Science Interviews

Interview

Tue, 11th Mar 2014

Is climate change altering weather?

Don Wuebbles, University of Illinois

Listen Now    Download as mp3 from the show Turning the Tide on Flooding

Is the extreme weather of recent years a consequence of climate change? Climate scientist, IPCC lead author and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winner Don Wuebbles explains " alt="Monsoon clouds" />to Chris Smith why he thinks this is a taste of what is to come...

Don - The climate is changing worldwide, climate being the long term variations in weather of course, but it’s much more than that. The fact that that change's occurring because of human activity's becoming clearer and clearer over time. We now are beginning to even talk about that dangerous climate change isn't just going to happen in the future. It’s happening now.

Chris - Just summarise for us what the big changes are. What are we seeing and where?

Don - So, we’re seeing overall long term changes in temperature. We’re seeing relatively small changes overall in precipitation. Some places getting dryer, some places getting wetter, but it’s much more than that. It’s this concern about severe weather.  We’re seeing much more concern about heat waves, less cold waves overall. We’re also seeing more precipitation coming as much larger events than in the past.

Chris - What do we think the drivers of this are?

Don - The analysis are very clear, that you cannot explain these long term changes we’re seeing as being due to natural causes. The only thing that really is able to explain the observed changes is the fact that because of our burning of fossil fuels, other human induced changes in our planet that we’re increasing the amount of carbon dioxide, the amount of methane, the amount of some other key gases. And those gases so happen are very important to life on Earth in the first place because without those gases, we wouldn't have life here as we know it. This would be a frozen planet. So, having those greenhouse gases is really important. The problem is, because of human activities, we’re increasing the amount of those greenhouse gases substantially. The amount of carbon dioxide for example has increased from about 280 parts per million to over 400 parts per million and it continuously increase and that's driving changes. We haven’t seen levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere of that size for over 2 million years.

Chris - Do we know what the weather was like 2 million years ago when it was that high?

Don - We don't totally know what the weather was, but we do know that it was a much, much warmer climate on this planet at that time than it is now. Places like Antarctica and Greenland were without ice. Much higher sea levels, we may not be worried about what's going to happen in the next several thousand years, but we certainly should be concerned about what's going to happen over the century when these changes in climate are going to be affecting our children, our grandchildren.

Chris - Obviously, 2 million years ago, there were early pre-humans around, but they certainly weren’t emitting CO2 the way that we modern humans are now. So, where did the CO2 that was in the atmosphere and at high level then come from?

Don - Those high levels of carbon dioxide actually came from outgassing from very large volcanoes. Current volcanic eruptions have very small effects in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, much, much less than human amount and really, do not contribute to the increase that we’re seeing now.

Chris - What about the severe weather manifestations that we’re now seeing potentially linked to this? Why do we get more severe weather when the CO2 in the atmosphere rises?

Don - Some aspects of it, we understand pretty well. We know for example as the temperature is increasing, that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour. And so, that additional water vapour is then available for precipitation. In addition, there's just more overall energy in the entire Earth’s system because of this increases in these gases. It’s just overall trapping more energy into the Earth. So, we expect things like more precipitation coming as larger events. But also, analyses are tending to show that some very large events like hurricanes are likely to be more intense in the future. Right now, we can't say much about the number, but the intensity is likely to be larger.

Chris - What about time scale? When should I consider moving further from the coast?

Don - Well, the big concern of the coast particularly are going to be the increase in sea level and storm surge. The projections over this century are something like 20 to 80 centimetres by IBCC. I think in the National Climate Assessment, we were a little bit more generous and said it could be as much as a meter. None of that is going to happen soon, but we are seeing an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. I think you clearly have several decades available for you to still live near the coast, but after the next few decades or so, you may get concerned.

Multimedia

Subscribe Free

Related Content

Comments

Make a comment

Like there was ever a time in the history of the Earth that the climate wasn't changing? MeatAndPotatoes, Mon, 9th Jun 2014

It's about rate of change and recklessly messing with something which is gernerally stable and which we rely upon ramaining stable. David Cooper, Mon, 9th Jun 2014

It is very difficult to track changing storm patterns.  There is a huge recording and detection bias, and just a couple of decades, most weak tornadoes were either not detected, or not recorded.  Rare events such as Cat-5 Hurricane landfalls are not common enough to calculate changes in probability. 

Around here, of the storms in the last 50 years or so, most of them were before my time.
Columbus Day Storm (Big Blow) of 1962 so far has been unmatched.
Our record snowfall was in 1969
Biggest Flood, "Christmas Flood" 1964.

Once a century weather events...  happen about once a century.
Once a millennium weather events...  happen sometime.

The big question is whether global warming will bring drier, or wetter weather.  Likely some areas will benefit, and others will be harmed. 

Sea rise is concerning.  However, some of the calculations also include a geostatic estimate that the ocean basins are getting larger, so a fudge factor is added in not related to direct observations of sea levels.  One of the concerns is that many places are actually sinking due to factors such as ground water removal and flood control.

Conservation is still a good idea. CliffordK, Mon, 9th Jun 2014

There's a serious problem of observation bias here. How do you measure the severity of a storm?

1. You need someone or something to be there. Sensibly, our ancestors tended to live in fairly benign places so we have very little data of pre-1900 storms in the Arctic, Antarctic, or US swamplands.

2. You need some survivable means of measuring something. Pre-satellite data comes only from hand-held instruments. Fragile sailing ships lost at sea did not provide any records but a modern bulk carrier, trawler, icebreaker or warship can collect a lot of reportable data and return from a Force 12 with all hands. More trade = more data. Time was that when the wind got too strong, land-based meteorologists just said "close the airport" and went home, but nowadays you can sit in an office and monitor hurricanes remotely: better instruments = more data.

3. You need a meaningful and consistent definition of "extreme". A hundred years ago, the few people who lived on the southeastern coasts of the USA earned their living from the sea, lived in stone cottages, and worked rugged wooden boats. So a village might cost less than $1M to repair after a couple of days of hurricane. Nowadays the area is densely populated by pensioners in glass-fronted high rise apartments, with metal cars and plastic yachts all over the place. A few minutes of Force 10 will break everything in sight and cost zillions to repair. No change in weather, just a more fragile civilisation.

4. There's money to be made and an academic career to pursue by claiming that anthropogenic climate change is significant and a Bad Thing, so whatever the facts, only the bad news gets reported.

In fact the frequency of severe landfall hurricanes measured by average wind speed over a few hours, has decreased in the USA since 1960. alancalverd, Sun, 15th Jun 2014

Sure it is. It has to, considering the new man made amount of energy that is getting stored inside Earths atmospheric envelope, relative the 'empty space' outside earths exosphere. How it will act regionally/locally is another thing, and I suspect very hard to predict. I mean, it's no different from weather predictions today, only more volatile as the energy goes up.
==

This is still one of the nicest introductions to global warming I've read, although not new in any way, just well written and makes you ponder.. Towards curbing Global Village Warming: Nepal's Contribution to make a difference yor_on, Mon, 16th Jun 2014

Storm amplification is a direct effect of solar geoengineering with coal fly ash particles.  tkadm30, Thu, 31st Mar 2016

Do you have anyevidence that storms are getting worse?

Tim the Plumber, Fri, 1st Apr 2016



Yes. I did my research.



http://weatherwarfare.worldatwar.info/docs/weatherweapons.pdf

http://www.wired.com/2008/02/navy-research-p/

http://cryptome.org/weather-war.pdf tkadm30, Fri, 1st Apr 2016



Yes. I did my research.



http://weatherwarfare.worldatwar.info/docs/weatherweapons.pdf

http://www.wired.com/2008/02/navy-research-p/

http://cryptome.org/weather-war.pdf


Your first quote has it's first reference as ;

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/
aug/30/sillyseason.physicalsciences

SILLY SEASON!!!! Tim the Plumber, Fri, 1st Apr 2016

Another wild card variable is connected to how the media deals with climate change. For example, if there is one airline crash, this can get so much coverage and expert analysis, some people will begin to think airline crashes have become a common event, worse than ever. All the planes are about to fall from then sky.

There is no sense of perspective given, such as comparing automobile and airline fatalities, or using a counter to add all the car accidents that occurred during the 3 day news cycle. This would give people a way to compare the data. This is not offered since the hype work better with lop sided analysis.

Along with the TV and printed news is cable news outlets, internet, etc. There is a lot of competition for advertiser dollars such that everyone is looking for something to hold the audience captive. The test proven way is to hype disaster. Good news causes people to go about their business, while bad news causes then to stay put. This allows more commercial revenue.

Manmade global warming was rebranded to climate change. This is the new Coke of meteorology. Global warming was simple and is defined an objective measure; temperature. People can look out and see with or without expert hype. This gave the consumer of informal†ion too much objectivity.

They came up with a new branding called climate change which is far more nebulous. It was smart marketing, since climate always changes and anything that happens defines an immediate litmus test for the consumer. It does not even have to be related to global warming, but it will be connected through inference of those who wish to believe. Many people have begun to drink this new soft drink and need to be warmed to too much caffeine and sugar. puppypower, Fri, 1st Apr 2016


1. That's not true at all. In fact, most civilizations in the past tended to be located near fault lines because that's where the Earth had exposed the resources they needed, including things like water tables and mineral resources. That's why there were civilizations all over the world in all sorts of different climates, many of them extreme.

2. One of the most important parts of the Scientific Method is using that data to make predictions. The more accurate the predictions, the more likely the theory is to be correct. As I have pointed out a number of times, the predictions made in books I've been reading since about 1988 is that fossil fuel consumption is going to result in higher temperatures, and since then, data. data, and more accurate data has not indicated that global temperatures are falling.

3. Cost of storm damage is not the way a scientist would evaluate storm severity. That's how a politically conservative person would look at it in terms of economics. A scientist would be more likely to suggest that, if August and September are the months when warm oceans produce the most and strongest hurricanes on average, then a late October/early November storm like Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic storm on record, is something of an anomaly.

4. False, and I don't know how many times I have to point this out. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is specifically designed to get the bias OUT of science, whether that is religious bias, or political bias, or personal feelings. Again, the IPCC does not consist of Liberal Democrats. There are scientists on the IPCC from communist, socialist, capitalist, and countries of all political stripes all over the world that are 97% in agreement that anthropogenic climate change is real, and they all used the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to arrive at that conclusion. Again, oil producers, the largest and most profitable companies in the US, receive tens of billions a year in subsidies and tax breaks, not including what they make at the pump. That makes the grant money offered to scientists to study climate change look like pocket change, and you know it.

Your last fact not only includes no citation, it completely disregards non-landfall hurricanes. Those have to be considered in the total, or you've biased the data to support your argument. We're not just talking about the ones that hit land. We're talking about whether storms are getting stronger or more frequent IN GENERAL. Just because a hurricane veers North doesn't mean it's any less severe. Turning up the heat of the atmosphere makes the movement of air currents more erratic, so maybe more hurricanes will veer North. That would not imply that it's getting cooler or hurricanes are "less frequent."

Again, do you work for an oil company? Or were you planted here by the Koch brothers? Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 1st Apr 2016

Fault lines don't cause storms.

Nobody has questioned the recent temperature record. The question is about "severe" storms.

True, but it is the only credible historic record, and still only relates to storms in relatively urban areas where damage is estimable in cash terms.

We do our best, but if I may quote just one fatal example - the Challenger disaster -


I'll leave you to study any other examples of politically motivated cockups such as Lysenkoism , the elimination of Chinese sparrows....

Or perhaps you can provide a counterexample where an academic scientist received government grant funding to challenge the notion of anthropogeninc global warming (incidentally, as all the IPCC predictions of thermal doom have turned out to be wrong, they no longer call it global warming - climate change is the fashionable term).

