Nat Geo Article Shows Decisively that Global Warming is a Fact.

[kairos]

"But natural cycles can’t by themselves explain the recent streak of record-breaking disasters. Something else is happening too: The Earth is steadily getting warmer, with significantly more moisture in the atmosphere. Decades of observations from the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii, as well as from thousands of other weather stations, satellites, ships, buoys, deep-ocean probes, and balloons, show that a long-term buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is trapping heat and warming up the land, oceans, and atmosphere. Although some places, notably the Arctic, are warming faster than others, the average surface temperature worldwide has risen nearly one degree Fahrenheit in the past four decades. In 2010 it reached 58.12°F, tying the record set in 2005."

http://ngm.nationalg...her/miller-text

Edited October 27, 2012 by kairos

[Moonbox]

I'm not sure what this article does to 'prove' anything. I actually think it's written far better and more intelligently than most, but all it's really doing is highlighting the bad things that have happened in certain areas over the last few years and attributes them to climate change.

[Pliny]

....and climate change is due to global warming which we know is occurring but we can't for certain call it anthropogenic in nature.

Time is proving the anthropogenic factor is not the driving force behind it and may be small or even irrelevant, since oceans that have started to warm and evaporate, increasing the GHG known as water vapor in the atmosphere, is a self-perpetuating event.

As the opening paragraph points out global warming is making it even more difficult to predict weather. Will that also bring more uncertainty to global warming projections?

I also note an inconsistency in the article that seems to invalidate previous arguments of AGW "enthusiasts". It states that while some areas of the globe are experiencing heat and dryness other areas of the world are experiencing cold and snow. The medieval warming period was argued by proponents of AGW as not a period of warming because it was not a general global trend. Isn't that what we have with part of the Antarctic building ice while another part is losing ice?

[eyeball]

The article seems to be reporting pretty much exactly what I recall hearing decades ago when I first heard of AGW, that we could expect more of what we're used to. More heat in the atmosphere simply means more energy driving the weather systems it contains. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how that works.

What's strange though is that I don't recall the predictions that we'd also see the denial that we're the cause would increase apace the reality.

Edited October 27, 2012 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

kairos, your post doesn't make an argument. You need to provide some context to the link, a brief summary, and some sort of critical reflection about it, otherwise your post might get deleted.

[Guest Peeves]

kairos, your post doesn't make an argument. You need to provide some context to the link, a brief summary, and some sort of critical reflection about it, otherwise your post might get deleted.

You used to get warnings and points for that.

The earth has apparently warmed then cooled then warmed then cooled then warmed then cooled ad infinitum. The causes are and have been

multi-factoral.

Now I hate to be a spoil sport, but since we've no place to go (but perhaps inland), we had best deal with 'it' rather than whine.

There are no plans for fewer Chinese, Indians or use of fuel, no chance of population reduction, no means to stop water levels rising, encroaching deserts, dust bowls or drought.

We need brain power to deal with the inevitable.

As for me, it probably will not be of much import, and my kids never listen, so.......good luck everyone , bend over, grab your ass and say in unison..syanora

[WIP]

I concur that this thread could have started with a more current example that connects increasingly unstable and hazardous weather with climate change. Right now, I'm sure everyone who has been online over the last 48 hours has heard of Hurricane Sandy barreling up the eastern seaboard of the United States. Most climate model forecasts project a landfall somewhere between Virginia and Massachusetts, sometime early Tuesday morning. Andrew Freeman's entry at Climate Central and Jeff Master's just posted an update a half hour ago at Weather Underground.

All those who think climate change is not important....or at least not as important as sucking the last drops of oil out of the ground take note! Every other meteorologist I have heard talk about the coming storm over the last day or so are also in agreement that this storm would have just drifted out to sea towards the mid-Atlantic, and only been a threat to shipping if it wasn't for this Northeastern blocking front coming from Greenland and the Arctic. For every idiot who says....the Arctic Ocean has been ice free in the past, and there will be more benefits than costs with open sea lanes and exploitation of resources....here's a big, unforeseen reason why melting the Arctic Ocean wasn't a good idea! After this year's record ice melt, all that open water up there was able to absorb more energy from the Sun, and it should come as no surprise that this is the strongest of these blocking fronts so far....which have been becoming more common as the Arctic Ocean has progressively declined over the last 40 years.

