The only meaningless graph is the one you posted of fatalities. WTF does that have to do with this discussion?


Tornado days doesn't rely on the fujita scale (and retroactive measurements) and reduces the effect of new technologies.

[Edited on May 2, 2011 at 1:02 PM. Reason : its a good graph.]

5/2/2011 12:54:48 PM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110504084032.htm

Quote :

"Effects of Climate Change in Arctic More Extensive Than Expected, Report Finds ScienceDaily (May 4, 2011) — A much reduced covering of snow, shorter winter season and thawing tundra: The effects of climate change in the Arctic are already here. And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously thought. This is what emerges from a new research report on the Arctic, presented in Copenhagen this week. Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report. Together with Terry Callaghan, a researcher at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Margareta is the editor of the two chapters on snow and permafrost. "The changes we see are dramatic. And they are not coincidental. The trends are unequivocal and deviate from the norm when compared with a longer term perspective," she says. The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming up fastest today. Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years. As a consequence, the snow cover in May and June has decreased by close to 20 per cent. The winter season has also become almost two weeks shorter -- in just a few decades. In addition, the temperature in the permafrost has increased by between half a degree and two degrees. "There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw," says Margareta Johansson. Large quantities of carbon are stored in the permafrost. "Our data shows that there is significantly more than previously thought. There is approximately double the amount of carbon in the permafrost as there is in the atmosphere today," says Margareta Johansson. The carbon comes from organic material which was "deep frozen" in the ground during the last ice age. As long as the ground is frozen, the carbon remains stable. But as the permafrost thaws there is a risk that carbon dioxide and methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, will be released, which could increase global warming. "But it is also possible that the vegetation which will be able to grow when the ground thaws will absorb the carbon dioxide. We still know very little about this. With the knowledge we have today we cannot say for sure whether the thawing tundra will absorb or produce more greenhouse gases in the future," says Margareta Johansson. Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic's albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change. The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees. In Canada, the uppermost metres of permafrost will thaw on approximately one fifth of the surface currently covered by permafrost. The equivalent figure for Alaska is 57 per cent. The length of the winter season and the snow coverage in the Arctic will continue to decrease and the glaciers in the area will probably lose between 10 and 30 per cent of their total mass. All this within this century and with grave consequences for the ecosystems, existing infrastructure and human living conditions. New estimates also show that by 2100, the sea level will have risen by between 0.9 and 1.6 metres, which is approximately twice the increase predicted by the UN's panel on climate change, IPCC, in its 2007 report. This is largely due to the rapid melting of the Arctic icecap. Between 2003 and 2008, the melting of the Arctic icecap accounted for 40 per cent of the global rise in sea level. "It is clear that great changes are at hand. It is all happening in the Arctic right now. And what is happening there affects us all," says Margareta Johansson. The report "Impacts of climate change on snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic" has been compiled by close to 200 polar researchers. It is the most comprehensive synthesis of knowledge about the Arctic that has been presented in the last six years. The work was organised by the Arctic Council's working group for environmental monitoring (the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) and will serve as the basis for the IPCC's fifth report, which is expected to be ready by 2014. Besides Margareta Johansson, Torben Christensen from Lund University also took part in the work. More information on the report and The Artic as a messenger for global processes - climate change and pollution conference in Copenhagen can be found at: http://amap.no/Conferences/Conf2011/ "

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 9:53 PM. Reason : ]

5/5/2011 9:52:56 PM

^Did you miss the studies that have shown the recent warming there to be caused by the changed wind patterns?

5/6/2011 10:12:02 AM

oh, i forgot that wind patterns have nothing to do with climate.

5/6/2011 10:13:31 AM

Sorry, most people are implying any temp change is from AGW. If you're not doing that by posting the above story then I apologize.

5/6/2011 10:51:28 AM

my personal feeling is that the climate is a very complicated system and the majority of people arguing for one side or the other is not as informed as they think they are.

My non-expert view is that it is shortsighted to think that humans don't have an impact on the climate, but it is also wrong to assume that every change in the climate is necessarily caused by humans. Yes, maybe I'm a fence sitter in some people's eyes, but arguments made on each polar end are usually oversimplified and overstate facts/research findings.

The reason I posted the article is that the climate of that area is most definitely changing rapidly and since this is a thread about climate change i decided to post it in here.

5/6/2011 1:57:00 PM

here ill oversimplify it even more:

"theres a lot of money to be made off of global warming."

the end.

