0:00 Stuart Varney, Fox News
1:35 My video “The Evidence for Climate Change Without Computer Models or the IPCC” is at Youtube Video
4:06 Exchange with PrairieDoggedRez is on the forum at
4:40 The RSS trend line is calculated through an interactive graph at woodfortrees.org. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this site, and neither does the site’s owner (in a disclaimer.) I use it simply because this is the source PDR uses.
10:04 - Decadal temp graph from “The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes?” — Met Office, July 2013
14:14 - Graph of CO2 correlation from “Climate Sensitivity during the Phanerozoic: Lessons for the Future” - Royer, 2009.
So here are the notes I alluded to at the end of the video. Remember, you have to explain all the things carbon dioxide explains:
1) How did the Earth escape from its ice-bound conditions during the pre-Cambrian?
2) Why was the Earth much hotter than today during the Cambrian, even though solar output was much weaker.
3) What caused past temperature swings lasting millions of years, and why does CO2 correlate so well with these temperature swings over the last 500 million years?
4) What caused the ice sheets to melt during the most recent deglaciation?
5) What has caused temperatures to rise so steeply in the last 40 years?
6) Why have temperatures been hitting record highs over the last 18 years, even though all other factors have been conspiring to push temperatures down? What’s keeping them up?
And please don’t post these, for the reasons given:
Galactic rays did it
This is a hypothesis expounded by Nur Shaviv, so read Shaviv’s paper. Even if the hypothesis is sound, galactic rays work on periods of around 20 million years, not on decadal timescales, and Shaviv says they don’t explain recent warming (#5 on the list). Neither do they explain deglaciation (#4) or the escape from snowball Earth (#1).
Cosmic rays did it
Cosmic rays become more intense during weak periods of solar activity every 11 years. The hypothesis is that they seed clouds, and that clouds cool the Earth down. Whether or not they do seed clouds has still not been shown. But even if they do, clouds have a warming as well as a cooling effect, and most research shows their overall effect is neutral. And of course cosmic rays don’t explain the recent rise in temperature (#5), because solar output has been getting weaker, so there should be more cosmic rays and that is supposedly another cooling factor. Yet the Earth is not cooling. And cosmic rays don’t explain past temperature swings (#3) or the escape from snowball Earth (#1) or deglaciation (#4) etc.
The sun did it
Clearly not. The Earth was much hotter than today at a time when solar output was much weaker (#2 on the list). The sun can’t explain the escape from snowball Earth (#1) or the swings in temperature over the last 500 million years (#3) or the recent rise in temperature (#5). And while slightly greater insolation explains the spark that started deglaciation, it doesn’t explain what amplified this warming to melt a chunk of ice the size of a continent (#4).
God did it
Sign of desperation.
Another noble but likely futile effort by our intelligentsia:
Man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society, warns a joint report of two of the world’s leading scientific organizations.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, which is the national scientific academy of the United Kingdom, are releasing an unusual plain language report on climate change that addressed 20 issues in a question-and-answer format.
The NAS report goes along with this live webcast Thursday:
Here’s the PDF of the full report:
Here’s the catechism sub-set:
The short version, only 8 pages:
Here is the link to the Royal Society page:
Some reflections of own:
I expect Fox to roll out Krauthammer to dismiss it all as liberal propaganda, or some similar response from the usual suspects in the know-nothing industry.
Yet the tangled wrestling over climate change as an existential problem is not limited to the know-nothings of the American paleo/neo/libertarian-conservative political punditry.
The following is an example of what I consider an important social phenomenon regarding climate change and why our noble intelligentsia (and I use the phrase only mildly snarkily) have such a small effect on what our society is doing about AGW (and other matters):
Justin Gillis, an environmental reporter for The New York Times, said at a lecture in Hesburgh Library on Wednesday that he wants to awaken people to the urgency of the climate change.
But the reality is, according to the human experience, climate change is not “urgent”.
Indeed, the next paragraph goes on:
Gillis, one of only six American reporters covering the climate crisis full-time defined climate change as “a big, slow-moving, long-term problem.”
Without trying to sound too pedantic, for someone to declare an issue as “urgent” in one breath and then in the next describe it as “slow-moving, long-term” - then that person is incoherent.
What is happening in the Crimea right now is “urgent”, by human standards.
Gillis is all too easy an example of what I’ll label as the well intended but not quite self-aware 21st century American “progressive”. There is a real crevasse between an idealized world and our material world. In an ideal world knowledge should lead to a rational action, in this particular case one of self-preservation. Yet the problem with Homo sapiens, one of many, is that our actions cause effects that far, far out live us. If our actions are based, as evidence supports, on near term perceived risks and rewards, then “slow-moving, long-term” climate change will not have much of an influence on any single human’s behavior.