Typically, such a jet stream setup would help sweep a tropical storm or hurricane out to sea before it could threaten the U.S. However, in this case, the weather pattern across the Atlantic is boxing Sandy in as if it were facing a giant sea of bumper cars. A massive dome of high pressure near the Canadian Maritimes and Greenland, along with a storm in the Central Atlantic, are likely to combine to deflect Sandy back toward the U.S., according to most computer-model simulations run during the past 24 hours.

Recent studies have shown that blocking patterns have appeared with greater frequency and intensity in recent years, which some scientists think may be related to the loss of Arctic sea ice as a result of global warming. The 2012 sea ice melt season, which just ended one month ago, was extreme, with sea ice extent, volume, and other measures

all hitting record lows

. The loss of sea ice opens large expanses of open water, which absorbs more of the incoming solar radiation and adds heat and moisture to the atmosphere, thereby helping to

alter weather patterns

. Exactly how weather patterns are changing as a result, however, is a

subject of active research

.

While it is not unusual to have a high pressure area near Greenland, its intensity is striking for this time of year. As Jason Samenow of the

Capital Weather Gang wrote

on Wednesday, the

North Atlantic Oscillation

, which helps measure this blocking flow, "is forecast to be three standard deviations from the average — meaning this is an exceptional situation."

Hurricane Sandy may be an example of what can happen when a blocking pattern that may have been supercharged by sea ice loss occurs at just the wrong time — when a hurricane happens to be moving up the Eastern Seaboard.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/east-coast-facing-major-threat-from-hurricane-sandy-15157

So far, Jeff Masters is putting the odds...based on the latest GFS model, that there is a 20% chance that the predicted maximum 8 ft. storm surge will breach the five foot barriers protecting lower Manhattan. If New York dodges another bullet this time....like last year, how much longer will it be before the ticking timebomb goes off? Enjoy your climate change denial!:

Sandy's storm surge may flood New York City's subway system, costing billions

Sandy is expected to have tropical storm-force winds that extend out more than 400 miles from the center, which will drive a much larger storm surge than its peak winds would ordinarily suggest. The full moon is on Monday, which means astronomical tides will be among the highest of the month, increasing potential storm surge flooding. Fortunately, Sandy is now predicted to make a fairly rapid approach to the coast, meaning that the storm surge will not affect the coast for multiple high tide cycles. If Sandy hits near New York City, as the GFS model predicts, the storm surge will be capable of overtopping the flood walls in Manhattan, which are only five feet above mean sea level. On August 28, 2011, Tropical Storm Irene brought a storm surge of 4.13' to Battery Park on the south side of Manhattan. The waters poured over the flood walls into Lower Manhattan, but came 8 - 12" shy of being able to flood the New York City subway system. However, the town of

Lindenhurst

(population 28,000), on the south side of Long Island, was mostly under water due to the storm surge, and fresh water run-off from Irene's torrential rains, riding on top of a 3 to 4-foot storm surge, allowed the swollen East and Hudson Rivers to overflow at the edges of Manhattan. New York was not as lucky on December 12, 1992, when a 990 mb Nor'easter drove an 8-foot storm surge into Battery Park, flooding the NYC subway and the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) train systems in Hoboken New Jersey. FDR Drive in lower Manhattan was flooded with 4 feet of water, which stranded more than 50 cars and required scuba divers to rescue some of the drivers. Mass transit between New Jersey and New York was down for ten days, and the storm did hundreds of millions in damage to the city. The highest water level recorded at the Battery in the past century came in September 1960 during Hurricane Donna, which brought a storm surge of 8.36 feet to the Battery and flooded lower Manhattan to West and Cortland Streets. According to the latest storm surge forecast for NYC from the experimental Extratropical Storm Surge model, run by

NOAA"s Meteorological Development Laboratory

, Sandy's storm surge may be higher than Irene's, and has the potential to flood New York City's subway system (Figure 4.) The amount of water will depend critically upon whether or not the peak storm surge arrives at high tide or not. If the peak surge arrives near Monday evening's high tide near 9 pm EDT, a portion of New York City's subway system could flood, resulting in billions of dollars in damage.

