The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever

[waltky]

Food production threatened by global warming...

Increasing climate warming may put food security at risk
Saturday 18th February, 2012 - Climate warming caused by greenhouse gases is very likely to increase the variability of summertime temperatures around the world by the end of this century, which will have serious effects in food production, claims a University of Washington scientist.

David Battisti, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences, said current climate models do not adequately reflect feedbacks from the relationship between the atmosphere and soil, which causes them to underestimate the increase of variability in summertime temperatures. While warmer temperatures already have implications for food production in the tropics, the new findings suggest the increase in the volatility of summertime temperatures will have serious effects in grain-growing regions of Europe and North and South America, according to Battisti. "If there's greater variability, the odds of the temperature being so high that you can't grow a crop are greater. In terms of regional and global food security, it's not good news," he said.

Earlier research has shown that by the end of this century, the increase in average growing season temperature, if other factors remain the same, will likely reduce yields of rice, corn and soybean 30 to 40 percent. Already rice yields in the tropics are being affected by higher temperatures, affecting nations such as Indonesia, which frequently imports rice to stabilize prices, Battisti said. In addition, the scientists say global warming will have greater impacts than previously thought on the El Nino Southern Oscillation, a tropical phenomenon that has global impact on climate and food production.

Their conclusions are based on geological and other proxy records of climate and El Nino from the last 10,000 years, plus recent analyses of long-term climate changes because of global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body conducting ongoing assessments of climate change, has estimated that future month-to-month temperature variability during summer months is likely to be greater in some places and less in some places, but should stay roughly constant in many places.

But the new modeling work, Battisti said, shows most areas can expect to see greater variability in summer temperatures between now and 2085, with the biggest impacts in Europe, Africa and South America. "The increased variability will be pretty ubiquitous. You will see it pretty much everywhere," he warned. Battisti presented his findings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Vancouver, Canada.

Increasing climate warming may put food security at risk

See also:

'Storm of Century' Might Hit Every Decade
February 17, 2012 - Intense storm risk more frequent in warmer world

With climate change, powerful storms could make landfall far more frequently, causing powerful, devastating storm surges every three to 20 years, researchers from MIT and Princeton University have found. Their study proposes a way to more accurately assess the risks posed by more frequent and intense hurricanes and sea rise, especially in coastal communities most threatened by the earth’s changing climate. New York City was the focus of the study. Scientists coupled computer climate models with hurricane models and generated some 45,000 virtual storms within a 200-kilometer radius of New York.

Princeton University atmospheric scientist and study co-author Michael Oppenheimer says, while there was some variability among the models, the common feature was a greater frequency of intense storms. That confirmed findings from previous studies. “What we found was that indeed, a surge level, that is a level of penetration of flood water inland during a storm, that would previously have been reached perhaps every 100 years, is now going to be reached maybe once a decade, which is quite a big change in the risk and something that coastal managers really have to start planning for.”

About half the world’s population lives within 200 kilometers of a coastline, and that number is rising as more people move to cities in low-lying areas, according to the Population Reference Bureau. Oppenheimer believes urban planners must be able to evaluate the risks climate change will pose to life and property. “What is the probability that something of a certain level of impact will happen?" he says. "And how do we prevent that? Do we raise the sea walls around the city? Do we have better evacuation plans? Do we ultimately plan for some sort of storm surge barrier?”

According to Oppenheimer, as the world changes, so must our response to it. “We need to anticipate that world," he says. "We don’t want to just sit there and take the punch. We want to be ready for it when it comes.” While the study analysis is based on New York, Oppenheimer says the technique the team used could be applied anywhere. “We’re looking at this as one modest step in a direction that humanity is going to have to move over time, in getting smarter about dealing with the world that one way or another is going to get warmer, with more threats, while the world also hopefully gets its act together to cut emissions to start reducing the risk eventually.”

Source

 

[skookerasbil]

Proves my long standing contention that the environmental nutters will happily buy a bag of dog doo for $1,000 a pop if you package it up just right!!!


Gee.......thats a real hail Mary pass........to predict strorms of the century getting more frequent. But we hear about "storms of the century" all the time.......until a couple of years later when the next "storm of the century" happens...........like storms have been happening for a billion years now!!!

Here ya go s0n.........$900..........today only...............

 

[konradv]

Global Warming, aka Climate Change is the largest scam ever conducted.

If AGW were true then there would be no need for lies. Yet there is fraud, deciet, coercion, and tons of political and economic pressure. If it were true, the facts would speak for themselves, and there would never be any of the damning e-mails that have come to light.

It's a scam folks, plain and simple.

Who said there were lies? That's just propaganda. There may be differences in interpretation, but the REAL lie is that there isn't something going on or that we can't possibly have anything to do with it. How can that be true, when man puts out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year?!?!

Ok, there ARE lies but let's say just for sake of argument that there weren't any actual lies. Well my statement would still be true. If it were true, then the facts would speak for themselves, there wouldn't be any need for anyone to hide data, put political and economic pressures on dissenting scientists, or cover up wrong-doings.

You do not know that there is anything going on. So what if it were true that we put out a lot of CO2? There is no data that can show that CO2 has an effect that stronger than the effect of water vapor and solar activity.

Why would that have to be proven? It's irrelevant which one's stronger. The question is how much will CO2 effect heat retention on earth and the effect on climate. Of course the sun has a large effect, but what happens when you effectively add more insulation to the atmosphere?

 

[Big Fitz]

There you have it ladies and gentlemen... there doesn't have to be proof. It doesn't matter if the reasons we say globull wurming is happening are drowned out by larger contrary phenomena, it's still happening!

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming, aka Climate Change is the largest scam ever conducted.

If AGW were true then there would be no need for lies. Yet there is fraud, deciet, coercion, and tons of political and economic pressure. If it were true, the facts would speak for themselves, and there would never be any of the damning e-mails that have come to light.

It's a scam folks, plain and simple.

Who said there were lies? That's just propaganda. There may be differences in interpretation, but the REAL lie is that there isn't something going on or that we can't possibly have anything to do with it. How can that be true, when man puts out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year?!?!

Ok, there ARE lies but let's say just for sake of argument that there weren't any actual lies. Well my statement would still be true. If it were true, then the facts would speak for themselves, there wouldn't be any need for anyone to hide data, put political and economic pressures on dissenting scientists, or cover up wrong-doings.

You do not know that there is anything going on. So what if it were true that we put out a lot of CO2? There is no data that can show that CO2 has an effect that stronger than the effect of water vapor and solar activity.

It's a scam.

No it is not a scam. It is just that you are unwilling to do the research that would demonstrate the ignorance of you post.

First, since the time of Tyndall, nobody has stated that CO2 has a stronger effect than water vapor. But water vapor only has a residence time in the atmosphere of less than ten days. While CO2 has a residence time of a century or more. So CO2 is the driver, and water vapor a feedback mechanism.

Now without the sun, there would be not heat at all on the surface of the earth, no matter was the atmosphere was made of. However, for the last fifty years, the total solar irridadiance has decreased slightly. And the last solar cycle was noteworthy for it's lack of activity. So, if the solar activity is the prime driver, we should have seen some very cold years in the last decade. But what we saw is the warmest decade on record.

With little or no CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans surface would be frozen down to the equator. This has actually happened in the distant past when there was a severe deficit of CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

There you have it ladies and gentlemen... there doesn't have to be proof. It doesn't matter if the reasons we say globull wurming is happening are drowned out by larger contrary phenomena, it's still happening!

There you have it, folks. Fritzy cannot understand what he reads. Perhaps a third grade remedial class is in order.

 

[daveman]

Who said there were lies? That's just propaganda. There may be differences in interpretation, but the REAL lie is that there isn't something going on or that we can't possibly have anything to do with it. How can that be true, when man puts out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year?!?!

Ok, there ARE lies but let's say just for sake of argument that there weren't any actual lies. Well my statement would still be true. If it were true, then the facts would speak for themselves, there wouldn't be any need for anyone to hide data, put political and economic pressures on dissenting scientists, or cover up wrong-doings.

You do not know that there is anything going on. So what if it were true that we put out a lot of CO2? There is no data that can show that CO2 has an effect that stronger than the effect of water vapor and solar activity.

Why would that have to be proven? It's irrelevant which one's stronger. The question is how much will CO2 effect heat retention on earth and the effect on climate. Of course the sun has a large effect, but what happens when you effectively add more insulation to the atmosphere?

There are two reasons CO2 is the culprit, instead of water vapor or solar activity:

1. It can be taxed.

2. It's a product of burning fossil fuels, which the leftist agenda says must be eliminated.

 

[skookerasbil]

From todays OC Register..................


Published: Feb. 17, 2012 Updated: Feb. 20, 2012 9:45 a.m.

Mark Landsbaum: Global-warming skeptics gaining upper hand

The ‘cause' of promoting alarm over supposed man-made global warming has been losing steam as skeptics like S. Fred Singer find more facts on their side.

For quite some time, S. Fred Singer waged a quixotic campaign fighting windmills, so to speak. He disputed the claims of global warming alarmists that mankind is dangerously overheating the Earth, a claim that, not so coincidentally, gave a big boost to the windmill industry, to bring our meta

Rather, Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, with an engineering degree from Ohio State and Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. He has about a half century of research and published works in atmospheric and space physics. He also is founder and president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, where "we work without salaries and are not beholden to anyone or any organization," and don't solicit government or industry support, relying instead on contributions from individuals and foundations.

We visited with him during his recent visit to Chapman University. It was a happy occasion. After years of criticizing the allegedly "settled science," Singer's side of the debate is enjoying new and widespread credibility. This is thanks to many convergent developments.

First, there's that inconvenient problem for warmists that the scant atmospheric heating they pointed to as evidence of looming doom pretty much stopped about 15 years ago. It's awkward to keep screaming that the sky is falling when everyone can see it isn't.
phor full circle.



Mark Landsbaum: Global-warming skeptics gaining upper hand | warming, singer, stations - Opinion - The Orange County Register

 

[ScienceRocks]

If Nina stays strong throughout this year I'd predict .47c for the giss/noaa.

 

[wirebender]

So what? Like someone could create a climate in a lab!!!

If CO2 were capable of retaining heat, then a lab experiment would be possible. Alas, it can not and does not, so such an experiment is not possible.

I guess you have to keep repeating this, because the way the theory is tested, simulations, has repeatedly shown that man IS having an effect

konradv, use your brain. The simulations are modeld on the assumption that CO2 can and does retain heat and that the cooler atmosphere can beam down radiation and further warm its source of IR. Shit in = Shit out. The models are based on assumptions that are not, and can not be proven. They are useless and the observations keep proving that fact.

The effect may vary from model to model, but none I'm aware of or anything the skeptics have presented show the opposite.

There is no need for the skeptics to present anything. Observations in the real world present more than enough evidence that the models are not worth the disk space it takes to write them. You guys don't seem to get that when you ask skeptics to prove that man is not altering the climate, you are asking them to prove a negative.

This whole debate is like a legal case. You made the claim of guilt, so the onus is upon your shoulders to prove the guilt. We skeptics are the accused. We don't have to prove our innocence, you have to prove our guilt and thus far, you have proved exactly squat. In fact, you haven't presented enough actual evidence to even get a hearing if this were a court of law.

 

[wirebender]

AGW denial is built on laziness and willlfull ignorance. these fuckin idiots are evil.

Spoken like a true elitist. Tell me elitist, can you provide even a shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate? If you can, then you have taken the first step to proving your statement. If you can't, then you are just another jabbering member of a failing cult.

Good luck with that evidence. If it existed, there would be no skeptics.

 

[wirebender]

AGW denial is built on laziness and willlfull ignorance. these fuckin idiots are evil.

Perhaps they should be put in camps or something.

They can't help but show their true colors, can they?

Those colors go best with khaki and black jack boots.

 

[wirebender]

The question is how much will CO2 effect heat retention on earth and the effect on climate. Of course the sun has a large effect, but what happens when you effectively add more insulation to the atmosphere?

The answer is none. CO2 has no mechanism by which to retain heat in the atmosphere.

CO2 is a heat conductor, not an insulator. Perhaps you are confused because you don't know the difference between an insulator and a conductor. Here, have a look.

