Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Brian R. VanCise]

http://news.msn.com/world/global-warming-dials-up-our-risks-un-report-says

 

[Flying Crane]

Vice on HBO recently did a story about it as well. They went to Greenland and took a look at the glacier melting, it's happening far faster than anyone realized. The predictions made even five years ago are now proving to fall far short of the melting rates. We are already seeing damage done 60 years ahead of predictions made even five years ago. Whatever predictions are being made, reality is showing to be much faster.

Similar stories have been published in National Geographic as well, September 2013 for starters...

It's very troubling.

 

[billc]

Or...

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/05/greenland-ice-melt-calving

But don't start building your flood-proof Ark quite yet: Advanced imaging released in August suggested the ice sheet is capable of quickly reversing its melting habit. And a study out today in Nature finds that the sped-up ice loss on the water's edge, while still a problem, is unlikely to get much worse, even with a big rise in global temperatures. Taken together, these two studies suggest that Greenland's ice melt problem isn't as bad as experts like Box had predicted.

For the Nature study, Faezeh Nick, a researcher at Norway's University Centre in Svalbard, led a team that took the closest-ever look at so-called "outlet glaciers," the 200 or so outermost arms of the ice sheet that flow straight into the sea. Their findings suggest that the increase in melting rate is about to slow down, suggesting that in a medium warming scenario these glaciers will likely contribute just 19-30 millimeters to global sea levels by 2100. That's much less than if the current acceleration of melting were to persist,but still a noteworthy share of the quarter- to half-meter rise projected by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/media-claims-that-greenlands-ice-loss.html

The authors find an increase in the

natural glacier calving process in this regional, relatively tiny portion of the Greenland ice sheet. According to the authors, this is due to regional warming found at the site "HKH" marked by an "X" in fig. 2a below. The key word here is regional, which indicates these processes are localized and not characteristic of global warming. In fact, the authors also looked at another nearby site "DH" marked by an "X" in fig. 2a below and found that this site cooled over the past decade.

Examination of Figure 2 below reveals that over the past 34 years 1978-2012:

• Annual sea surface temperature anomaly has cooled at both sites DH and HKH
• June-August summer temperatures sswarmed at site HGH but cooled at site DH, and are only about 2C above the freezing point
• Annual air temperatures at both sites increased, but are about 10 degrees cooler than the freezing point

These localized, regional changes were not predicted by climate models and are not supportive of the CAGW meme, and in fact suggest that other processes are responsible. For example, geothermal sources have recently been discovered under the Greenland ice sheet, which create lakes under the ice sheet and lubricate the natural slide to calving in the ocean. In addition, storm activity and winds largely control Arctic sea ice, which can act as an impediment to glacier calving.

 

[ballen0351]

Or...

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/05/greenland-ice-melt-calving



http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/media-claims-that-greenlands-ice-loss.html

Your facts mean nothing if they don't go along with the preapproved beliefs

 

[K-man]

How did I know we could rely on Bill to put our minds at ease?
:hmm:

 

[ballen0351]

How did I know we could rely on Bill to put our minds at ease?
:hmm:

My mind was never stressed in the first place

 

[Big Don]

Vice on HBO recently did a story about it as well. They went to Greenland and took a look at the glacier melting, it's happening far faster than anyone realized. The predictions made even five years ago are now proving to fall far short of the melting rates. We are already seeing damage done 60 years ahead of predictions made even five years ago. Whatever predictions are being made, reality is showing to be much faster.

Similar stories have been published in National Geographic as well, September 2013 for starters...

It's very troubling.

Didn't some global warming believers go for a little boat ride in to Antarctica last December? To study the rapid melting... how did that work out for them?

 

[Flying Crane]

Didn't some global warming believers go for a little boat ride in to Antarctica last December? To study the rapid melting... how did that work out for them?

dunno. why don't you tell us about it?

 

[billc]

I like this look at global warming...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/global-warming-what-global-warming.php

Steve is, I believe, cloistered as he plows through the IPCC’s latest report on the baleful consequences of “climate change.” Meanwhile, alarmist headlines are everywhere. But more sophisticated observers are asking, global warming? What global warming?