5/6/2011 2:10:37 PM

Quote :

"theres a lot of money to be made off of global warming. the status quo "

5/6/2011 2:19:44 PM

not really. the status quo is boring.

people like the boogeyman- we lost the USSR/communism/etc

replaced it with muslims/terrorists/global warming/etc

i hope our next scarefad is:

1) rabid animals
2) wooly adelgids
3) artificial sweetner
4) jews
5) 4-cylinder cars

5/6/2011 3:34:41 PM

^gets it

5/6/2011 4:19:47 PM

I'm with Smath on this. I've maintained that humans should be responsible for any contribution we're having on climate change/destablization whether that amount is 3% or 30%. Granted it's hard to parse out ancillary components to any such change but to take the apathetic view that we should do nothing because it's inconvenient is downright unacceptable.

5/6/2011 5:14:10 PM

We could also invade every nation on the planet to spread democracy, but doing so is inconvenient, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion.

5/6/2011 5:34:34 PM

Says the advocate of pollution...

5/6/2011 8:03:01 PM

Smath hit the nail on the head. You are talking about a system with many many variables that is consequently almost impossible to predict. That being said it is pretty idiotic to think that 6,916,892,575 people do not have a detrimental effect of some type.

Quote :

"not really. the status quo is boring."

Are you really this stupid? Of fucking course there is money being made off of the status quo. If there wasn't there would be no resistance to the idea. Implementing more ecologically responsible technologies/ practices is expensive as hell (often to the point of economic impossibility). The only actual solution to humanities problems (both potential and actual) is population reduction.

5/7/2011 8:12:18 AM

^ But it is perfectly possible to make predictions. We have already doubled CO2 in the atmosphere in the 20th century and increased the temperature about 1 degree, the effects seem to have been entirely beneficial to everyone, longer growing season for humans and a northern spread of biomass in the northern hemisphere as forests march north overtaking tundra. Doubling CO2 again should again increase the temperature 1 degree, small enough to confidently predict the outcome: not much. We have fossil records of earlier periods when the earth was far warmer than even this and that planet seems to have been even more conducive to life than the current one.

5/7/2011 9:23:26 AM

Quote :

"i actually get QUITE offended when someone suggests to me im going to have a hard time adapting to a paltry 2-3 degrees. fuck you sirs, i say- i am quite ingenious and so were my ancestors. i know to burrow if an asteroid hits. i know to build a catamaran if the ice caps melt and horde dirt, limes, and cigarettes. i know to buy an australian 1973 ford falcon with a push-button supercharger in the event of nuclear holocaust. i know to surround myself with dogs in case metal endoskeleton battle chassis' start covering themselves with organic tissue. i know that in any of these events im going to have to recycle and drink my own urine. someone PLEASE tell me why i should give a fuck about global warming when truly the only way it's affecting me is through increased annoyance. if the best you can come up with is my children's children's children will face an unknown future then i say sucks to their assmar. ive always known they would grow up in either "the stand" or "star trek." best of luck to them- in the meantime, have fun being alarmist pansies and ill try to head you off in any way possible (mostly through ridiculous movie references). personally i believe this to be a very minor issue in the grand timeline of the human story. if im wrong and it's truly as terrible as we're made to believe then fine- humanity needs something to snap it out of this apathetic funk it's in. while i might be a happy and willing participant in this retarded-ass 21st century, im still too smart to be affected by this. as a matter of fact, when i started writing this rant, i turned off the AC in my apartment- it has risen exactly 2 degrees in here and is so much nicer! again, fuck you liberal trash- in your perfect world the best you can hope for is the ability to say "i told you so." sincerely, hemorrhoid rogers"

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 7:44 PM. Reason : comma]

5/7/2011 7:43:56 PM

Quote :

"We have fossil records of earlier periods when the earth was far warmer than even this and that planet seems to have been even more conducive to life than the current one"

This is happening way too fast for species to be able to migrate or adapt at the same rate. As a result of this "gradual change", we are losing species at an alarming rate all over the planet.

5/7/2011 11:11:24 PM

Facts not in evidence.

But if that is the case, then get your car and help the species move. Compared to habitat loss and invasive species, global warming is the least of their worries.

5/8/2011 12:59:15 AM

climate change IS habitat loss

5/8/2011 9:57:23 AM

^are you an alias of someone else that used to argue in here? B/c your posts lack common sense and reason. You haven't said anything that supports your argument that humans (in the form of CO2 emissions) have impacted the planet negatively.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM. Reason : k]

5/9/2011 1:14:38 PM

I heard Rush say something rather disturbing the other day when he lumped together climate change/global warming, the hole in the ozone layer and the exacerbating effects of CFCs, and acid rain calling them all an environmental hoax and a lie. Now don't mistake my intent as a ploy to categorize you people in with the likes of him but it made me curious if this was a universal opinion among those on the right and I am just oblivious to it because I live in my own little tree-hugger bubble.

5/9/2011 3:23:22 PM

CFCs, acid rain, or global warming, none of them are capable of destroying the biosphere or any way rendering the planet unlivable. Anyone who says they could is lying and perpetrating a hoax.

5/9/2011 3:35:54 PM

define unlivable

5/9/2011 3:40:17 PM

the biosphere or a biosphere?

5/9/2011 3:43:11 PM

A human die-off event bad enough to cause America's population to shrink.

^ "the" was the correct word. Various biospheres around the world are already shot for reasons that have nothing to do with the three hoaxes mentioned.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/9/2011 3:47:55 PM

I swear some of these people look at the caricature the left portrays them as and then tries to live up to it.

It boggles the mind.

5/9/2011 3:48:52 PM

The point was that while the environmental problems listed should be dealt with, they do not represent the end of the world and most other problems deserve more attention.

To be more direct: the lie being told by environmentalists is the magnitude of the problem, not that sulfur in the air doesn't cause acid rain.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/9/2011 3:54:38 PM

Quote :

"and most other problems deserve more attention"

which problems would you like to give attention?

5/9/2011 4:17:14 PM

oh man this thread is heating up!

GET IT

5/9/2011 4:19:59 PM

Nobody is saying the world will end. Don't create a false argument just to have something to debunk.

5/9/2011 5:23:55 PM

^^^ The deficit needs work. War is still a problem, particularly ending the current ones. Localized water and air pollution are still problems. The tax regime needs work. All of these problems the government needs to deal with more urgently than the ones listed.

^ "we're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the future of human civilization" - Al Gore

5/9/2011 8:31:34 PM

it destroys the future and replaces it with a more grim one. Life will change as we know it but it won't end completely. Billions may die when fresh drinking water runs out or we will subsidize drinking water for the world, making everyone poor. Either that or you will have water wars and billions of refugees crossing borders. Not the end but it definitely doesn't look good.

[Edited on May 9, 2011 at 9:42 PM. Reason : us will go on and just move out of flood prone areas like we did new orleans. ]

5/9/2011 9:42:17 PM

Such is the myth/hoax. There is no scientific basis for your position. The best science can say is a one degree rise in temperatures, about the same as was experienced in the 20th century, which was barely noticeable.

5/10/2011 9:16:03 AM

Its factual that carbon dioxide is increasing and its factual that it causes a rise in temperatures and its factual that glaciers are melting and its factual that people rely on that melt for water and its factual that freshwater is already running out due to demand and not supply. Its also factual that most of the world lives near sea level and a small rise will displace millions.

5/10/2011 10:57:35 AM

Only if they want to move. Existing sea walls should be sufficient for nearly all cities, may need to be raised a foot or two in a few cities.

5/10/2011 11:31:35 AM

Quote :

"The best science can say is a one degree rise in temperatures, about the same as was experienced in the 20th century, which was barely noticeable."

...correct that 1 degree F is predicted.

...assuming that every man-made thing that emits CO2 stops right now.

5/10/2011 11:35:49 AM

Quote :

"Existing sea walls should be sufficient for nearly all cities, may need to be raised a foot or two in a few cities."

You're implying that all cities have sea walls. Some, if not most, coastal communities realize that seas walls are a horrendous idea that merely serve to devastate beaches and coastlines.

5/10/2011 11:39:43 AM

Or, more accurately, most cities currently use natural terrain features as a more than sufficient sea wall.

^^ Such is the myth. There is no scientific basis to "believe that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks."

5/10/2011 11:48:28 AM

^bingo. Go look for a factual link. We won't hold our breath as you search for something that doesn't exist.

5/10/2011 11:57:23 AM

so are there people out there who actually believe that the earth is not getting warmer and polar ice caps are not melting and this has no affect on us as humans?

5/10/2011 12:28:12 PM

Just making sure your weren't trying to perpetuate the asinine notion that artificial sea walls were somehow a good idea....

5/10/2011 12:36:26 PM

Quote :

"believe that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks"

In terms of the raw temperature change, the numbers from the IPCC are 3-4 times what you would get based exclusively on radiative forcing assumptions. No one contests the greenhouse effect of CO2, or that we've quantified it well. Given ppm concentration, you get W/m^2 forcing, giving forcing, you get change in temperature.

I wouldn't call that being dominated by positive feedbacks. In fact, it is my belief that the IPCC only asserts the bare minimum that is absolutely concrete science. The reality is that many scientists DO believe that we may be dominated by positive feedbacks, in which case you can take that temperature graph and put it in the shredder. This view is that the Earth moves away from its past equilibrium point and finds a new equilibrium point where the ice caps are melted, the permafront and ocean floor methane is released, and we're in something like the Jurassic era in terms of atmosphere conditions, which humans can barely live in.