None of which matters anyway. I was very careful to say "only the bad news gets reported". A week with no hurricanes is not news.

If only! About 50 years ago I spent 3 months working on the viscometry of aerial cropspraying emulsifiers with Shell Chemicals but they don't owe me anything and I've had no further contact with any petrochemical industry. One of my research interests is in the hydrogen-powered car and the possibility of synthesising aviation fuel from CO2 and water,  so if anything I'm in competition with the oil companies.
alancalverd, Fri, 1st Apr 2016

In America, opinions about climate change, formerly called global warming, is divided down political lines. Conservatives tend to use the test proven trends of the past to judge the present, while liberals tend to ignore the past and/or revise the past, and then follow the narrower time scale of the latest fad. One might be able to infer how the divide, down these difference in political instincts, reflect the nature of data collection. 

When someone says this is the warmest year in record, they are only taking about a narrow time scale of 100 years or so. We are not tallish about the long term history of the earth. It sounds like the history of the earth; on the record, but it is not. On the record is only based on when science began to keep accurate records. It ignores most of earth history, when formal records were not being kept, but when weather and climate change was also occurring. It sort of revises history by default; different data collection methods.

We can infer the weather of the distant past, before the formal records, using other techniques, such as ice core samples. However, these techniques will not tell us much in terms of the day to day changes in weather and climate we can see with modern tools; as seen on TV. Based on all the hard data (using two techniques) one would have to conclude, there is more recorded variety of climate change, today, than ever in history. It is data trick. There is a short term illusion, that appeals to liberals, based on technicalities. It would be like saying abortion is a natural thing, even though wide spread abortion is only possible due to modern science. An illusion is created that satisfies short term thinking.

Maybe one way to level the playing field is to run a test where all climate data has to be collected using the same techniques we use for climate data from 1M year ago. For example, we can't use thermometers nor can use directly measure CO2, but we can only use cores samples and tree rings. Core data will not tell us each and every tornado and micro-burst. This level playing field will make things look much quieter. It is more conservative. puppypower, Sat, 2nd Apr 2016


I didn't say that. I said civilizations tend to locate themselves near resources, which are exposed by fault lines. YOU suggested civilizations pick locations based on mild weather, which is NOT true.

Here's the quote: "In fact, most civilizations in the past tended to be located near fault lines BECAUSE that's where the Earth had exposed the resources they needed, including things like water tables and mineral resources."

Nothing about faults causing storms in that statement. I used to tutor in college. Can I offer you a lesson in reading comprehension? Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 2nd Apr 2016


COMPREHENSIVELY FALSE.

Much closer to the truth: Liberals invest in programs that they believe will pay off in the future, while conservatives want to cut programs unless they pay off today. Liberals seek progress and embrace change, conservatives like things the way they used to be. Liberals look to climate scientists for guidance, conservatives go outside in the middle of winter, make snowballs, then come back inside to show the president their "evidence." Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 2nd Apr 2016


That's because there's no good news to report when it comes to anthropogenic climate change, unless they are reporting on a reversal of the trend, or a drop in per capita energy consumption per human. Until things like that happen, there isn't going to be any good news. That's going to happen later than sooner because people like you keep casting doubt on the work of credible scientists and attempting to discredit sensible people like myself. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 2nd Apr 2016


Academic scientists would tend to follow the Scientific Method, so perhaps that's what's stopping them from applying for such a grant. You should follow that example. Then you won't make foolish suggestions, like that climate science is subject to fads. That's an insult to real scientists.

If you want some money for a study like that, don't ask the government, ask GMC or Standard Oil. They'll fund your study. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 2nd Apr 2016

Why would I want to conduct a biased study? alancalverd, Sat, 2nd Apr 2016


Like there was ever a time in the history of the Earth when 100,000,000 years worth of fossil fuels went up in smoke in 150 years?

https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/images/1_Global_Page13-e.png

That indicates a problem. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 2nd Apr 2016


That's because there's no good news to report when it comes to anthropogenic climate change,


http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-038/004-038a.html



Sounds good to me. Tim the Plumber, Sat, 2nd Apr 2016

It's certainly good enough for local market gardeners who use diesel generators to make...CO2! They sell the electricity as a useless byproduct and pipe the gas into their greenhouses to accelerate plant growth. The glasshouse atmosphere is actually toxic to humans.  alancalverd, Sat, 2nd Apr 2016


http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-038/004-038a.html

"Reproduced, with permission, from: Parry, M. L. 1990."

Only had to go back 26 years to find some good news, eh? Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 3rd Apr 2016


Since plant physiology has not changed significantly in 26 years, what would be the point of rewriting the obvious?



In my student days we had a competition to quote the oldest relevant paper in our PhD theses. I think the winner was dated 1742 - not bad for a thesis based on a linear accelerator. The impressive aspect of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, et al is that their publications remain valid to this day because the laws they discovered have not changed - ever.

The bizarre notion that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas is usually ascribed to Svante Arrhenius, whose 1896 paper on the subject is still accepted without question by believers, despite its obvious shortcomings.  alancalverd, Sun, 3rd Apr 2016


Look, either the CO2 is a significant contributor, or the actual heat produced is a significant contributor, but they can't both not be. The planet isn't warming up for no reason, which is the conclusion I would come to if I listened to you, Bored Chemist and Tim the Plumber, because between the three of you, you've now argued that neither the heat nor the CO2 is having a significant effect. So, where is it coming from? The hot air you're all blowing?

Again, the highest the CO2 content had been for 800,000 years was 320 ppm. We went from 320 to 400 in 50 years. That's a full 20% increase over "natural" levels, and parallels the news reports of record high temperatures for the last couple of decades.

Sorry, even if I hadn't taken any science courses in college, I would still tend to believe that burning 100 million years worth of coal and oil probably would cause a slight rise in global temperatures. I mean, I learned way back in 2nd grade that the atmosphere acts like a blanket. What happens when you cover up with a thicker blanket, then pull the blanket over your face so your breath warms the space under the blanket? Duh. Even a kid intuitively recognizes how this process works.

Because I DID take some science courses in college, I am aware that the expression of CO2 warming the atmosphere is just another manifestation of the original mass/energy conversion that took place during combustion. After a combustion reaction, the remaining particles have different properties than the fossil fuel did.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Please note, that's a ".org" site from the American Institute for Physics, not a 26-year-old paper on plants, soil, pests and disease like Tim the Plumber posted. Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 3rd Apr 2016


http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-038/004-038a.html

"Reproduced, with permission, from: Parry, M. L. 1990."

Only had to go back 26 years to find some good news, eh?


Do you consider an increase in plant effectiveness at making more plant to be a good thing? I do. Especially when it is in the range of 30% to 100 %.

I have also seen the figure of 11% increase in vegitation across the dru bits of Africa.

Do you deny the science I linked to just because it's older than you would like it to be? Tim the Plumber, Sun, 3rd Apr 2016


Look, either the CO2 is a significant contributor, or the actual heat produced is a significant contributor, but they can't both not be. The planet isn't warming up for no reason, which is the conclusion I would come to if I listened to you, Bored Chemist and Tim the Plumber, because between the three of you, you've now argued that neither the heat nor the CO2 is having a significant effect. So, where is it coming from? The hot air you're all blowing?

The planet warmed up between 1979 and 1998. Since then it has not warmed up. I do not know why the climate did this. But there have always been lots of changes in climate. Natural factors cause the climate to change lots. Why is the period 1979 to now different? Why does the period 1979 to now give any cause for concearn?



But since the last 18 years have seen no significant warming then factors other than CO2 must be in play. CO2 looks increasingly weak as a forcing agent.



What happens if you add a postage stamp onto your blanket as an additional blanket? Numbers matter.



What are you talking about? This is nothing to do with any college course. What degree or whatever did you ever get?



As has been pointed out to you good science stays around and is not changed. It does not matter how old a paper is.
Tim the Plumber, Sun, 3rd Apr 2016



No.

1. Water is the dominant greenhouse gas/liquid/solid. It is responsible for the bounded chaotic oscillation of temperature that we have seen in the few reliable historic records. Nothing else accounts for the rapid rses and slow falls of surface temperature over thousands of years.

2. As shown by the Mauna Loa data, carbon dioxide concentration is, in the absence of anthopogenic factors, a function of temperature, due to the reduced solubility of CO2 in sea water and the increased metabolism of coldblooded creatures at elevated temperatures.

3. The infrared absorption of CO2 is demonstrably close to saturation in the atmosphere, and is in any case negligible compared with that of water.

Phenomenon 2 explains the correlation between CO2 and temperature, but as shown by the Vostok and Mauna Loa data, since "natural" CO2 always lags behind temperature, CO2 cannot be a significant driver of climate change.

Phenomenon 3 shows that the anthropogenic addition of CO2 to the atmosphere cannot make a significant addition to global temperature.This has been borne out by the failure of every CO2-driven model to predict what actually happened since Arrhenius' seminal paper. 

Calculations elsewhere in this forum have shown that the maximum possible contribution of fossil fuel combustion is about 0.005 degrees .

As I've said before, physics is about numbers, not adjectives.

  alancalverd, Sun, 3rd Apr 2016


If you don't know why, you don't need to be commenting like you are some kind of expert.

If alancalverd was DOING HIS JOB AS MODERATOR, he would calling you out on your nonsense rather than nitpicking at my actual science. Craig W. Thomson, Mon, 4th Apr 2016


Thanks for proving my point. If we get rid of anthropogenic factors, we won't have anything to worry about. Simple. Craig W. Thomson, Mon, 4th Apr 2016


Did you even read what you linked to?? Because it looks to me like you mined a quote, then ignored the context:

EFFECTS ON IMPACTS FROM CLIMATIC EXTREMES

"Levels of risk such as these may well be altered quite markedly by apparently small changes in mean climate, particularly the risk of successive extremes, which can quickly lead to famine in food-deficit regions.

"To illustrate, suppose that extremely dry summers (of a kind that can cause severe food shortage in a given region) occur at present with a probability of P = 0.1. The return period of the occurrence of a single drought is, therefore, 10 years, while the return period for the occurrence of two successive droughts is 100 years (assuming a normal distribution of frequencies). A change in climate can lead to a change in P, either through altered variability which will change P directly, and/or through a change in mean conditions that must also change P if drought is judged relative to an absolute threshold. Alternatively, P may change through changes in some critical impact threshold as a result of altered land use, increasing population pressure, and so forth. If P becomes 0.2, then the return period of a single drought is halved to 5 years. The return period for two successive droughts, however, is reduced by a factor of four to only 25 years. Thus, not only is agriculture often sensitive to climatic extremes, but the risk of climatic extremes may be very sensitive to relatively small changes in the mean climate.

"The sensitivity of marginal farmers to climatic change may be especially great. The reason for this is that, near the margins of cultivation, the probability of critical levels of warmth or moisture required to avoid crop failure or a critical crop shortfall tends to increase not linearly but quasi-exponentially towards the margin of cultivation (Figure 4.6). Marginal areas are thus commonly characterized by a very steep "risk surface", with the result that any changes in average warmth or aridity, or in their variability, would have a marked effect on the level of risk in agriculture.

"For the reasons given above, much of the impact on agriculture from climatic change can be expected to stem from the effects of extreme events. Consider, first, the significantly increased costs resulting from increased frequency of extremely hot days causing heat stress in crops. In the central USA the number of days with temperatures above 35deg.C, particularly at the time of grain filling, has a significant negative effect on maize and wheat yields. The incidence of these very hot days is likely to increase substantially with a quite small increase in mean temperature. For example, in Iowa, in the US Corn Belt, an increase in mean temperature of only 1 .7deg.C may bring about a three-fold increase in the probability of 5 consecutive days with a maximum temperature over 35DEG.C. At the southern edge of the Corn Belt, where maize is already grown near its maximal temperature-tolerance limit, such an increase could have a very deleterious effect on yield.

"The increase in risk of heat stress on crops and livestock due to global warming could be especially important in tropical and subtropical t regions where temperate cereals are currently grown near their limit of heat tolerance. For example, in northern India, where GCM experiments indicate an increase in mean annual temperature of about 4deg.C, wheat production might no longer be viable.

"An important additional effect of warming, especially in temperate regions, is likely to be the reduction of winter chilling (vernalization). Many temperate crops require a period of low temperatures in winter either to initiate or to accelerate the flowering process. Low vernalization results in low flower-bud initiation and, ultimately, reduced yields. A 1deg.C warming could reduce effective winter chilling by between 10 and 30 per cent.

"Changes in rainfall could have a similarly magnified impact. For example, if mean rainfall in the Corn Belt in March (which is about 100 mm ) decreased by 10 per cent (an amount projected by some GCMs under a 2 x CO2 climate) this would raise the probability of less than 25 mm being received by 46 per cent. For cattle, crops and trees a 1 per cent reduction in rainfall could mean that drought-related yield losses increase by as much as a half."

Here's that source you posted again: http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-038/004-038a.html

Now, are you going to deny the science in your own link?

Craig W. Thomson, Mon, 4th Apr 2016


Yes, but that's in a forum full of skeptics with you as a moderator. Serious physicists and scientists don't often make a habit of frequenting forums full of crackpots. Craig W. Thomson, Mon, 4th Apr 2016


If you don't know why, you don't need to be commenting like you are some kind of expert.

If alancalverd was DOING HIS JOB AS MODERATOR, he would calling you out on your nonsense rather than nitpicking at my actual science.


You make claims that you cannot support. I don't. I admit the limits of my knowledge.

You would understand that this is the very first pricipal of the scientific method if you were capable of learning anything you did not like. Tim the Plumber, Mon, 4th Apr 2016


Did you even read what you linked to?? Because it looks to me like you mined a quote, then ignored the context:



Here's that source you posted again: http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-038/004-038a.html

Now, are you going to deny the science in your own link?


Not at all. You said that there was nothing good about increased CO2. I posted the link to this paper which i am sure you will agree is definately on the alarmist side of the debate in general in which they say that a doubling of CO2 would increase photosynthisis by between 30% and 100%. That bit I think is a good thing.

The rest I disagree with in that I do not see strong evidence for increased extreme weather patterns. There seems to not have been such things in previous warm periods and I see no reason to expect anything different in today's warmish period whatever the reason for the warming. Tim the Plumber, Mon, 4th Apr 2016


According to NOAA, so the answer is no. But who cares about data? Climate change is politics! alancalverd, Mon, 4th Apr 2016

In my opinion(s) - these are my opinions, because I'm not qualified to state them as fact, but I as understand these specific opinions are in agreement with scientific facts presented as my opinions.

To me the single most clear fact about severity of any individual instance of weather is directly proportional to the amount of atmospheric water content.

That's probably stated (or should be) somewhere in a meteorology 101.  I just made it, but one opinion I think isn't fact but...  but by all accounts it is the single most important factor of any given weather event.

Now climate (settings?) behavior and ocean temperature is probably the single most significant reason for climates to vary in many aspects of any indicator of one measure of Earths temperature in degrees toward the climate.

What has caused the Oceans to change temperature is indicated by scientific reasoning that its attributed to human activity, right or wrong isn't necessarily inconsequential to the fact that all scientific studies agree the temperature and height of the ocean are both rising.

While one republic party who happens to have the most current control of United States congressional activity and/or inactivities seems to completely ignore the fact that the oceans will likely rise about 3' by the end of the current century mark.  That being the case the Florida keys will be what virtually all that Florida will be at that particular point in time.  If the party in control maintains ignorance of what will happen regardless of cause, said party will likely assume all blame for said ignorance.

Time will be the judge, jury and executioner of such ignorance. JoeBrown, Tue, 5th Apr 2016


No, you DON'T admit the limits of your knowledge. Again, have you even taken one college level science course? I took four, two biology, two physics. I got good grades because I learned the material. On top of that, I've read a few hundred pounds of science books over the last 25 years or so.

You obviously come here armed with Google key word searches and confirmation biases. I don't believe you studied chemistry. I know science well enough to discern this; key concepts elude you, but you always seem to come up with details about them that you use to nitpick the argument. Learn your science correctly, please. Craig W. Thomson, Tue, 5th Apr 2016


That time is now. Again, I read Jeremy Rifkin's Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World way back in 1988. They say the best proof of a theory is its ability to make predictions. Rifkin made A LOT of predictions, and I've watched them fall one by one like dominoes.

One thing he didn't predict: People would still be this argumentative and politically polarized after two and a half decades of compelling evidence and ominously accurate predictions. Craig W. Thomson, Tue, 5th Apr 2016


Okay, let me baby feed you the science here. When you add energy to the atmosphere, that affect air currents. When you warm the ocean, that adds to the effect. So, a higher percentage of hurricanes might turn North before they make landfall.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE STORMS ARE WEAKER, OR THAT THERE ARE LESS OF THEM.

YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING A MODERATOR AT A SCIENCE FORUM.

YOU ARE POLITICALLY BIASED AND DISREGARD THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Craig W. Thomson, Tue, 5th Apr 2016



When did "might" become a substitute for data?




alancalverd, Tue, 5th Apr 2016


Today at 13:20:55, apparently.

That's when you posted a graph suggesting that earth's magnetic field might be responsible for anthropogenic climate change.

That's right here in this thread if anyone would like to take a look, reply #379:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.msg484974#new Craig W. Thomson, Wed, 6th Apr 2016


Have you any idea what "anthropogenic" means? If you want to use big words, look them up first.