At Watts Up With That, Christopher Moncton adds the just-reported HadCRUT4 numbers to the dataset of datasets, which shows zero warming this millennium:

 

[Flying Crane]

I like this look at global warming...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/global-warming-what-global-warming.php

from here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_blog.htm
Christopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer. While not formally trained in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate skeptics, having even been invited to testify to the U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions.
For a comprehensive rebuttal of many of Christopher Monckton's arguments, check out this presentation by Professor John Abraham. Abraham has compiled many examples where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites. Check out this PDF of Monckton quotes versus the scientists who in their own words explain how Monckton misrepresents their research.


typical.

 

[billc]

and the cofounder of green peace...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ade-climate-change-says-greenpeace-co-founder

There is no scientific proof of man-made climate change, a co-founder of Greenpeace told a committee of the U.S. Senate, rebutting claims made by environmental activists, prominent politicians, and a steady stream of media reports of a nearly unanimous "consensus" among scientists about "overwhelming" evidence that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases — mainly carbon dioxide — are responsible for global warming.


"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," Patrick Moore said in his prepared remarks to members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Tuesday. A Canadian ecologist and business consultant, Moore was a co-founder of the environmental activist group Greenpeace as a Ph.D. student in 1971. Moore left the group in 1986, after it made what he described as a "sharp turn to the political left " and began espousing policies he could not longer support, though opposition to global warming was not then among them.


"Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now," Moore said. But increases in the earth's surface and atmospheric temperatures are nothing new, he reminded the senators, as he noted little correlation between increases in carbon dioxide emissions and a heating of the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he noted, has declared it "extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming trend since the mid-20th century. "

"'Extremely likely' is not a scientific term but rather a judgment as in a court of law," Moore said. "The IPCC defines 'extremely likely' as a '95-100% probability.' But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been 'invented' as a construct within the IPCC report to express 'expert judgment', as determined by the IPCC contributors." Projections based on "sophisticated computer models" have led to warnings of dire consequences from anticipated increases in temperatures worldwide, Moore said. The historical record suggests otherwise, he argued.


The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming "since the mid-20th century," which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940, there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year "pause" until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.


The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to "human influence." They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase "since the mid-20th century." Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by "human influence" when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

 

[billc]

A quick look at the polar bear populations...

http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming

We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html

Indeed, when they were put on the US Endangered Species list in 2008, they were the first to be registered solely because of the perceived threat of global warming.
One prominent scientist said their numbers would be reduced by 70 per cent by 2050 while global warming proponents – including Al Gore and Sir David Attenborough – used emotive imagery to highlight their ‘demise’.
Yet there is one small problem: many polar bear populations worldwide are now stable, if not increasing.

See, it is important to use polar bears because people like them...so scare people about their plight and they won't question global warming...

Those who insist the bear population is healthy are not popular.
Dr Susan Crockford, an evolutionary biologist and expert on polar bears, was criticised as a ‘climate change denier’ when she published a paper called Ten Good Reasons Not To Worry About Polar Bears earlier this year.
Population forecasting expert Dr J Scott Armstrong agrees: ‘The decision by the US Senate in 2008 to name the polar bear as an endangered species because of global warming was based on flawed information.
'The fact is it is almost impossible to get an accurate figure for the number of polar bears – they do not stay in one territory.’
Seeing the polar bear in the wild is a privilege – but perhaps, thankfully, no longer the rare sight we had previously been led to believe.

Here are the ten reasons...

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/26/ten-good-reasons-not-to-worry-about-polar-bears/

5) Population decreases in polar bear numbers attributed to earlier sea ice breakup in Western Hudson Bay (see 4, above) have not been anywhere near as severe as the catastrophic decline that took place in 1974 in the eastern Beaufort Sea, which was associated with exceptionally thick sea ice. The modest decline in the Western Hudson Bay population that took place between 1998 and 2004 (down 22%) pales in comparison to the 1974 Beaufort event, when ringed seals numbers (i.e. polar bear food) dropped by 80% or more and numbers of polar bears plummeted. Similar events took place in 1984 and 1992, which means that three precipitous population declines due to heavy ice have taken place in this polar bear population over the last 40 years – but each time, numbers rebounded a few years later. In other words, due to entirely natural causes, polar bear numbers can fluctuate quite dramatically over relatively short periods because of the highly variable sea ice habitat they live in.

 

[billc]

And a different take on the IPCC report...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, thelatest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

Here’s what the reports say:

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO[SUB]2[/SUB]levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

 

[K-man]

I feel there are four questions.

1. Is there global warming?
2. If there is global warming, is it being contributed to by man made emissions?
3. If man made emissions are causing global warming, can it be reversed?
4. If global warming is not caused by man made emissions, can it be reversed?

The latest evidence, released this week, says yes and yes to the first two questions. Unfortunately, I think the answer to the last two questions is no and no.

The weight of scientific evidence it that global warming is happening. It will be interesting to see what climate change skeptics will say about the latest information.
:asian:

 

[Tames D]

I feel there are four questions.

1. Is there global warming?
2. If there is global warming, is it being contributed to by man made emissions?
3. If man made emissions are causing global warming, can it be reversed?
4. If global warming is not caused by man made emissions, can it be reversed?

The latest evidence, released this week, says yes and yes to the first two questions. Unfortunately, I think the answer to the last two questions is no and no.

The weight of scientific evidence it that global warming is happening. It will be interesting to see what climate change skeptics will say about the latest information.
:asian:

I'll add a question 5 to this list:

What's with the polar vortex we have experienced lately?
I'll admit I'm not an authority on global warming, but after the record freezing temps we had, it's hard to understand the global warming argument. Are the two unrelated?

 

[drop bear]

I'll add a question 5 to this list:

What's with the polar vortex we have experienced lately?
I'll admit I'm not an authority on global warming, but after the record freezing temps we had, it's hard to understand the global warming argument. Are the two unrelated?

Climate is not weather.

 

[K-man]

I'll add a question 5 to this list:

What's with the polar vortex we have experienced lately?
I'll admit I'm not an authority on global warming, but after the record freezing temps we had, it's hard to understand the global warming argument. Are the two unrelated?

Not that I claim to have a lot of knowledge on the topic either but I think it is to do with the reduction in the polar icecap meaning less heat is reflected back into space. As a result the polar vortex weakens and cannot keep the cold air mass together. As a result a cold air mass breaks away and heads south over North America producing the freezing conditions you have been experiencing. I fear that in the foreseeable future it is likely to be a regular occurrence.
:asian:

 

[billc]

Climate is not weather.

And since they can't accurately predict "weather" 72 hours out, it is a little weird that they try to tell us they can predict "climate" 10-20-100 years out...

 

[Flying Crane]

and the cofounder of green peace...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ade-climate-change-says-greenpeace-co-founder

um... so? if this is an accurate representation of his position, he too is wrong.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Actually Billc scientists in general are pretty good at what they do. Of course they are not always perfect or right but....... when the vast majority of them believe that some thing is happening don't you think we should pay attention? I mean after all you or I are not professionals in this area. Should we not listen closely to what the professionals in this area are saying?

The Vice show mentioned before about Greenland's ice melting was pretty good. Very interesting in that as the ice melts and water rises we see climate change and this causes dry conditions with more fires, polar vortex, etc. The fires in turn cause more ash on the ice in Greenland which in turn causes it yet again to melt faster. It was a very interesting show! Greenland's ice is melting and well it is undeniable at this point!


From all accounts with "global warming and climate change" you are going to see more extreme weather such as more fires in California, freezing conditions in the east, etc. Changes in the overall weather pattern. One thing does appear to be a for sure is that with the ice melting in Greenland our sea level will rise. They are also are seeing the same conditions now starting in Antarctica.

All the reputable scientists believe in "global warming" or "climate change". I find it interesting that people seem to want to cling to the idea that we are not seeing some kind of significant change. We have some constants in our life and that is that change and chaos are going to happen. Why is it hard to believe in "global climate change"? It is almost like shouting "move along nothing to see here" when there is really some thing to see! It is almost unfathomable to believe that we as humans are not affecting change on this planet. Science supports this and if you want to visually see where we have affected some change I will be happy to take you to some places on this planet and show you were we as a species have definitely affected change!

I do understand not wanting change. However change always happens and nothing always stays the same. I also understand wanting to protect your interests. So by not acknowledging change that is happening an industry or country can continue on its course emitting more pollution, etc. I find it fascinating how some people have followed the big business line in this manner. Surely you see this? Or has the other side been played by the scientists? What then do they really have to gain?