I know you wanted to get the "conservative" estimate from the scientists. But what you didn't realize is that the common prediction you hear is already such a conservative estimate.

5/10/2011 1:08:14 PM

"The IPCC says that greenhouse gas effects in isolation will cause about 1-1.2C of warming by 2100"
This is where the science ends. There is no scientific basis to believe the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks sufficient to turn this 1C into something catastrophic.

That said, while the Jurassic period was quite warm, on what basis can you claim it was unlivable for humans?

5/10/2011 1:51:21 PM

Quote :

"so are there people out there who actually believe that the earth is not getting warmer and polar ice caps are not melting and this has no affect on us as humans?"

Have you read this thread? Other than the occasional troll there's nobody saying that.

5/10/2011 4:35:10 PM

Quote :

"on what basis can you claim it was unlivable for humans?"

This guy:

5/10/2011 4:37:07 PM

Good luck building a sea wall around Bangladesh. Good luck bring freshwater to india and china. Who is going to pay for all of that desalination? Where is the energy going to come from to boil all of that water? How will rice crops be irrigated?

5/10/2011 5:50:01 PM

Quote :

"Its factual that carbon dioxide is increasing and its factual that it causes a rise in temperatures"

yes, but it is NOT linear, as the IPCC believes it to be. It may very well be logarithmic, which means that you get less of a forcing effect for higher levels. troll.

Quote :

"No one contests the greenhouse effect of CO2, or that we've quantified it well."

that couldn't be further from the fucking truth.

Quote :

"In terms of the raw temperature change, the numbers from the IPCC are 3-4 times what you would get based exclusively on radiative forcing assumptions."

Yep, and the IPCC's numbers have been shown to be fatally flawed, not to mention that they simply failed to predict what has actually happened.

Quote :

"In fact, it is my belief that the IPCC only asserts the bare minimum that is absolutely concrete science. "

You mean like those non-peer reviewed articles that got put in their last report about the amazon drying up and the himalayas being ice-free?

Quote :

"The reality is that many scientists DO believe that we may be dominated by positive feedbacks"

Which is an idea that makes no fucking sense. We've got a remarkably stable climate system, and yet, they want us to believe that it is dominated by forces that are intrinsically unstable? REALLY?

Quote :

"But what you didn't realize is that the common prediction you hear is already such a conservative estimate."

Is that why the IPCC estimate is based on the worst-case estimate of several factors, all of which were derived by separate groups of researchers, some of whom made conflicting assumptions to arrive at their worst-case estimates? right. The IPCC is nothing but a group of fearmongerers who are hell-bent on pushing their political agenda. They have absolutely no presumption on being unbiased, as their fucking name says that they don't question the thing on which they are supposed to be unbiased.

5/10/2011 6:50:07 PM

Let's try this again. (Stupid Tripod)

Quote :

"on what basis can you claim it was unlivable for humans?"

This guy:

Quote :

"We've got a remarkably stable climate system"

O Rly?


[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 7:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2011 7:00:02 PM

Numbers for the CO2 concentration through the Mesozoic Era was certainly, at some points at least, in the 1000s of ppm. Now, humans are supposedly 'uncomfortable' starting at 1% volume fraction, although certain workplaces intentionally keep it closer to 2% (think of something like the ISS). Now, the IPCC assumes 750 ppm for severe but plausible situations. How close this would be to 0.75% volume fraction is something I do not know. I also have my own doubts about the compatibility of the projection with peak oil and peak gas. But worst case scenario, the Earth itself could become like a crowded gymnasium so dense that it makes people drowsy. It's not that such an Earth in itself is difficult to live for an adult human, but indoor air management would be very different and markedly more challenging. Additionally, something comfortable may be dangerous for a child, particularly for a child to grow up in.

The unlivable possibility also applies to temperature itself. While the equatorial regions do not have the highest temperature change, they will have a large one. Granted, many areas of Earth are already unlivable due to various factors, but the amount fitting this criteria will certainly grow under the current predictions.

Quote :

""The IPCC says that greenhouse gas effects in isolation will cause about 1-1.2C of warming by 2100" This is where the science ends. There is no scientific basis to believe the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks sufficient to turn this 1C into something catastrophic. "

I'll give you this: You're done better than 99.9% of global warming deniers/opponents by specifying what you agree with to some degree. I just hope it's out of education and not convenience.

5/11/2011 8:37:37 AM

^^


^ "CO2 is a trace gas comprising 0.039% of the atmosphere." We have quite a ways to go before 1%.

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 8:44 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/11/2011 8:42:13 AM