I give a 20% chance that Sandy's storm surge will end up flooding a portion of the New York City subway system.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

[cybercoma]

You used to get warnings and points for that.

It has to be reported for the mods to notice. I would rather just mention the rules to someone that might not be aware, then run to reporting them. If it's someone that should know better though, I would just report it.

[Mr.Canada]

Who cares if the Earth is warming or not? I certainly do not. I have and always do my part to recycle and such but I'm not going to go crazy because some little environazi tries to make us all feel guilty.

[Guest Peeves]

It has to be reported for the mods to notice. I would rather just mention the rules to someone that might not be aware, then run to reporting them. If it's someone that should know better though, I would just report it.

I have found nothing worth reporting in my time here that I recollect. You handled it appropriately. Why would you bother reporting something so innocuous?

I think I might report someone inciting violence, but anything else is simply unnecessary in my opinion.

As for the initial post, though lacking in position or detail, there is certainly enough at the provided link to engender discussion. Nothing was actually needed to initiate a thread.

? possibly those that reported me are on sabbatical and just watching.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Peeves

[kairos]

I added a summar now. I wanted people to read the entire article, that's why I hadn't before.

Here's also a good article on the effects of high C02 on Ocean Acidification and its dangers to Coral and other ecosystems:

http://ngm.nationalg...on/kolbert-text

Edited October 27, 2012 by kairos

[Sleipnir]

....and climate change is due to global warming which we know is occurring but we can't for certain call it anthropogenic in nature.

Anthropogenic activities are contributing to speeding up the climate change. Many data shows slow fluctuating CO2 and temperature levels....until the Industrial revolution began in which the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere started skyrocketing correlating with higher temperature and more extreme weather events.

[login]

Are there people out there still denying climate change and global warming?

I thought we were beyond the doubt stage.

I think most of the world is on Bargaining with all them envrionazi's in their anger stage

I went through my depression (sorry for not being conservative enough for you)

but Acceptance is great, you will feel so much better after you get over here.

Come on we can all get through this together.

Shock, Denial, Bargaining, Guilt, Anxiety or Anger, Depression, Acceptance

We can't get caught up on that it is happening or who is responsible, we should be trying to get those few extra happy years in, and solve the issue by organized management of the critical period that is approaching, global war is what we must avoid, because that is the outcome if we don't pull together.

http://www.nativeremedies.com/articles/the-seven-stages-of-grief.html

Edited October 28, 2012 by login

[Sleipnir]

Are there people out there still denying climate change and global warming?

There are still people out there who denies evolution and the shape of the Earth.

[kairos]

Stephen Harper has been a major global warming denialist, and has actively suppressed scientists in Canada who study the environment. Canada is one of the highest per capita C02 producers in the world.

[TimG]

Are there people out there still denying climate change and global warming?

I thought we were beyond the doubt stage.

You premise is illogical and irrational because you *assume* that accepting that climate change is happening will lead to a desire to support your pet anti-CO2 policies. The decision on what policies to follow is governed by many factors including "which policies are likely to work". Virtually all of the anti-CO2 policies favored by the left do not work and must be discarded for that reason alone.

[Guest Peeves]

Yeh Nothing of the sort happened BH. Of course compared to the worst, Canada's little contribution is minor.

I think cows and ducks and pigs flatulence might be more significant over all, plus Gores house and cars and plane trips

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/07/23/3549975.htm

[kairos]

Polcies are not likely to work, if you don't pass them or worse. You drop out of the Kyoto Treaty, like Harper did who like his supporters obviously don't give a rats ass about the state of the environment, or those who have to suffere, because of their actions.

[Guest]

Stephen Harper has shown some admirable common sense when it comes to AGW.

I don't think he would deny that the climate is changing. I don't think he would deny that humans are causing it in some part.