This conundrum is not a new revelation, but there are factions of the American progressive community that seem quite hesitant to discuss this openly. I suspect there are deeper motivations here, about the human need to keep our fears in the closets of our mind.
Climate change will prove to be an existential threat to some species currently on this planet. Whether that includes our own is not clear to me, but I am convinced we, collectively, have little intent to mitigate against these possibilities.
I’m glad our President was at least somewhat forceful when he stated in his 2014 State of the Union that “climate change is real.” And to those fools who say “Nuh-uh! It’s snowing in Atlanta!”, record warm temperatures are occurring in Alaska and there may be a scientific explanation:
A good measure of the magnitude of jet stream irregularity is the Arctic Oscillation, an indicator of short-term climate variability that, roughly speaking, tracks the strength of the jet stream. In extreme cases, like this week, the circumpolar jet stream—which typically locks the coldest of the cold air up by the North Pole where it belongs—can slow down and spill Arctic frigidity southward. The current Arctic Oscillation is even more negative than during the first polar vortex cold snap, earlier this month.
Research hints that this type of pattern can be triggered by the recent massive loss in Arctic sea ice due to the effects of human-induced climate change. One recent study which attempted to explain this counterintuitive “Warm Arctic—Cold Continents” phenomenon during similar patterns in the 2009-‘10 and 2010-‘11 winters called it “a major challenge” to understand, though the pattern is “consistent with continued loss of sea ice over the next 40 years.” Bottom line: Something weird is going on, but scientists are still trying to nail down exactly what it is.
durr hurr cold snap gorebull warming a hoax herp derp
Snow and ice are disappearing from the Arctic region at unprecedented rates, leaving behind relatively warmer open water, which is much less reflective to incoming sunlight than ice. That, among other factors, is causing the northern polar region of our planet to warm at a faster rate than the rest of the northern hemisphere. (And, just to state the obvious, global warming describes a global trend toward warmer temperatures, which doesn’t preclude occasional cold-weather extremes.)
Since the difference in temperature between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes helps drive the jet stream (which, in turn, drives most US weather patterns), if that temperature difference decreases, it stands to reason that the jet stream’s winds will slow down. Why does this matter?
Well, atmospheric theory predicts that a slower jet stream will produce wavier and more sluggish weather patterns, in turn leading to more frequent extreme weather. And, turns out, that’s exactly what we’ve been seeing in recent years. Superstorm Sandy’s uncharacteristic left hook into the New Jersey coast in 2012 was one such example of an extremely anomalous jet stream blocking pattern.
When these exceptionally wavy jet stream patterns occur mid-winter, it’s a recipe for cold air to get sucked southwards. This week, that’s happening in spectacular fashion.
The World Will Get Warmer: Study Illuminates When Variability Will No Longer Be Cover for Denialists
Climate change is a subject now burdened with political baggage to such an extent that in many nations political action is stifled, as here in the United States, yet the planet’s surface does not care about human politics and will continue to change, among which the surface average temperatures will get warmer.
How much warmer? Even more importantly, when will the temperature change get so noticeable as to affect everyday life?
Published today (9 Oct 2013) in Nature is a study on when the mean temperature around the world will regularly surpass the observed surface temperatures since regular observations started (about the mid 19th century)
Ecological and societal disruptions by modern climate change are critically determined by the time frame over which climates shift beyond historical analogues. Here we present a new index of the year when the projected mean climate of a given location moves to a state continuously outside the bounds of historical variability under alternative greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Using 1860 to 2005 as the historical period, this index has a global mean of 2069 (±18 years s.d.) for near-surface air temperature under an emissions stabilization scenario and 2047 (±14 years s.d.) under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario. Unprecedented climates will occur earliest in the tropics and among low-income countries, highlighting the vulnerability of global biodiversity and the limited governmental capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change. Our findings shed light on the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions if climates potentially harmful to biodiversity and society are to be prevented.
While the paper itself is behind a pay wall, there is a summary article on the Nature website: Climate Change Gets Clocked : Nature News & Comment
“Very soon, extreme events will become the norm,” says lead author Camilo Mora, an environmental researcher at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Because temperatures in the tropics vary little between seasons, even a slight increase in the average temperature could lead to unprecedented conditions — with negative consequences for ecosystems that are home to much of the world’s biodiversity. Many tropical nations also have limited economic capacity to adapt or otherwise respond to such threats.
The researchers at the Univ. of Hawaii have a website that summarizes their findings: The timing of new climates at which one can find the paper, graphics, supporting information, and also an interactive map that allows one to select your favorite local, to find what the models used by the team estimate for that local.
Yes, it will get warmer.
I live nowhere near the flood areas, but my sisters and their families live in Boulder and Colorado Springs. Last night my sister in Boulder was trapped for a few hours because streets on the north and south of her house turned into rivers. Her house still stands, thankfully. The Broadway bridge over Boulder Creek is usually about 15 feet from the water, yesterday the water was within inches of the bridge.
The Twitter hashtag #COFloods is a good resource for news and images on this significant weather event.
So far, about 172 people are unaccounted for in Boulder County. There are 4 confirmed fatalities. Residents were being rescued by helicopter all day today in the little mountain community of Jamestown, CO.
The weather is expected to dry out and we’ll get a more detailed picture of the damage. Initial reports aren’t looking good.
This flood has been reported in media as a “100-year flood,” though scientists are trying to change that. Meteorologists actually define this as a flood that has a .1% chance of happening on any given day. Very long odds, indeed.
Boulder is home to many scientists, so no doubt this weather event will be scrutinized and studied, as it should. With weather records going back hundreds of years and many many records being shattered regularly, climate science surely is something we as a species cannot ignore.
With those thoughts, here’s a cute picture taken from the floods.
More: Forecast the Facts
On July 11, Google introduced a major shift away from its “Don’t Be Evil” corporate motto, hosting a fundraiser for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the most notorious climate-science denier in Congress. In this satirical video, Heavy Crude Video’s Andy Cobb takes a hilarious look at the new Google. It may inspire you to finally make the switch to Bing.
Video here (one of the memes they’ve used is often posted here on LGF - see if you spot it as well :) )
(links to more info and articles about Google’s funding of climate deniers can be found on the Forecast the Facts homepage)
This idea that I saw tweeted by David Brin seems like the sanest approach to geo engineering to overcome AGW yet.
If the undeveloped billions keep burning wood and coal AGW is a terrible certainty. Those billions want the modern high energy lifestyle we live. And why not? We all aspire. So where will that energy come from? Hint-wind is not gonna get us there
Impact Partners presents PANDORA’S PROMISE, the groundbreaking new film by Academy-Award®-nominated director Robert Stone. The atomic bomb and meltdowns like Fukushima have made nuclear power synonymous with global disaster. But what if we’ve got nuclear power wrong? An audience favorite at the Sundance Film Festival, PANDORA’S PROMISE asks whether the one technology we fear most could save our planet from a climate catastrophe, while providing the energy needed to lift billions of people in the developing world out of poverty. In his controversial new film, Stone tells the intensely personal stories of environmentalists and energy experts who have undergone a radical conversion from being fiercely anti to strongly pro-nuclear energy, risking their careers and reputations in the process. Stone exposes this controversy within the environmental movement head-on with stories of defection by heavy weights including Stewart Brand, Richard Rhodes, Gwyneth Cravens, Mark Lynas and Michael Shellenberger. Undaunted and fearlessly independent, PANDORA’S PROMISE is a landmark work that is forever changing the conversation about the myths and science behind this deeply emotional and polarizing issue.
This has got to be a critical tipping point.
No land intersects the 60° circle of latitude south of Earth’s equator. Instead, that parallel marks the northern limit of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica. At this latitude, swift, prevailing westerly winds continually churn the waters as they circumnavigate the continent, earning the region the nickname “the screaming ’60s.”
But the Southern Ocean plays a more benign role in the global carbon budget: Its waters now take up about 50% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, thanks in large part to the so-called “biological pump.” Phytoplankton, tiny photosynthesizing organisms that bloom in the nutrient-rich waters of the Southern Ocean, suck up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When the creatures die, they sink to the ocean floor, effectively sequestering that carbon for hundreds or even thousands of years. It also helps that carbon dioxide is more soluble in colder waters, and that the churning winds mix the waters at the surface, allowing the gases to penetrate the waters more easily.
There are signs, however, that the ocean’s capacity to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide has been decreasing over the past few decades, says climate scientist Samuel Jaccard of ETH Zurich in Switzerland. For one thing, the carbon doesn’t stay sunk. Even as phytoplankton blooms sequester new carbon, the upwelling of deep, subsurface water currents in the region bring old, once-sequestered carbon back to the surface waters, allowing for exchange with the atmosphere. Meanwhile, the ozone hole has strengthened winds in the region, which may be hindering the carbon storage.
For clues to the future, climate scientists look to past glacial-interglacial cycles. Researchers have a record of atmospheric carbon dioxide stretching back millions of years thanks to ice cores from Antarctica, which contain trapped gas bubbles, snapshots of ancient air. But for the other half of the picture—what happened in the oceans during that time—there is only a relatively short record extending back about 20,000 years to the last glacial cycle. Ocean sediment records, which contain evidence of carbon and nutrients, are one way to reconstruct that history.