And beware of inferring causation from unidirectional correlation. alancalverd, Wed, 6th Apr 2016


Have you any idea what "anthropogenic" means? If you want to use big words, look them up first.

And beware of inferring causation from unidirectional correlation.

I don't need to look it up. I was an English minor in college, but even before that, way back in Mrs. Loftin's high school English class, we studied etymology. Consequently, I know "anthro" means "man" and "genic" means "originating from," so I know right off the bat that "anthropogenic" means "having human origins" even without looking it up.

You should be careful about posting graphs of studies conducted by "neurotheologists" as evidence that anthropogenic climate change is not real. When you did that, YOU inferred causation between the earth's magnetic field and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Craig W. Thomson, Wed, 6th Apr 2016


When did ignoring data (hurricanes that make landfall) become a substitute for data?

"Might" is the appropriate word. When a pot of water is not quite boiling, there's a nice, smooth, torus-shaped roll to the water. One can predict where water in that pot is going to go. That smooth motion breaks down and becomes erratic as the temperature increases. The movement of the water will become entirely random by the time it reaches a boil. The atmosphere is no different. Hurricane tracks are already hard to predict, and it will be even more difficult to do so as the temperature of both the ocean and the atmosphere increase.

These basics are getting boring. Let me throw some more advanced science at you. Think about processes like alpha decay. It takes several wave functions to model the behavior of a particle, which moves in a chaotic fashion. Radioactivity is possible because when wave functions reinforce each other, that can allow a helium nucleus to "jump" outside the area of influence of the nucleus.

This is similar to extreme storms. Weather is a chaotic system. There are several functions involved in modelling that system. When you increase the value of one of those functions, the points where they reinforce each other take on more extreme values. That's when you get severe weather, out-of-season weather, changing storm tracks, etc. Craig W. Thomson, Wed, 6th Apr 2016



So now, using your encyclopaedic knowledge of geophysics, please tell us how Man has altered the earth's magnetic field, or how the earth's magnetic field has somehow induced Man to change the climate. If I recall correctly , a self-advertised English minor recently wrote:



alancalverd, Wed, 6th Apr 2016



Not in my lifetime, which is why I posted a graph showing exactly that information, in response to a question about severe storms. If the data challenges your prejudices, you have the option of changing your mind, or complaining about those who present it to you. One of those responses is called "science", the other is beneath contempt. alancalverd, Wed, 6th Apr 2016



I don't know what you're trying to suggest here. You posted the graph. I merely looked up the crackpot study that went along with it.

I don't want to get into a discussion with you, Tim the Plumber and Bored Chemist about "big vs. small" again. You guys basically claim as a sum total of your arguments that applying combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels couldn't possibly warm the Earth by a degree or two because the effects are too small, so I am curious to know if you think we could be changing the entire magnetic field of the Earth, generated by a gigantic mass of molten metal at the core, with our piddly little TV broadcasts, 50,000 watt radio stations and few hundred communication satellites.

According to the pseudoscientists in the article accompanying the graph you posted, our TV broadcasts might be affecting movie ticket prices...
Craig W. Thomson, Wed, 6th Apr 2016


I was asking what you were trying to suggest. Or maybe the word "anthopogenic" just slipped in when you weren't thinking. Freudian?

A bizarre suggestion, if ever I heard one. Where on earth did you get such an idea? There's nothing in the graph or the paper about any anthropogenic causative factor that I can see. You might guess from the data that CO2 causes the magnetic field to alter, but I doubt that even your vast expertise in geophysics can propose a plausible mechanism  linking either to cinema tickets. alancalverd, Wed, 6th Apr 2016

'
What were you trying to suggest, slipping in a graph compiled by "neurotheologists" as evidence to support your arguments?

Do you believe God lives in your neural pathways? Ask him what he thinks about your bogus science. Craig W. Thomson, Thu, 7th Apr 2016


Man doesn't alter the earth's magnetic field. The core of the earth is molten, not solid and fixed, plus the earth rotates, so magnetic field reversals have been happening for millions of years. Slight changes in the magnetic field are common and the magnetic pole drifts.

Now, please explain to us all why you posted a graph compiled by "neurotheologists" that appears to correlate CO2 content of the atmosphere and magnetic field strength. Craig W. Thomson, Thu, 7th Apr 2016


FALSE.

From Wikipedia:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, set up at the request of member governments.

"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.

"Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.

"The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change, producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate scientists and the consensus of participating governments."

Here's a list of member nations, grand total, 194:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-countries.pdf

That rules out political motives, because if every country in the world is represented, every form of government is represented, not just the liberally biased ones.

Only people with political motives would call into question the motives of the IPCC. Craig W. Thomson, Thu, 7th Apr 2016

I spent more than 10 years in the field of hydrology and I have already told you that water vapour drives the temperature. But hey you know best. jeffreyH, Thu, 7th Apr 2016



Substitute "the Pope" for IPCC, and "geocentriic universe " for "climate change", then tell me why I should accept the word of authority when the facts do not support it. alancalverd, Thu, 7th Apr 2016

Craig you have to ask yourself what is about atmospheric water vapour that could decrease the efficiency of natural carbon sinks? If you can answer that question you will reach enlightenment grasshopper. jeffreyH, Thu, 7th Apr 2016

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html jeffreyH, Thu, 7th Apr 2016


It doesn't "appear to", it clearly shows a very strong correlation. The point of posting it was, as I have said several times, to point out that correlation does not prove causation. Since you plainly accept that statement in respect of magnetic fields and temperature, why do you cling to the opposite in the case of carbon dioxide? Especially when the evidence is that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, so CO2 cannot be the driver of temperature.
  alancalverd, Thu, 7th Apr 2016

Yes it exactly is. Climate has been changing. henrycalvin, Fri, 8th Apr 2016

Agreed, but the number and severity of storms, at least according to NOAA, has decreased.

Bloody data, always gets in the way of hypothesis! alancalverd, Fri, 8th Apr 2016

The current climate change is connected to an El Nino affect, which is a large pocket of warm water in the oceans near the equator. A La Nina is based on cooler water and can also impact climate.

This is a March 2016 quote from NOAA;



If El Nino impacts climate and the current subsurface ocean temperature is falling, how does CO2 cool the sub surface of the ocean, with CO2 in the rise? 

If you look at the formation of El Nino and La Nina, it is due, in part, to changes in wind direction? How does CO2 cause the wind to change directions? Also El Nino and La Nina differ by the upwelling of cold ocean water from the depths. How does CO2 regulate the cold water upwelling? This can be seen in the second figure.



puppypower, Fri, 8th Apr 2016


FALSE. Water doesn't evaporate until it gets warm. To get water vapor, you have to have a rise in temperature FIRST.

That's how physics ACTUALLY works. Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 8th Apr 2016


On the contrary, substitute "alancalverd and a handful of crackpots" for the IPCC and the result is a thread full of nonsense, weak arguments and cherry-picked facts. Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 8th Apr 2016


It doesn't "appear to", it clearly shows a very strong correlation. The point of posting it was, as I have said several times, to point out that correlation does not prove causation.

FALSE.

cor·re·la·tion
ˌkôrəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.

There is NO correlation between CO2 increases and a decrease in earth's magnetic field.

For you to suggest there is is bad science. Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 8th Apr 2016


The properties of a CO2 molecule are such that it absorbs infrared (heat) radiation and re-emits it, adding insulative properties to the atmosphere.

1) That does NOT cool the subsurface of the ocean.

2) That COULD change the direction of wind currents.

3) That does NOT regulate cold water upwelling.
Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 8th Apr 2016


What data? You've given us your opinion as a moderator without a link to data. That's called an "argumentum ab auctoritate."

Here's a link to some data that contradicts that argument:

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-storms Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 8th Apr 2016

Pretty much just because I was exploring the site I found this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm

at skeptical science. Now while the link between say severe storms is still less than absolute the link with heatwaves and extremes or participation (droughts and probably floods) have been established to a pretty high degree of certainty. As usual the author does a good job with relevant citations. agyejy, Fri, 8th Apr 2016


Yes. I see an analogous phenomenon in another area of physics here: wave function superposition. When wave functions superpose, this can cause, for example, an alpha particle to appear "outside" the range of influence of its radioactive nucleus. Or, if you add too much energy to an electron, those superposed functions will similarly allow the electron to escape by appearing outside the nucleus' range.

Weather can be modeled using a system of equations. When those functions superpose, or reinforce each other, the results can be extreme weather "outside" the normal range of weather. When you increase the intensity of one of those functions, for example by adding carbon dioxide or cranking up the temperature a bit, that can lead to even greater weather extremes. Craig W. Thomson, Fri, 8th Apr 2016

You are obsessed with carbon dioxide. Do you have OCD by any chance. So you read some books. Big deal. I bet those authors were never anywhere near live datasets. Climate change sells books because it is trendy. No vested interest there then. jeffreyH, Fri, 8th Apr 2016



Let's make it a general quiz!! Might as well have fun with it.

I'll go for plants not growing as quickly on cloudy days. Obviously it's a bit weak but surely a factor somewhere... Tim the Plumber, Fri, 8th Apr 2016


What data? You've given us your opinion as a moderator without a link to data. That's called an "argumentum ab auctoritate."

Here's a link to some data that contradicts that argument:

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-storms

NCA lists a whole lot of models and hypotheses. NOAA (whose graph I posted a few days ago) lists actual storms. alancalverd, Fri, 8th Apr 2016


The properties of a CO2 molecule are such that it absorbs infrared (heat) radiation and re-emits it, adding insulate properties to the atmosphere.



1) That does NOT cool the subsurface of the ocean.

2) That COULD change the direction of wind currents.

3) That does NOT regulate cold water upwelling.


So the various things that induce the El Nino, which has a direct impact on climate change; such a heavy rains in California and drought elsewhere, is not directly traceable to CO2?

It is easier to equate climate change to El Nino and La Nina affects; oscillation, the dynamics of which are not induced by CO2.

All one needs to do is see if El Nino ever occurred more than 100 years ago, when CO2 was lower.

If you do a Google search, the El Nino oscillation was first discovered in 1795. Modern science places it claim in about 1924. Climate change occurs with or without CO2. puppypower, Sat, 9th Apr 2016


Hard to say that when the atmosphere has contained CO2 for hundreds of millions of years. From Wikipedia:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth's atmosphere currently constituting about 0.04% (400 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Despite its relatively small concentration, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and plays a vital role in regulating Earth's surface temperature through radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect. Reconstructions show that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have varied, ranging from as high as 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm in the mid-18th century to 402 ppm as of 2016. The present concentration is the highest in at least the past 800,000 years and likely the highest in the past 20 million years. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 9th Apr 2016


You have yet to make one statement that's backed up by empirical evidence. You are a pathetic, uneducated joke with no discernible skills beyond trolling people that know more about science than you. Your vested interest is self-interest, and I will not let selfish brain farts take out the whole human race just because you are too stupid and politically brainwashed to accept an obvious conclusion: burning stuff creates heat. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 9th Apr 2016


Oh, you mean like all the quizzes and exams I took in college before graduating with honors?

Take a quiz yourself, and the class to go along with it, then come back when you actually know something about this besides what you just Googled. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 9th Apr 2016


What data? You've given us your opinion as a moderator without a link to data. That's called an "argumentum ab auctoritate."

Here's a link to some data that contradicts that argument:

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-storms

NCA lists a whole lot of models and hypotheses. NOAA (whose graph I posted a few days ago) lists actual storms.

That's not the point. Why do you always miss the point? Again, as you can see in the conversation above, you stated that "the number and severity of storms, at least according to NOAA, has decreased." My source says, "Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s, and their tracks have shifted northward."