I do think that he quite rightly says that we (Canada) are not in a position to do anything about it, and any efforts we make, that might actually cut our emissions significantly, would be pointless and destructive.

[TimG]

Polcies are not likely to work, if you don't pass them or worse. You drop out of the Kyoto Treaty

Kyoto is the poster boy of useless anti-CO2 policies which cost huge sums of money yet do nothing about the stated problem. The fact that environmentalists obsess about Kyoto despite its failure simply underscores that they have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion. If you want to propose useful policies that have a chance of addressing the stated problem at a reasonable cost then lets hear them. I won't hold my breath. Edited October 28, 2012 by TimG

[login]

There are still people out there who denies evolution and the shape of the Earth.

Lets leave evolution out of this.

[login]

You premise is illogical and irrational because...

" you *assume* that accepting that climate change is happening will lead to a desire to support your pet anti-CO2 policies."

ehhhn, sorry try again.

I beleive climate change is happening because I'm not an idiot who doesn't pay attention to rising water levels, the melting of polar ice, and climatological effects such as the expansion of the Sahara, the shrinking of global fresh water supplies, and other factors.

I feel that the net effect will be war, as the pentagon has planned, not capping co2 levels.

The decision on what policies to follow is governed by many factors including "which policies are likely to work". Virtually all of the anti-CO2 policies favored by the left do not work and must be discarded for that reason alone.

Global warming won't be stopped, my angle is planning for it, not against it, it is too late.

I'm not the left. I'm a rational moderate, social libertarian, and hardcore fiscal conservative.

My support for "environmental damage recouperation fees" are to prevent environmental dispoilation that polutes the water supply and environment in general, because it increases health care costs, and it a public asset that should be protected. Because abuse of the publics resources for private gain needs to be stemmed off insuring that the public resource is protected. This does not mean private action cannot occur but it means I cannot go and out and kill people to make a dollar. Shooting someone or poisoning their water has much the same effect. Its not ethical. I am ethical. CO2 is not very toxic, it is other contaminants I am far more concerned about, for instance estrogen in the water supply that is turning male fish into female fish and giving human men moobs, hormonal imbalances and psychological issues. I wouldn't be suprised if it ain't making people gay too. example "Researchers found that disabling the fucose mutarotase FucM gene in laboratory mice – which influences the levels of estrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the female mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up."

I don't like cold weather. It is redundant though because once the global mass redistributes the occurence called polar shift is highly likely and it is a crap shoot at that point.

Ok now your humour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lhs7VR52Bg

Edited October 28, 2012 by login

[Sleipnir]

Lets leave evolution out of this.

It was used as an example, calm down.

[TimG]

I beleive climate change is happening because I'm not an idiot who doesn't pay attention to rising water levels, the melting of polar ice, and climatological effects such as the expansion of the Sahara, the shrinking of global fresh water supplies, and other factors.

It appears you are someone who jumps on doomsday headlines and makes no effort to understand what is really happening. The Sahara is skrinking due to climate change:

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).

Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.

The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan.

http://news.national...een-sahara.html

I feel that the net effect will be war, as the pentagon has planned, not capping co2 levels.

This is the same military that drew up plans to invade Canada? http://en.wikipedia....ki/War_Plan_Red

It is the job of the Pentagon to draw up all kinds of unlikely scenarios and plan for them. The idea of a 'war due to climate change' is one of those unlikely scenarios.

Shooting someone or poisoning their water has much the same effect. Its not ethical. I am ethical.

We were talking about CO2. Now you are talking about water pollution. Sounds like more fuzzy logic. If you mainly care about real pollution then talk about real pollution. Don't post diatribes complaining about people who have a problem with anti-CO2 policies. Edited October 28, 2012 by TimG

[kairos]

I do think that he quite rightly says that we (Canada) are not in a position to do anything about it, and any efforts we make, that might actually cut our emissions significantly, would be pointless and destructive.

That's the biggest bullshit copout I've ever heard. If Stephen Harper is powerless to do something about it, then not only am I a monkeys uncle, but Harper the uncle of all Canadian Monkeys, shouldn't be in power, since he is completely ineffective/incompetant and in charge of the 2nd biggest country in the world.