earth Is Hotter and Says Global Warming Is at Work

F

Free Thinker

nothing to worry about. the right wing intelligensia on et have declared global warming false:



Study Finds More of Earth Is Hotter and Says Global Warming Is at Work

The percentage of the earth’s land surface covered by extreme heat in the summer has soared in recent decades, from less than 1 percent in the years before 1980 to as much as 13 percent in recent years, according to a new scientific paper.
The change is so drastic, the paper says, that scientists can claim with near certainty that events like the Texas heat wave last year, the Russian heat wave of 2010 and the European heat wave of 2003 would not have happened without the planetary warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/s...he-earth-a-study-says.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share
 
The Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse (CRC) was an extinction event that occurred around 305 million years ago in the Carboniferous period. Vast coal forests (so called because the compacted remains of the dense vegetation formed coal seams) covered the equatorial region of Euramerica (Europe and America). Climate change devastated tropical rainforests, fragmenting the forests into isolated 'islands' and causing the extinction of many plant and animal species. There are several hypotheses about the nature and cause of the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse, some of which include climate change. The cooler, drier climate conditions were not favorable to the growth of rainforests and much of the biodiversity within them. Rainforests shrank into isolated patches, these islands of rainforest were mostly confined to wet valleys further and further apart. Then a succeeding period of global warming reversed the climatic trend; the remaining rainforests, unable to survive the rapidly changing conditions, were finally wiped out. Though the exact speed and nature of the collapse is not clear, it thought to have occurred relatively quickly in geologic terms, only a few thousand years at most.
 
Quote from stoic:

The Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse (CRC) was an extinction event that occurred around 305 million years ago in the Carboniferous period. Vast coal forests (so called because the compacted remains of the dense vegetation formed coal seams) covered the equatorial region of Euramerica (Europe and America). Climate change devastated tropical rainforests, fragmenting the forests into isolated 'islands' and causing the extinction of many plant and animal species. There are several hypotheses about the nature and cause of the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse, some of which include climate change. The cooler, drier climate conditions were not favorable to the growth of rainforests and much of the biodiversity within them. Rainforests shrank into isolated patches, these islands of rainforest were mostly confined to wet valleys further and further apart. Then a succeeding period of global warming reversed the climatic trend; the remaining rainforests, unable to survive the rapidly changing conditions, were finally wiped out. Though the exact speed and nature of the collapse is not clear, it thought to have occurred relatively quickly in geologic terms, only a few thousand years at most.
More...

Yeah. So what?
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Yeah. So what?
More...

I'm so sorry. I must apologize. I'm always making the same mistake about liberals, Democrats, and those that buy into all the leftwing propaganda. I must remind myself that , in reality they're intellectual light weights. For this I am truly repentant.

The point is that Climate Change, global warming or global cooling has happened before. Over the past 740,000 years there have been eight glacial cycles. The entire Quaternary Period, starting 2.58 Million years ago to the PRESENT. No completely satisfactory theory has been proposed to account for Earth's history of glaciations and warming cycles. The cause may be related to several simultaneously occurring factors, such as astronomical cycles, atmospheric composition, plate tectonics, and ocean currents.

Astronomical Cycles:
Changes in the orbital eccentricity of Earth occur on a cycle of about 100,000 years. The inclination, or tilt, of Earth's axis varies periodically between 22° and 24.5°. The tilt of Earth's axis is responsible for the seasons; the greater the tilt, the greater the contrast between summer and winter temperatures. Changes in the tilt occur in a cycle 41,000 years long. Precession of the equinoxes, or wobbles on Earth's spin axis, complete every 21,700 years.

Atmospheric composition
Glacial and interglacial cycles as represented by atmospheric CO2, measured from ice core samples going back 650,000 years
One theory holds that decreases in atmospheric CO2, an important greenhouse gas, started the long-term cooling trend that eventually led to glaciations. Recent studies of the CO2 content of gas bubbles preserved in the Greenland ice cores lend support to this idea. The geochemical cycle of carbon indicates more than a 10-fold decrease in atmospheric CO2 since the middle of the Mesozoic Era. However, it is unclear what caused the decline in CO2 levels, and whether this decline is the cause of global cooling or if it is the result.

Plate tectonics and ocean currents
An important component in the long-term temperature changes may be related to the positions of the continents, relative to the poles, but it cannot explain the rapid retreat and advances of glaciers. This relation can control the circulation of the oceans and the atmosphere, affecting how ocean currents carry heat to high latitude. Throughout most of the geologic time, the North Pole appears to have been in a broad, open ocean that allowed major ocean currents to move unabated. Equatorial waters flowed into the polar regions, warming them with water from the more temperate latitudes. This unrestricted circulation produced mild, uniform climates that persisted throughout most of geologic time.

In popular culture, there is often reference to "the next ice age." Technically, since the earth is ALREADY in an ice age at present, this usually refers to the next glacial period because the earth is currently in an interglacial period. The next glacial period seems to be rapidly approaching, when climatologists met in 1972 to discuss this issue of a period of so-called global cooling. The previous interglacial periods seemed to have lasted about 10,000 years each. Assuming that the present interglacial period would be just as long, they concluded, "it is likely that the present-day warm epoch will terminate relatively soon."

Once again I must apologize for all the climatologist jargon. If you read it and fail to comprehend. Try reading it a few more times, (it's ok if your lips move if this increases reading comprehension, and it's ok if you have to look up the big words ).

As for the so called rightwing intelligentsia (< correct spelling) on et, climate change is an undisputed fact, sometimes cooler, sometimes warmer. It's been going on since there was a climate. What I find so annoying is this constant Chicken Little......"the sky is falling, the sky is falling... " regurgitation based on such a limited amount of data (In geological terms) spewed out by sue do-intellectuals who seem to be interested only in seeing their name in print and the renewal of their grant.
 
Quote from stoic:

in reality they're intellectual light weights.
More...

thank you for setting the scientists straight. what a wonderful resource et is with all its right wing intellectual heavy weights. where else could you find the caliber of people who can look at the work a scientist may have spent his whole life on and within 30 seconds declare it false.




Doesn't it seem odd that the "evidence for the existence global warming" is conclusive for the greatest human minds who spend their professional lives exploring how the universe functions, yet it is false to uneducated simpletons who have access to internet-linked terminals?
 
I am not sure which side of the Climate Change argument to believe. I guess I really don't care either way. There doesn't seem to be anything practical that can be done to stop it if it is true. In that case it is inevitable in the way that we all will die one day. Why waste time worrying about it.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

......can look at the work a scientist may have spent his whole life on and within 30 seconds declare it false.
More...

Once again .....you read but fail to comprehend. But keep trying.... maybe in 30 years you'll find reruns of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood monotonous.
 
Quote from stoic:

Once again .....you read but fail to comprehend. But keep trying.... maybe in 30 years you'll find reruns of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood monotonous.
More...

brilliant people often have a hard time conveying their message. i am sure in time,since you are so brilliant that you can dismiss scientific conclusions out of hand, you will figure out a way. hopefully before you accept your nobel prize for falsifying glogal warming.
 
The 'BEST' Global Warming Science Goes Lukewarm
by Patrick J. Michaels

My greener friends are rejoicing over the apparent "conversion" of Richard Muller, head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) research team, from "climate change skeptic" to believer in global warming. A closer read of his New York Times op-ed, published on July 30, during what is climatologically the hottest week of the year, would certainly cool their enthusiasm.

In it, Muller discusses the fact that the surface temperature of the planet indeed is warmer than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century. While not one climate scientist finds this at all newsworthy, his "admission" has been ballyhooed in environmental circles as a defection that will end the Hot War. Trouble is, Muller's statements don't come close to any sort of radical retraction — and there is evidence his conclusions are obviously flawed to begin with.

There are three philosophies in the world of global warming. Loudest are the "hotheads," who maintain that drastic (and impossible) measures are needed to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases and prevent the seas from rising dozens of feet in a hundred years. The data relied upon by this segment is suspect, but their alarmist message garners more than its share of attention.

The recognized antithesis of hotheads are the "flatliners," who contend that there is no measurable warming caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Their bible is the lack of warming in the last 16-odd years, when CO2 levels have risen the most. They do have a problem explaining the rise in temperatures in the preceding decades.

In the third school, where I find myself, reside the "lukewarmers" — those who argue that carbon dioxide indeed is warming surface temperatures, but that its effect is modest and that we are inadvertently adapting. Our mantra: "It's not the heat, it's the sensitivity." In other words, most climate projections assume that surface temperature is overly sensitive to "forcing" from carbon dioxide. Our bible consists of observed temperature trends as CO2 increased in the last several decades.

I would like to welcome Dr. Muller to the noble fellowship of lukewarmers.

In his op-ed, he forecast that land surface temperatures will rise 1.5°F over the next 50 years. That's about the same amount that they rose since 1900 — and in the intervening period, life expectancy doubled and per-capita income in constant dollars rose tenfold in the United States.

Muller wrote an important caveat, which is that warming would be much greater if atmospheric carbon dioxide rocketed upwards. Rapidly declining emissions in the U.S., resulting in large part from the exponential substitution of natural gas (sourced from shale), instead of coal for electrical generation, suggest this is not likely. Shale is ubiquitous worldwide, and what began here is likely to spread around the planet.

Note that Dr. Muller is talking about land temperatures, which applies to about 30% of the earth's surface. Given that the remaining 70% that is water tends to warm at about 60% of the land rate, his global warming forecast is 1.1°F by 2060, which is precisely lukewarm.

For comparative purposes, the median 2010-2060 warming predicted by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is around 2.7°F. NASA's James Hansen, the head hothead, has it at around 2.4° for his "Scenario B," which implies some reduction in emissions from "business-as-usual" (BAU). "Scenario A," which Hansen explicitly labels BAU, yields a whopping 5.6°, which Hansen now says is on the high side.

So what does the hothead community think of Muller?

For one thing, they can't be happy with his science, which attributes past warming almost exclusively to carbon dioxide increases. Hansen has a whole host of other "forcings," including black carbon (soot) that Muller simply eschews.

The hotheads are also surely upset that Muller doesn't acknowledge that sulfate emissions from the combustion of coal and forests countervail warming.

Penn State climatologist and renowned hothead Michael Mann gave Muller's conclusions his review in a Facebook post from last weekend: "At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of a few years."

Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has to wonder how Muller could have ignored the effect of water vapor changes in the stratosphere, which she says are responsible for 15% of warming since 1980 (and are also implicated in the lack of warming since 1996).

As a result of these and other peccadilloes, the BEST team has yet to publish one peer-reviewed paper, despite conspicuously dominating the op-ed pages for a year now. Their critical paper on the "urban heat island" — which concludes there isn't one — has been outright rejected. Apparently, the BEST team doesn't believe that it is warmer in downtown Washington, D.C., than it is in rural Virginia, thanks in part to the waste heat from all the money changing hands, some of which funds BEST.

I am waiting for Muller to respond that his forecast was a typo, and that he meant degrees Celsius rather than Fahrenheit (the units explicitly used earlier in his op-ed). Even so, he would still come in far below the IPCC, which bills itself as "the consensus of scientists." Let's hope he wasn't that careless.

Welcome to the lukewarm club, Dr. Muller.
 
Quote from Yannis:

The 'BEST' Global Warming Science Goes Lukewarm
by Patrick J. Michaels

My greener friends are rejoicing over the apparent "conversion" of Richard Muller, head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) research team, from "climate change skeptic" to believer in global warming. A closer read of his New York Times op-ed, published on July 30, during what is climatologically the hottest week of the year, would certainly cool their enthusiasm.

In it, Muller discusses the fact that the surface temperature of the planet indeed is warmer than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century. While not one climate scientist finds this at all newsworthy, his "admission" has been ballyhooed in environmental circles as a defection that will end the Hot War. Trouble is, Muller's statements don't come close to any sort of radical retraction — and there is evidence his conclusions are obviously flawed to begin with.

There are three philosophies in the world of global warming. Loudest are the "hotheads," who maintain that drastic (and impossible) measures are needed to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases and prevent the seas from rising dozens of feet in a hundred years. The data relied upon by this segment is suspect, but their alarmist message garners more than its share of attention.

The recognized antithesis of hotheads are the "flatliners," who contend that there is no measurable warming caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Their bible is the lack of warming in the last 16-odd years, when CO2 levels have risen the most. They do have a problem explaining the rise in temperatures in the preceding decades.

In the third school, where I find myself, reside the "lukewarmers" — those who argue that carbon dioxide indeed is warming surface temperatures, but that its effect is modest and that we are inadvertently adapting. Our mantra: "It's not the heat, it's the sensitivity." In other words, most climate projections assume that surface temperature is overly sensitive to "forcing" from carbon dioxide. Our bible consists of observed temperature trends as CO2 increased in the last several decades.

I would like to welcome Dr. Muller to the noble fellowship of lukewarmers.

In his op-ed, he forecast that land surface temperatures will rise 1.5°F over the next 50 years. That's about the same amount that they rose since 1900 — and in the intervening period, life expectancy doubled and per-capita income in constant dollars rose tenfold in the United States.

Muller wrote an important caveat, which is that warming would be much greater if atmospheric carbon dioxide rocketed upwards. Rapidly declining emissions in the U.S., resulting in large part from the exponential substitution of natural gas (sourced from shale), instead of coal for electrical generation, suggest this is not likely. Shale is ubiquitous worldwide, and what began here is likely to spread around the planet.

Note that Dr. Muller is talking about land temperatures, which applies to about 30% of the earth's surface. Given that the remaining 70% that is water tends to warm at about 60% of the land rate, his global warming forecast is 1.1°F by 2060, which is precisely lukewarm.

For comparative purposes, the median 2010-2060 warming predicted by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is around 2.7°F. NASA's James Hansen, the head hothead, has it at around 2.4° for his "Scenario B," which implies some reduction in emissions from "business-as-usual" (BAU). "Scenario A," which Hansen explicitly labels BAU, yields a whopping 5.6°, which Hansen now says is on the high side.

So what does the hothead community think of Muller?

For one thing, they can't be happy with his science, which attributes past warming almost exclusively to carbon dioxide increases. Hansen has a whole host of other "forcings," including black carbon (soot) that Muller simply eschews.

The hotheads are also surely upset that Muller doesn't acknowledge that sulfate emissions from the combustion of coal and forests countervail warming.

Penn State climatologist and renowned hothead Michael Mann gave Muller's conclusions his review in a Facebook post from last weekend: "At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of a few years."

Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has to wonder how Muller could have ignored the effect of water vapor changes in the stratosphere, which she says are responsible for 15% of warming since 1980 (and are also implicated in the lack of warming since 1996).

As a result of these and other peccadilloes, the BEST team has yet to publish one peer-reviewed paper, despite conspicuously dominating the op-ed pages for a year now. Their critical paper on the "urban heat island" — which concludes there isn't one — has been outright rejected. Apparently, the BEST team doesn't believe that it is warmer in downtown Washington, D.C., than it is in rural Virginia, thanks in part to the waste heat from all the money changing hands, some of which funds BEST.

I am waiting for Muller to respond that his forecast was a typo, and that he meant degrees Celsius rather than Fahrenheit (the units explicitly used earlier in his op-ed). Even so, he would still come in far below the IPCC, which bills itself as "the consensus of scientists." Let's hope he wasn't that careless.

Welcome to the lukewarm club, Dr. Muller.
More...

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence." -Bertrand Russell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top