I've got news for you. Hurricanes are warm weather phenomena. It takes a warm ocean to get a hurricane going, and a warm ocean to keep it going. It's no coincidence that most hurricanes follow a track toward our part of the world that starts just off the coast of Africa's Sahara desert where the ocean is nice and warm.

Now, why would WINTER storms be increasing in intensity? Hurricane Sandy was out of season, 1,100 miles across at its largest, a monster storm by any measure.

Any guesses why the ocean would be warmer in the wintertime than it used to be?

This place seriously needs an eye-rolling icon. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 9th Apr 2016


You have yet to make one statement that's backed up by empirical evidence. You are a pathetic, uneducated joke with no discernible skills beyond trolling people that know more about science than you. Your vested interest is self-interest, and I will not let selfish brain farts take out the whole human race just because you are too stupid and politically brainwashed to accept an obvious conclusion: burning stuff creates heat.


You are very skilled at belittling those you feel threatened by. Especially when you realise that they have experience in the field you want to portray yourself as an expert in. The climate is changing and yes we have had some impact on that but it would have been an upward trend without our input. jeffreyH, Sat, 9th Apr 2016


Yeah, that's something I learned in forums. I'm not this way in real life, only in the virtual world. And I learned from the best. You can only be so insulting when you're dumb, but people in science forums are a little bit smarter than average, so trolls can be pretty skilled.

I tend to see this in terms of science. Consider Newton's famous axiom, for every action, there is a reaction. For example, maybe you shouldn't have intruded in the conversation and patronized me with your condescending little attitude, interjecting a bunch of passive-aggessive flame posts in a row, and stuck to the subject of science like I suggested, meat head.

Now, as far as the rest of your post, FALSE:

http://climatenewsnetwork.net/why-we-should-be-cooling-not-warming/

Then, there's the graph I keep posting over and over:

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

Historically, it would appear that a peak is generally followed by a trough, not a dramatic spike.

At this point, I'm just hoping you show signs of a dramatic spike in brain activity. Craig W. Thomson, Sat, 9th Apr 2016

The reason you have issues in public forums is three fold. Firstly your arrogance. Secondly your resort to insults. Thirdly your inability to engage in a reasonable debate and an unwillingness to consider other viewpoints. jeffreyH, Sat, 9th Apr 2016

For those with more open minds here is a research paper on the role played by water vapour on the climate. It is not as expected. Like many other phenomena, the climatic system can be counter intuitive.
arxiv.org/abs/0908.4410
jeffreyH, Sat, 9th Apr 2016



Yeah, who needs actual real world data when you have a computer to make you look clever? Tim the Plumber, Sun, 10th Apr 2016

Since a computer model has to be predictive it cannot simply play back raw data. It has to base a simulation on analysis of the instrumentation data. jeffreyH, Sun, 10th Apr 2016



By the time you have put in the necessary assumptions to make your simplified model you are telling yourself whatever you wanted to in the first place.

The climate is very complex and doing such a simulation is always going to give results that cannot be trusted. Tim the Plumber, Sun, 10th Apr 2016



By the time you have put in the necessary assumptions to make your simplified model you are telling yourself whatever you wanted to in the first place.

The climate is very complex and doing such a simulation is always going to give results that cannot be trusted.


Well that is just patently ridiculous:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

agyejy, Sun, 10th Apr 2016


I've asked you several times now to shut the hell up if you're not going to talk about science. Nobody cares about your half baked psychoanalysis, halfwit.

At least I'm honest. You thinly veil your insults and arrogance as you pretend to be on your best behavior, trolling people from the safety of your own home like a little pansy.

There ARE no other viewpoints. When you burn stuff, you get heat and carbon dioxide that helps trap heat. End of story. Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 10th Apr 2016



By the time you have put in the necessary assumptions to make your simplified model you are telling yourself whatever you wanted to in the first place.

The climate is very complex and doing such a simulation is always going to give results that cannot be trusted.


Well that is just patently ridiculous:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm


So why do you think the climate models don't work?

I'd say it a combination of chaos and wrong assumptions. But do tell me what it reall is. Tim the Plumber, Sun, 10th Apr 2016


Do you even know the difference between a linear and a non-linear system? I'm going to guess no.

News flash: Climate is not random, and neither is weather. There's order in that randomness. Most systems in nature exhibit non-linear characteristics. However, non-linear equations are hard to solve, so mathematicians approximate them with linear equations.

Then you come along and start quoting those mathematicians without even knowing what they are talking about.

That's "wrong assumption" number one. Edify yourself:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_climatechange25.htm Craig W. Thomson, Sun, 10th Apr 2016



So I guess you don't read cited sources. Here is quote:



The past is no different than the future. If you give you model the set of parameters from today and nothing else and it retrodicts yesterday and all previous days for which you have data then you can be fairly sure your model is good. If you model later correctly predicts the changes that occur due to a volcanic eruption you can be even more sure your model is good. Clearly the climate models work otherwise they wouldn't be getting these things right. agyejy, Sun, 10th Apr 2016


I've asked you several times now to shut the hell up if you're not going to talk about science. Nobody cares about your half baked psychoanalysis, halfwit.

At least I'm honest. You thinly veil your insults and arrogance as you pretend to be on your best behavior, trolling people from the safety of your own home like a little pansy.

There ARE no other viewpoints. When you burn stuff, you get heat and carbon dioxide that helps trap heat. End of story.


For as long as you are being disrespectful I will call you out on it. I won't call you names. I will simply point out the defects in your character that make you so objectionable. jeffreyH, Sun, 10th Apr 2016


There's nothing respectful about interrupting a conversation about science to not talk about science, so as long as you keep wasting everyone's time doing that, I'm going to keep calling you names, more on.

You don't learn very quickly, do you? Craig W. Thomson, Mon, 11th Apr 2016

See the whole discussion | Make a comment

Not working please enable javascript
EPSRC
Powered by UKfast
STFC
Genetics Society
ipDTL