Last Build Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:31:45 +0000
Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:31:45 +0000http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/03/16/the-next-great-global-warming-hiatus-is-coming/#68973082372b
... the long-term rise can be easily masked by short-term variations, and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study -- the one conducted by global warming skeptics that reached the same conclusions as the rest of the climate science community -- reached the following conclusion: Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. There are prominent climatologists who have made these arguments before (who will likely make these arguments again), and they will be quoted in a great many news outlets and by numerous science writers. If you see an article that cites one of them claiming global warming has stopped and it isn't yet 2033, the 17 years from now that we're required to wait to see if the rise continues, please refer them back to this article....
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:38:42 +0000@ 105 You said, "Why do I get the increasing impression that nothing is going to change, and consequences will hit down the line. Can anyone offer anything optimistic to help me counter despair and negativity about humanity in general?" Maybe this might help? Can we reverse Global warming? https://www.quora.com/Can-we-reverse-global-warming/answer/Scott-Strough
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:01:41 +0000Climate Mitigation Engineering: possibly new approach Hello, I would like to know if anyone is working on using ocean plankton to mitigate Climate Change using Emiliania huxleyi? It is the single biggest source of Oxygen on Earth. Eats Carbon like there is no tomorrow, and at the rate Methane is dissociating in the Artic there may not be one for kids under 12. Is it feasible to select and drain appropriate swamps or lakes in the Artic areas and lay pipe or cannels to bring in sea/ocean water? The latitude would of course be important. The plankton may prove to be the most cost effective way to reduce atmospheric Carbon. To paraphrase Bill Gates, we need to consider every option. Windsor ON CA 226-788-5548 Thanks, Jeff
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:55:42 +0000As climate change begins to bite, is there any event or set of events that we can expect to occur that will make it impossible for most people to deny the reality of the phenomenon? I say "most people" because, as Michael Mann puts it, there will always be flat-earthers. Also, if there is such an event, when will it likely occur? An example of a likely event is an ice-free Arctic in September, although even this might not persuade the doubters. As a friend cynically remarked, the probable response would be, "Oh, good. We've melted the Arctic. Now we can drill for oil!"
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:20:35 +0000Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: “El Niño was a factor this year, but both 2015 and 2016 would have been records even without it.” He said about 90% of the warming signal in 2016 was due to rising greenhouse gas emissions. He expects 2017 to be another extremely hot year.
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:49:54 +0000Stop feeding the troll. He is almost certainly deliberately posting out of date science on the MWP to bait you. Post 39 is good, because its a concise accurate response, but now is the time to move on. Don't over do the responses. The trolls agenda is normally to distract from the original article, (which he has done) get you angry, and promote doubt and confusion. The troll is probably paid, and a professional lobbyist, and is an attention seeker by nature. The troll is probably educated enough to see we are warming the planet, but doesn't like climate science and is willfully ignorant, because of vested interests of some type. In many cases they don't like environmentalism or taxes etc, so there will be some ideological baggage leading to deliberate denial of the science. The troll likely has sociopathic tendencies, because most of us would be too ashamed to be so brazen and misleading or dishonest. You won't ever convince the troll or change their mind. If you are worried about what general readers think of the trolls comments, innoculate them quickly with one good response that links to the real research, and then move on quickly and ignore them.
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:21:38 +0000You probably know this already - it's official. 2016 is Earth's warmest year, culminating in a remarkable 3-year streak of record warm years for the globe https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201612 And while the Arctic continues it warmer winter, an unusual half a foot of snow in Corinth southern Greece (probably the polar vortex etc see Francis), Australia is already looking to make another new high temperature record for January.
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:04:36 +0000Realclimate needs to address land use impacts more. Most of you come from atmospheric science and physics, and do a great job there, but... The Canadian boreal forest is still being clearcut every day for fluffy toilet paper and two by fours, global forest land is being cleared at a furious rate to grow cattle feed, and the US subsidizes continued destruction of remnant healthy forests. Alternatives to forest products are available, and that transition might even be easier than cutting back power plant emissions. It's true that land use effects on emissions are very difficult to quantify, but those efforts are improving. Please dedicate a couple of posts to this area. Suggested resources might be Ruddiman, Harte, Franklin (formerly OSU faculty) and others. Any of them would be a great addition to the RC team, but I would at least like to see more of their work presented and discussed here.
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:28:16 +0000T 123: in the IPCC reports/RCPs including 2013 AR5 no feedbacks of any kind are included in any future scenarios be it temps, ice extent, co2, ch4, water vapor etc. BPL: Perhaps not in the emissions, but the climate models certainly include all of those.
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:45:52 +0000Every scientific discipline generates a few diehard contrarians who refuse to accept facts and who keep plugging away at their pet theories - AIDS/HIV research has Peter Duesberg, who claims HIV doesn't cause AIDS, global extinction research has Gerta Keller, who claims an asteroid impact played no role in the extinction of dinosaurs, etc. The difference is that such contrarians don't get funding to run conferences and promote their nonsensical views from the fossil fuel industry. https://www.desmogblog.com/petr-chylek People like that won't change their minds or their stance because of evidence that conflicts with their beliefs, however. At best they can be publicly discredited as unscientific charlatans or propaganda producers in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby.