Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Wild Cobra]

Random.

You believe what the pundits tell you to. I have read numerous papers, and think for myself.

the 97% is a lie. Period. It is demonstratively false. I have demonstrated it.

Tired of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA?

That is you, when it comes from anything contrary to your faith of AGW, and written in the IPCC dogma.

[boutons_deux]

Weather Forecasters Used To Be Among The Country’s Staunchest Climate Deniers. Why That’s Changing Fast.

Keah Schuenemann, a meteorology professor at the Metropolitan State University of Denver, has never met an atmospheric or climate scientist who doesn’t agree that most of the planet’s warming over the last century is a result of human activity. Weather forecasters though, whom she deals with regularly, are a different story. Schuenemann, who has a PhD in atmospheric and oceanic science from the University of Colorado, Boulder, said she’s been exposed to a “whole slew of forecasters who don’t understand climate science.”

This experience has even influenced her approach to teaching.

“My students can vouch for the fact that I boycott some meteorology software created by some very vocal weather folks who use their weather platform as a means of influencing people with no climate background into thinking the ‘cool kids’ don’t accept the IPCC conclusions,” she told ThinkProgress.

While this type of anti-science affront really bothers Schuenemann, overall she believes meteorology academic programs “are slowly integrating more climate literacy in their curricula.”

Training to be a weather forecaster is completely different than studying to be a climate scientist. For years this divergence in knowledge has left weathercasters with a bad rap when it comes to incorporating climate change into their coverage. While fault for this has been placed on political and religious ideologies as well as audience interests, a prevailing element has been a lack of adequate climate knowledge.

However with more forecasters taking an interest in educational materials like the National Climate Assessment and enrolling in programs like Climate Matters, a Climate Central program affiliated with NASA and NOAA that helps forecasters perform local climate analyses, there is a sea change underway in how weather forecasters report the climate.

For most of us, there’s weather and there’s climate.

The weather is something we check multiple times a day through a variety of means: TV, phone, computer, walking outside. It dictates our immediate plans and holds sway over our mood. We praise the forecasters when they bring us news of blue skies and warm temperatures, and curse them when they are wrong.

Then there’s climate: it’s changing but we don’t think about it every day. Maybe we drive less or stop eating meat to do our part in slowing greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe in the dog days of summer we lament the way humanity is destroying the earth, or how capitalism has led us awry. Maybe we invest in solar panels, both for environmental and economic reasons.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ecasters-gone/

[boutons_deux]

Sea level is rising fast — and it seems to be speeding up

several studies have shown that the flow of ice and water into the oceans from Greenland and West Antarctica has increased since 1993.

previous estimates of the rate of rise from satellite data that didn’t incorporate the careful comparison with coastal sea-level measurements, as we have done in our recent study, showed a slower rate of rise over the past decade relative to the one before. Our revised record is clearly different and suggests that the rate of rise has increased, consistent with other observations of the increased contributions of water and ice from Greenland and West Antarctica.

Strikingly, our estimate of the increase in the rate of rise is consistent with theprojections of future sea level published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Currently, these projections forecast a rise of up to 98 cm by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are allowed to continue unabated (and even more if parts of the Antarctic ice sheet collapse).

Increasing rates of sea-level rise will place increasing stress on the coastal margin. Extreme sea level events will become more frequent. Inundation and erosion will affect our infrastructure, affect ecosystems and, in some regions, displace populations.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/sea-level-is-rising-fast-and-it-seems-to-be-speeding-up/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

[boutons_deux]

Massive Antarctic Ice Shelf Faces Imminent Risk of Collapse

An Antarctic ice shelf that is twice the size of Hawaii is at “imminent risk” of collapse and needs to be monitored carefully, a new study finds.

The ice shelf—Larsen C—is located in roughly the same geography as the Larsen A and B ice shelves, which disintegrated in 1995 and 2002, respectively. Larsen C covers 19,300 square miles and is the largest shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula. If it melts, it could significantly raise global sea levels, said Paul Holland, the lead author of the study and a scientist with the British Antarctic Survey.

“If [Larsen C] collapses, this will cause several centimeters of sea-level rise, potentially within a few decades,”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...k-of-collapse/

Go, S , Burn That Carbon!

[SupremeGuy]

[boutons_deux]

operative phrase: IT WILL HAPPEN

[boutons_deux]

No VRWC/BigCarbon "pause" here, AND plenty of hard AGW EVIDENCE for all y'all igorant kickers to deny.

Greenland’s Glaciers are Accelerating So Fast, They Have Stretch Marks

The evidence is overwhelming:

Earth’s polar regions are losing ice at a stunning rate.

There’s so much ice being lost from Antarctica, for example, that scientists can detect local changes in gravity.http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/05/13/crevasses_on_greenland_glaciers_are_evidence_of_th e_increasing_rate_of_ice.html

[cantthinkofanything]

No VRWC/BigCarbon "pause" here, AND plenty of hard AGW EVIDENCE for all y'all igorant kickers to deny.

Greenland’s Glaciers are Accelerating So Fast, They Have Stretch Marks

The evidence is overwhelming:

Earth’s polar regions are losing ice at a stunning rate.

There’s so much ice being lost from Antarctica, for example, that scientists can detect local changes in gravity.http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/05/13/crevasses_on_greenland_glaciers_are_evidence_of_th e_increasing_rate_of_ice.html

The Earth just doin' what the Earth do.

[boutons_deux]

Antarctica's Larsen B ice shelf a few years from disintegration

The last intact section of one of Antarctica's mammoth ice shelves is weakening fast and will likely disintegrate completely in the next few years, contributing further to rising sea levels, according to a NASA study released on Thursday.

The research focused on a remnant of the so-called Larsen B Ice Shelf, which has existed for at least 10,000 years but partially collapsed in 2002. What is left covers about 1,600 square km (625 square miles), about half the size of Rhode Island.

Antarctica has dozens of ice shelves - massive, glacier-fed floating platforms of ice that hang over the sea at the edge of the continent's coast line. The largest is roughly the size of France.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/an...tion-1.3075634

[boutons_deux]

The Earth just doin' what the Earth do.

yep, as driven by AGW

[TheSanityAnnex]

Will anything we are doing here in the States have enough of an impact to offset China, Russia, and India?

[boutons_deux]

Will anything we are doing here in the States have enough of an impact to offset China, Russia, and India?

China, eg, has greatly reduced its coal burning, like -8% over the past year. look it up. China is also moving fantastically to wind and solar energy.

India is also talking about solar in dramatic terms, since much of India is electrified.

Will it be enough? Probably not.

TPP/TTIP will allow BigCorp to sue taxpayers for $Bs if govt regulation on pollution hurt BigCorp profits.

[boutons_deux]

while tar sands negates all their efforts

Canada Announces Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Target Of 30 Percent By 2030

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ssions-pledge/

[boutons_deux]

The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit


There has always been an odd tenor to discussions among climate scientists, policy wonks, and politicians, a passive-aggressive quality, and I think it can be traced to the fact that everyone involved has to dance around the obvious truth, at risk of losing their status and influence.

The obvious truth about global warming is this: barring miracles, humanity is in for some awful .

Here is a plotting of dozens of climate modeling scenarios out to 2100, from the IPCC:
(Global Carbon Project)

So what so what so what's the scenario?

The black line is carbon emissions to date. The red line is the status quo — a projection of where emissions will go if no new substantial policy is passed to restrain greenhouse gas emissions.

We recently passed 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; the status quo will take us up to 1,000 ppm, raising global average temperature (from a pre-industrial baseline) between 3.2 and 5.4 degrees Celsius. That will mean, according to a 2012 World Bank report, "extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise," the effects of which will be "tilted against many of the world's poorest regions," stalling or reversing decades of development work. "A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided," said the World Bank president.

But that's where we're headed. It will take enormous effort just to avoid that fate. Holding temperature down under 2°C would require an utterly unprecedented level of global mobilization and coordination, sustained over decades. There's no sign of that happening, or reason to think it's plausible anytime soon. And so, awful it is

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/truth-climate-change

[boutons_deux]

It Only Took Four Months For China To Achieve A Jaw-Dropping Reduction In Carbon Emissions


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...te+Progress%29

[TheSanityAnnex]

The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit


There has always been an odd tenor to discussions among climate scientists, policy wonks, and politicians, a passive-aggressive quality, and I think it can be traced to the fact that everyone involved has to dance around the obvious truth, at risk of losing their status and influence.

The obvious truth about global warming is this: barring miracles, humanity is in for some awful .

Here is a plotting of dozens of climate modeling scenarios out to 2100, from the IPCC:
(Global Carbon Project)

So what so what so what's the scenario?

The black line is carbon emissions to date. The red line is the status quo — a projection of where emissions will go if no new substantial policy is passed to restrain greenhouse gas emissions.

We recently passed 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; the status quo will take us up to 1,000 ppm, raising global average temperature (from a pre-industrial baseline) between 3.2 and 5.4 degrees Celsius. That will mean, according to a 2012 World Bank report, "extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise," the effects of which will be "tilted against many of the world's poorest regions," stalling or reversing decades of development work. "A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided," said the World Bank president.

But that's where we're headed. It will take enormous effort just to avoid that fate. Holding temperature down under 2°C would require an utterly unprecedented level of global mobilization and coordination, sustained over decades. There's no sign of that happening, or reason to think it's plausible anytime soon. And so, awful it is

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/truth-climate-change

Mother Earth knows she is overpopulated and is correcting it as we speak. The Earth will cool once again when she is back to a manageable population.

[boutons_deux]

Mother Earth knows she is overpopulated and is correcting it as we speak. The Earth will cool once again when she is back to a manageable population.

you of course exclude yourself from the 100Ms or Bs who must die for "manageability"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...limate-change/

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/bi...lorida-7564189

GOP better be careful. You can only piss on people's legs for so long and there is an election on the horizon.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...limate-change/

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/bi...lorida-7564189

GOP better be careful. You can only piss on people's legs for so long and there is an election on the horizon.

All the Repugs owning expensive coastal, riparian homes insured by taxpayers liability?

Where are the super-efficient, for-profit insurers that can insure them "cheaper and better" than taxpayers' hated govt?

[boutons_deux]

Exposure of U.S. population to extreme heat could quadruple by mid-century

“Both population change and climate change matter,” said NCAR scientist Brian O’Neill, one of the study’s co-authors. “If you want to know how heat waves will affect health in the future, you have to consider both.”

Extreme heat kills more people in the United States than any other weather-related event, and scientists generally expect the number of deadly heat waves to increase as the climate warms. The new study, published May 18 in the journal Nature Climate Change, finds that the overall exposure of Americans to these future heat waves would be vastly underestimated if the role of population changes were ignored.

The total number of people exposed to extreme heat is expected to increase the most in cities across the country’s southern reaches, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Tampa, and San Antonio.

Read more at http://scienceblog.com/78446/exposur...wz24o7e2qwQ.99

[Wild Cobra]

Exposure of U.S. population to extreme heat could quadruple by mid-century

“Both population change and climate change matter,” said NCAR scientist Brian O’Neill, one of the study’s co-authors. “If you want to know how heat waves will affect health in the future, you have to consider both.”

Extreme heat kills more people in the United States than any other weather-related event, and scientists generally expect the number of deadly heat waves to increase as the climate warms. The new study, published May 18 in the journal Nature Climate Change, finds that the overall exposure of Americans to these future heat waves would be vastly underestimated if the role of population changes were ignored.

The total number of people exposed to extreme heat is expected to increase the most in cities across the country’s southern reaches, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Tampa, and San Antonio.

Read more at http://scienceblog.com/78446/exposur...wz24o7e2qwQ.99

Hmmm....

Another blog, and we are suppose to accept blogs?

Did you verify the accuracy of what a pundit says?

OK...

The nature Climate Change article isn't listed by name, DOI number, link, etc... What does the author have to hide I wonder?

there are six 5/18/15 articles:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2631.html

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2641

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2646

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2647

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2648

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2656

It is obviously, by le, the first one. they use the number of days over 35 C (95 F) as a threshold. It's all theoretical. They project population increases, and temperature changes, and assess rick by the changes in over the 35 C threshold. they admit a hole in the study as hoe not separating rural and urban.

Limitations to the study include a key caveat to the third
conclusion: in our analysis we have not distinguished urban and
rural temperature change, which can differ substantially owing
to the urban heat island effect.

Most of you can only read the abstract. I went and saved the whole PDF version as I have a subscription.

The blog changes the meaning somewhat. it says a four to sixfold increase by 2050. The study says "after" mid century.

Details are important, and bloggers and other pundits seem to think they have license to change what credible works really say. You see it all the time, some pundit skewing what a study really says.

I see the idea as real. Population increases will force increasing city densities. The urban heat island effect will increase. Even if we enter into a period of cooling over this century, it will likely not counter the heat increases as population densities increase.

[boutons_deux]

S Oil Caught Planning for Deadly 4 to 6 Degree Rise in Global Temperature

Royal Dutch S has been accused of pursuing a strategy that would lead to potentially catastrophic climate change after an internal do ent acknowledged a global temperature rise of 4C, twice the level considered safe for the planet.

A paper used for guiding future business planning at the Anglo-Dutch multinational assumes that carbon dioxide emissions will fail to limit temperature increases to 2C, the internationally agreed threshold to prevent widespread flooding, famine and desertification.

Instead, the New Lens Scenarios do ent refers to a forecast by the independent International Energy Agency (IEA) that points to a temperature rise of up to 4C in the short term, rising later to 6C.
...

The S do ent says: “Both our (oceans and mountains) scenarios and the IEA New Policies scenario (and our base case energy demand and outlook) do not limit emissions to be consistent with the back-calculated 450 parts per million (Co2 in the atmosphere) 2 degrees C.”

It adds: “We also do not see governments taking steps now that are consistent with 2 degrees C scenario.”

http://www.theguardian.com/...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...e?detail=email

As S bullies its way into Seattle dock and plans to drill for "tough oil" in the Arctic. "Easy Oil" is well past its peak.

[Wild Cobra]

So?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmmm....

Another blog, and we are suppose to accept blogs?

Did you verify the accuracy of what a pundit says?

OK...

The nature Climate Change article isn't listed by name, DOI number, link, etc... What does the author have to hide I wonder?

there are six 5/18/15 articles:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2631.html

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2641

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2646

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2647

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2648

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2656

It is obviously, by le, the first one. they use the number of days over 35 C (95 F) as a threshold. It's all theoretical. They project population increases, and temperature changes, and assess rick by the changes in over the 35 C threshold. they admit a hole in the study as hoe not separating rural and urban.



Most of you can only read the abstract. I went and saved the whole PDF version as I have a subscription.

The blog changes the meaning somewhat. it says a four to sixfold increase by 2050. The study says "after" mid century.

Details are important, and bloggers and other pundits seem to think they have license to change what credible works really say. You see it all the time, some pundit skewing what a study really says.

I see the idea as real. Population increases will force increasing city densities. The urban heat island effect will increase. Even if we enter into a period of cooling over this century, it will likely not counter the heat increases as population densities increase.

So?

[boutons_deux]

Antarctic glaciers thinning so fast, it's like a switch was flipped (+video)

A new study has recorded a sudden and rapid thinning of once-stable glaciers along the southern Antarctic Peninsula, demonstrating that significant changes in glacier mass can occur surprisingly quickly as ocean and air temperatures rise.

The findings support what researchers have been seeing in other parts of Antarctica, with scientists warning last year that four key glaciers on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be on the verge of wholesale retreat with nothing to stop them.

The new study points to a common cause among the glaciers it studied: Warm water is melting away the underside of the glaciers where they meet the sea floor, weakening the ice shelves that slow the glaciers’ slide the ocean. The researchers "observe a relatively strong [common] response across multiple glacier systems that clearly points to changing ocean condition as the main culprit,"

The study is unique, he says, because of how effectively it pinpointed the major driver of the changes. The study, which appears in this week’s issue of the journal Science, also points to the speed with which these changes are occurring.

"It's like a switch was flipped for a pretty extensive region of the peninsula," adds Jonathan Bamber, a glaciologist at the University of Bristol in Britain and a member of the team conducting the study. "That isn't something that you would necessarily expect based on the modeling studies that people have done."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...-flipped-video

Models are wrong!

TOO conservative!