Insulator - A material or an object that does not easily allow heat, electricity, light, or sound to pass through it.

Since we know that CO2 molecules allow IR to pass through them at, or near the speed of light, it is clear that the gas is not an insulator. So what is a conductor?

Conductor - A material or an object that conducts heat, electricity, light, or sound.

Hey, that describes CO2 pretty well, doesn't it. You have the problen right in your head in that you recognize that if you want to retain warmth, you need insulation. Your problem lies in the fact that you are trying to convince people that a heat conductor is actually insulation. Not only are you wrong, but you make yourself stupid in doing it.

 

[wirebender]

If Nina stays strong throughout this year I'd predict .47c for the giss/noaa.

Is that before or after the numbers are "fixed"?

 

[daveman]

AGW denial is built on laziness and willlfull ignorance. these fuckin idiots are evil.

Perhaps they should be put in camps or something.

They can't help but show their true colors, can they?

Those colors go best with khaki and black jack boots.

Prison camps are one of leftists' default responses to disagreement.

Then comes mass graves.

 

[konradv]

There you have it ladies and gentlemen... there doesn't have to be proof. It doesn't matter if the reasons we say globull wurming is happening are drowned out by larger contrary phenomena, it's still happening!

You don't really have a clue, do you, or you do and prefer to bullshit those that don't. Who says anything is being drowned out? Sounds like a lie constructed "on the fly". I guess that's what you have to do when the facts are inconvenient, like talking about natural cycles until they hurt your argument, then ignoring them!

 

[konradv]

The question is how much will CO2 effect heat retention on earth and the effect on climate. Of course the sun has a large effect, but what happens when you effectively add more insulation to the atmosphere?

The answer is none. CO2 has no mechanism by which to retain heat in the atmosphere.

CO2 is a heat conductor, not an insulator. Perhaps you are confused because you don't know the difference between an insulator and a conductor. Here, have a look.

Insulator - A material or an object that does not easily allow heat, electricity, light, or sound to pass through it.

Since we know that CO2 molecules allow IR to pass through them at, or near the speed of light, it is clear that the gas is not an insulator. So what is a conductor?

Conductor - A material or an object that conducts heat, electricity, light, or sound.

Hey, that describes CO2 pretty well, doesn't it. You have the problen right in your head in that you recognize that if you want to retain warmth, you need insulation. Your problem lies in the fact that you are trying to convince people that a heat conductor is actually insulation. Not only are you wrong, but you make yourself stupid in doing it.

CO2 doesn't conduct heat. It absorbs IR photons and re-emits them. Since statistically 50% of re-emitted photons would head back towards earth, how would that not contribute to the earth's heat load?

 

[wirebender]

[
CO2 doesn't conduct heat. It absorbs IR photons and re-emits them. Since statistically 50% of re-emitted photons would head back towards earth, how would that not contribute to the earth's heat load?

Statistically, none of it goes back towards the earth since the EM field radiated by the earth is orders of magnitude greater than the EM field represented by the radiation from a single CO2 molecule. The sky can't warm the earth, it would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states explictily that heat can not move from a cooler object (the sky) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth).

 

[starcraftzzz]

[
CO2 doesn't conduct heat. It absorbs IR photons and re-emits them. Since statistically 50% of re-emitted photons would head back towards earth, how would that not contribute to the earth's heat load?

Statistically, none of it goes back towards the earth since the EM field radiated by the earth is orders of magnitude greater than the EM field represented by the radiation from a single CO2 molecule. The sky can't warm the earth, it would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states explictily that heat can not move from a cooler object (the sky) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth).

Yo dumbass ever hear of the sun?

 

[code1211]

More computer simulations being used as if they were data. Great. Never mind that computer simulations aren't, at present, worth the disk space it takes to write them.

That's merely your opinion. Considering that you don't have much knowledge of the matter, it isn't worth much. Your first sentence is a total lie, for example. The simulations aren't used AS data, but to TEST data.

When will your experts create a model that demonstrates that there has been cooling for the last decade. Every climate organization on the planet that tracks climate change has tracked the cooling since 2001.

Do you have a simulation the reflects reality?

Temperature Trends « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change