Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate facts to warm to

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
BBC News - Virginias dying marshes and climate change denial

Senator Ralph Northam, a Democrat, and Chris Stolle, a Republican member of the Virginia's lower House of Delegates, this year shepherded a resolution through the legislature spending $50,000 on a comprehensive study of the economic impact of coastal flooding on the Virginia and to investigate ways to adapt.

To pass the bill, at Stolle's suggestion Northam excised the words "relative sea level rise" from an initial draft of the bill, replacing them with "recurrent flooding" in the final version.

Northam describes the change in language as pragmatic politics - necessary to win support from conservatives sceptical of climate change science.
"If you mention climate change to them, it's like a big red flag," he says. "A barrier goes up. That's the way it is here in the Virginia."
 
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic - NYTimes.com

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
 

I find his tone sanctimonious and self-serving. He criticizes the IPCCC while pointing out that they are right, and have been, for a precious lost decade. He continues to doubt the causative relationship between global warming and extreme weather events, even though a strong consensus of other researchers now see that causality. This will be, no doubt, his next brilliant revelation, in another few years, after he buys more time for the oil and coal industry with his "skepticism."

Now he just needs to convince his benefactor to change their minds and do something positive, instead of ripping us all to shreds.
 
Arctic sea ice has broken a new low record. Basically in the last 40 years the summer ice pack used to be the size of the continental USA and now more than half of it has melted away. That is a lot of melting ice.

Figure3.png


So it is likely most of us will live to see an ice free arctic.
 
must underline that.

While there are different methods employed to determine "arctic ice extent" they all measure ice area. Measuring ice thickness in combination with extend gives a number for arctic ice volume. Since the ice has thinned in most areas, the decline in volume is even more drastic.

There used to be decade old layers of arctic ice. Today 2/3 of ice are younger than 1 year. You can see that from the image below, where winter ice extend is ~15m square km. The remaining 1/3 is few years old and thinning. My conclusion is, it won't take another 33 years for the minimum to reach zero. If I add a 3rd grade polynomial trend line to the ice area extend curve posted by Dave, the curve hits zero in year 2024 -- but that's of course a completely bogus thing to do :frown:

1
 
time to revive this thread.

Southern UK suffers the wettest January of all times (weather records reach back to 1766). Denizens furious on the Govt's proposed solution to abandon parts of the counties Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset. Scientists link the unusual rainfall pattern to "above-average ocean surface temperatures" in Asia (we are one world, aren't we?)
media.media.4ced373b-270e-4934-910c-80d7c64d4c0c.normalized.jpeg


Heavy snowfalls (amount of January within 3 days) bring trouble to southern parts of Austria. Army called in to clear the roofs of public buildings. Roads closed, rail tracks blocked by trees that crushed under heavy snow.
oesterreich190~_v-modPremiumHalb.jpg


Rain turning into ice disrupted the electric grid in Slowenia
slovenia.jpg


In Italy, Rome and Pisa encounter worst flooding since decades
italien-flut102~_v-teaserM.jpg


Monster waves crush the Spanish coast, destroying shorelines and buildings. People got dragged into the sea to be never found again.
media.media.2384bb03-01ec-49fb-b713-74835cf6fed1.normalized.jpeg


The European Parliament has pledged to the European Commission to go for stronger emission reduction targets. Up it from 30% to 40% until 2030. Politicians still hope to negotiate their way out of climate change.

To me, this winter in Europe is a wake up call.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? Extreme weather has been around forever, and is not statistically increasing. Some examples below. BTW, I suggest that everyone concerned about Global Warming read this article recently published in Nature Climate Science - a prestigious journal. It is eye opening. Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years


Nashua, NH 1936
mar1936a.jpg


Paduca Flood, Ohio River 1937
00-05017T.jpg


The Great Storm of 1777: That winter had already been a snowy one, with reports of five feet (1.5 m) of snow already on the ground when the Great Snow began. Three or four more feet (91.4 or 122 cm) were added to that total, with drifts reportedly reaching 25 feet (7.6 m), burying entire houses or forcing people to exit from second story windows
 
Seriously? Extreme weather has been around forever, and is not statistically increasing. Some examples below.

My point is not extreme weather like in "we are without power for a few weeks and get wet feet". My point is about areas becoming inhabitable. If you don't think climate change is happening, would you offer shelter to those displaced by these events? If you are right, it will be only a small number of people, repetition unlikely.
 
Seriously? Extreme weather has been around forever, and is not statistically increasing.

Extreme weather has been around forever. I noticed one of that one of the authors of the study you just cited was Francis Zwiers. Here's the Congressional testimony on the issue from Zwiers, I think he explains it far better than I could:

Francis Zwiers said:
Recently we have seen a spate of extreme climate and weather events that have drawn intense media interest, including this winter’s intense storms affecting the US and Canadian eastern seaboard, similarly extreme winter storms last year, the Russian heat wave and Pakistani flooding of summer 2010, the extraordinary Australian flooding event of this past January. These events have certainly tested our ability to cope with weather and climate variations, have had significant negative impacts, and pose the question as to whether human influence on the climate system has played a role. While the research required to answer this question specifically in the context of recent events is yet to be completed, two new papers in Nature (Min et al., 2011; Pall et al., 2011) have presented evidence that changes in the intensity of extreme precipitation since the middle of the 20th century may be linked to human induced global warming, and that in at least in one instance, that human influence on climate had likely substantially increased the risk of flooding.
Changes in extreme temperature and the intensification of extreme precipitation events are natural consequences of a warming climate. A warmer climate would inevitably have more intense warm temperature extremes than the present climate, including longer and more intense heat waves, and less intense cold temperature extremes.
The clear answer to this question, and one that is underscored by the Meehl et al. (2009) study of the occurrence of record breaking temperatures, is that individual extreme events cannot be ascribed to human influence on the climate system in the sense that the event could not have occurred if it were not for human influence. It is, however, possible to assess how human influence on climate may be “loading the weather dice”, making some events more likely, and others less likely.
The weather events that do most damage are very often those that are most difficult to predict: we can, however, assess the impact of an external factor like human influence on climate on the odds of a weather event occurring, even if we cannot predict when it will occur (if you load a dice to double the odds of a six, you still cannot predict precisely the result of any particular roll). Hence the fact that seasonal forecasting of extreme weather is clearly very difficult does not prevent us from assessing the role of long-term drivers in extreme weather risk or attempting to predict seasonal variations in risk.
Any human influence on extreme weather risk combines with these episodic variations and the chance fluctuations that are inevitable when dealing with rare events: hence we should not assume that, if human influence is making a particular event more likely on average, it will necessarily do so every year.
However, the “smoking gun” evidence from these studies suggests that human influence is now affecting the frequency and intensity of high impact events that put people and their livelihoods at risk. While assessments of the abilities of climate models to simulate temperature and precipitation extremes (e.g., Kharin et al., 2007) are sobering, there is a firm physical basis for the expectation that increasing greenhouse gases will intensify warm temperature extremes, moderate cold temperature extremes, and intensify extreme damaging precipitation events.



pbleic said:
Some examples below. BTW, I suggest that everyone concerned about Global Warming read this article recently published in Nature Climate Science - a prestigious journal. It is eye opening. Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

Good study but I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

Gavin Schmidt explains how climate models have been developed:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/

Gavin Schmidt said:
Climate is a large-scale phenomenon that emerges from complicated interactions among small-scale physical systems. Yet despite the phenomenon's complexity, climate models have demonstrated some impressive successes.

Climate projections made with sophisticated computer codes have informed the world's policymakers about the potential dangers of anthropogenic interference with Earth's climate system. Those codes purport to model a large part of the system. But what physics goes into the models, how are the models evaluated, and how reliable are they?

The task climate modelers have set for themselves is to take their knowledge of the local interactions of air masses, water, energy, and momentum and from that knowledge explain the climate system's large-scale features, variability, and response to external pressures, or "forcings." That is a formidable task, and though far from complete, the results so far have been surprisingly successful. Thus, climatologists have some confidence that theirs isn't a foolhardy endeavor.

Climate modeling derives from efforts first formulated in the 1920s to numerically predict the weather. However, it wasn't until the 1960s that electronic computers were able to meet the extensive numerical demands of even a minimal description of weather systems. Since then, ever more components have been added to climate models — land, oceans, sea ice, and more recently, interactive atmospheric aerosols, atmospheric chemistry, and representations of the carbon cycle. Indeed, a significant part of the interdisciplinary work needed to understand climate change is being driven by climate model development. Today's models are flexible tools that can answer a wide range of questions, but at a price: They can be almost as difficult to analyze and understand as the real world.

In the study you cited, the authors aknowledge that there were some variables that may not have been taken in account:

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years said:
Another possible driver of the difference
between observed and simulated global
warming is increasing stratospheric
aerosol concentrations. Results from
several independent datasets show that
stratospheric aerosol abundance has
increased since the late 1990s, owing to
a series of comparatively small tropical
volcanic eruptions
. Although none of the
CMIP5 simulations take this into account,
two independent sets of model simulations
estimate that increasing stratospheric
aerosols have had a surface cooling impact
of about 0.07 °C per decade since 1998
If the CMIP5 models had accounted for
increasing stratospheric aerosol, and had
responded with the same surface cooling
impact, the simulations and observations
would be in closer agreement. Other factors
that contribute to the discrepancy could
include a missing decrease in stratospheric
water vapour (whose processes are
not well represented in current climate
models), errors in aerosol forcing in the
CMIP5 models, a bias in the prescribed
solar irradiance trend, the possibility that
the transient climate sensitivity of the
CMIP5 models could be on average too
high
or a possible unusual episode of internal climate variability not considered
above

And then concluded:
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years said:
Ultimately the causes of this inconsistency will only be understood after

careful comparison of simulated internal

climate variability and climate model forcings
with observations from the past two decades,
and by waiting to see how global temperature
responds over the coming decades

Just because the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) failed to accurately predict the rate of global warming (of surface temperature) does not mean that global warming has not happened or is not happening, it's just that average surface temperatures are rising at a slower rate than CMIP5 predicted.

And why all the fuss about surface temperature anyway? A vast majority of warming is occurring in the oceans:

What has global warming done since 1998?

Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg