IPCC - Global Warming/Climate Change: Worst Is Yet to Come

Some people are in their cups with true belief yet still do not even know the uncertainties or the unknowns of climate science.

 

Some people can't comprehend the science and foolishly want to deny, for political or economic reasons, the clear increases in the Earth's average temperatures and the changes that that warming is causing in Earth's climate patterns, all due to mankind's activities. Such people are called 'reality deniers'. Too bad you're one of 'em.

 

True belief on display. Congrats. Too bad observation is not keeping up with the religion.

 

Those who confuse science with religion, understand neither one.

I do believe in the ability of science to give us a useful and accurate picture of the physical universe.

Scientific observations continue to support and affirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.

The myths and lies your cult of reality denial tell you are bogus propaganda memes with no substance or reality.

 

More FAIL. The predictions based on this have not come true. For instance the Arctic was predicted to be ice free this year. Hurricane intensity has not increased as predicted. Temperatures have been statistically stable for going on two decades. Tornado activity is at an all time low. I could go on but then all you do is defend the one true religion.

 

All lies and denier cult myths.

Contrary To Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate

 

LOL, more from liberal outlets that are in the bag for the alleged 'consensus'. No temperature rise for going on two decades after predicting an increase is 'exceptionally accurate'. Go figure. Now, tell us how you are going to stop the next glacial period?

 

It is funny the obeisance to men in white coats is when in fact so much is not known.

Here is an example.

Quakes are increasing, but scientists aren't sure what it means

 

Your denier cult myths are really hilarious. In spite of your fraudulent myths, there is a very real and very strong scientific consensus on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]

* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

* Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]

* The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]

* The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Repeating fallacious denier cult myths won't magically make them turn into the truth, no matter how many times you repeat them. "No temperature rise for going on two decades"???......man, that is some really delusional crazy crap you got hold of there....

The facts are that GLOBALLY:

* Sixteen years ago 1998 became the hottest year on record by a considerable margin.

* Currently 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, in records going back to the 1800s.

* 2013 was the fourth hottest year on record.

* The last decade was the hottest decade on record, as was the decade before that and the decade before that, in turn.

* All of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998.

* The coldest years since 1998 are still hotter than all of the hottest years before 1998.

* This last November 2013 was the hottest November on record globally.

* This last April 2014 was the hottest April on record globally.

* This last April was the 350th consecutive month with global average temperatures higher than the average temperature for that month, averaged over the entire twentieth century.

* The Arctic ice cap is still rapidly melting away.

* Large areas northern permafrost are still rapidly melting.

* Greenland and Antarctica are still losing ice mass at increasing rates.

* The large majority of mountain glaciers are still rapidly melting and disappearing.

* Sea levels are still rising at an accelerating rate.

Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half
RealClimate
Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf
13 November 2013
A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared. Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve. But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

Now Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University of Ottawa) have developed a new method to fill the data gaps using satellite data. Cowtan and Way apply their method to the HadCRUT4 data, which are state-of-the-art except for their treatment of data gaps. For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05 °C per decade – which has often been misleadingly called a “warming pause”. The new IPCC report writes:

Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).​

But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC. The trend of 0.12 °C is at first surprising, because one would have perhaps expected that the trend after gap filling has a value close to the GISS data, i.e. 0.08 °C per decade. Cowtan and Way also investigated that difference. It is due to the fact that NASA has not yet implemented an improvement of sea surface temperature data which was introduced last year in the HadCRUT data (that was the transition from the HadSST2 the HadSST3 data – the details can be found e.g. here and here). The authors explain this in more detail in their extensive background material. Applying the correction of ocean temperatures to the NASA data, their trend becomes 0.10 °C per decade, very close to the new optimal reconstruction.


The corrected data (bold lines) are shown in the graph compared to the uncorrected ones (thin lines).

Conclusion

The authors write in their introduction:

While short term trends are generally treated with a suitable level of caution by specialists in the field, they feature significantly in the public discourse on climate change.​

This is all too true. A media analysis has shown that at least in the U.S., about half of all reports about the new IPCC report mention the issue of a “warming pause”, even though it plays a very minor role in the conclusions of the IPCC. Often the tenor was that the alleged “pause” raises some doubts about global warming and the warnings of the IPCC. We knew about the study of Cowtan & Way for a long time, and in the face of such media reporting it is sometimes not easy for researchers to keep such information to themselves. But I respect the attitude of the authors to only go public with their results once they’ve been published in the scientific literature. This is a good principle that I have followed with my own work as well.

The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years is nothing unusual – even despite the record El Niño year at the beginning of the period. It is still a quarter less than the warming trend since 1980, which is 0.16 °C per decade. But that’s not surprising when one starts with an extreme El Niño and ends with persistent La Niña conditions, and is also running through a particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum in the second half. As we often said, all this is within the usual variability around the long-term global warming trend and no cause for excited over-interpretation.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

What about 1940 to 1970 cooling. What have you got to show that in error? LOL.

 

Every denier cult myth and all of the absurd pseudo-science you've posted has been debunked by the actual science, so now you are going to try to recycle every debunked denier cult propaganda meme out there? LOLOL.

Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?
SkepticalScience
(excerpts)
Although temperatures increased overall during the 20th century, three distinct periods can be observed. Global warming occurred both at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century, but a cooling trend is seen from about 1940 to 1975. As a result, changes in 20th century trends offer a good framework through which to understand climate change and the role of numerous factors in determining the climate at any one time. Early and late 20th century warming has been explained primarily by increasing solar activity and increasing CO2 concentrations, respectively, with other factors contributing in both periods. So what caused the cooling period that interrupted the overall trend in the middle of the century? The answer seems to lie in solar dimming, a cooling phenomenon caused by airborne pollutants. The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.

* Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise in aerosols in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
* A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).​

Combined, these events led to aerosols overwhelming the warming trend at a time when solar activity showed little variation, leading to the observed cooling. Furthermore, it is possible to draw similar conclusions by looking at the daily temperature cycle. Because sunlight affects the maximum day-time temperature, aerosols should have a noticeable cooling impact on it. Minimum night-time temperatures, on the other hand, are more affected by greenhouse gases and therefore should not be affected by aerosols. Were these differences observed? The answer is yes: maximum day-time temperatures fell during this period but minimum night-time temperatures carried on rising. The introduction of pollution control measures reduced the emission of sulphate aerosols. Gradually the cumulative effect of increasing greenhouse gases started to dominate in the 1970s and warming resumed.

 

hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

 

What would you expect from a cartoonists CAGW advocacy site?

 

it must be a cartoon because I laughed quite loudly. That was just beautiful.

 

Foolish laughter isn't an actual rebuttal of sound science.

You questioned the reasons for mid twentieth century cooling and I gave them to you. Rising levels of industrial pollution producing particulates and sulfates, plus some volcanic activity also producing particulates and sulfates, which rise high into the atmosphere and reflect some small poprtion of the incoming sunlight back into space, seem to be the main reason, plus there was apparently some ocean cooling events. That represents the scientific understanding of that mid century cooling - global dimming of the sunlight.

Because you can't comprehend the science and because the scientific explanations don't fit in with your denier cult myths, you try vainly to laugh them off. Poor bewildered denier cultist.

 

Those are hyposthesis. Do not confuse that with facts.

 

Laughter at a foolish cartoon hypothesis. So dude, why waste your time on a message board. If it is what you truly believe it is, then move on. Don't stay around and look silly. silly, silly, silly. There is always an answer to maintain your stance. It doesn't matter the data. It is what you say it is by god and you're going to make it be that come hell or high water. Right? hahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahhahaaha!!!!

 

No, the increase in industrial and volcanic particulates and sulfates in that time period is a scientifically determined fact.

You have demonstrated a profound ignorance about science. Don't be foolish enough to try to teach the basics to people who know far more than you do.

 

You probably don't realize there are other hypothesis out there do you?

 

You're really laughing at yourself and your rejection of science, but you can't see it.

Rejecting science is what you deniers do. Foolishly believing that real science isn't the same everywhere regardless of the source that is reporting on the science, is another denier cult delusion.

The reasons for some slight global cooling in the mid 20th century are well established scientifically. SkepticalScience is, as always, reporting what mainstream established science has determined. There are many other scientific sources that say essentially the same thing.

Global dimming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]

Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action.

It has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially counteracted the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

In the mid-1980s, Atsumu Ohmura, a geography researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, found that solar radiation striking the Earth's surface had declined by more than 10% over the three previous decades. His findings appeared to contradict global warming—the global temperature had been generally rising since the 70s. Less light reaching the earth seemed to mean that it should cool. Ohmura published his findings "Secular variation of global radiation in Europe" in 1989.[8] This was soon followed by others: Viivi Russak in 1990 "Trends of solar radiation, cloudiness and atmospheric transparency during recent decades in Estonia",[9] and Beate Liepert in 1994 "Solar radiation in Germany — Observed trends and an assessment of their causes".[10] Dimming has also been observed in sites all over the former Soviet Union.[11] Gerry Stanhill who studied these declines worldwide in many papers (see references) coined the term "global dimming".[12]

Independent research in Israel and the Netherlands in the late 1980s showed an apparent reduction in the amount of sunlight,[13] despite widespread evidence that the climate was becoming hotter. The rate of dimming varies around the world but is on average estimated at around 2–3% per decade. The trend reversed in the early 1990s. [1] It is difficult to make a precise measurement, due to the difficulty in accurately calibrating the instruments used, and the problem of spatial coverage. Nonetheless, the effect is almost certainly present.

The effect (2–3%, as above) is due to changes within the Earth's atmosphere; the value of the solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere has not changed by more than a fraction of this amount.[14]

Causes and effects

It is thought that global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action.[2] Aerosols and other particulates absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back into space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. Water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles.[3] Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the Earth's surface. In models, these smaller droplets also decrease rainfall.[4]

Clouds intercept both heat from the sun and heat radiated from the Earth. Their effects are complex and vary in time, location, and altitude. Usually during the daytime the interception of sunlight predominates, giving a cooling effect; however, at night the re-radiation of heat to the Earth slows the Earth's heat loss.

The incomplete combustion of fossil fuels (such as diesel) and wood releases black carbon into the air. Though black carbon, most of which is soot, is an extremely small component of air pollution at land surface levels, the phenomenon has a significant heating effect on the atmosphere at altitudes above two kilometers (6,562 ft). Also, it dims the surface of the ocean by absorbing solar radiation.[27]

Experiments in the Maldives (comparing the atmosphere over the northern and southern islands) in the 1990s showed that the effect of macroscopic pollutants in the atmosphere at that time (blown south from India) caused about a 10% reduction in sunlight reaching the surface in the area under the pollution cloud — a much greater reduction than expected from the presence of the particles themselves.[28] Prior to the research being undertaken, predictions were of a 0.5–1% effect from particulate matter; the variation from prediction may be explained by cloud formation with the particles acting as the focus for droplet creation. Clouds are very effective at reflecting light back out into space.

The phenomenon underlying global dimming may also have regional effects. While most of the earth has warmed, the regions that are downwind from major sources of air pollution (specifically sulfur dioxide emissions) have generally cooled. This may explain the cooling of the eastern United States relative to the warming western part.[29]

However some research shows that black carbon will increase global warming, being second only to CO2. They believe that soot will absorb solar energy and transport it to other areas such as the Himalayas where glacial melting occurs. It can also darken Arctic ice reducing reflectivity and increasing absorption of solar radiation.[30]

Some climate scientists have theorized that aircraft contrails (also called vapor trails) are implicated in global dimming, but the constant flow of air traffic previously meant that this could not be tested. The near-total shutdown of civil air traffic during the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a unique opportunity in which to observe the climate of the United States absent from the effect of contrails. During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C (1.8 °F) was observed in some parts of the U.S., i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought.[26]

Airborne volcanic ash can reflect the Sun's rays back into space and thereby contribute to cooling the planet. Dips in earth temperatures have been observed after large volcano eruptions such as Mount Agung in Bali that erupted in 1963, El Chichon (Mexico) 1983, Ruiz (Colombia) 1985, and Pinatubo (Philippines) 1991. But even for major eruptions, the ash clouds remain only for relatively short periods.[31]

Relationship to global warming

Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.[43] According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."[44] The magnitude of this masking effect is one of the central problems in climate change with significant implications for future climate changes and policy responses to global warming.[43]

Interactions between the two theories for climate modification have also been studied, as global warming and global dimming are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory. In a paper published on March 8, 2005 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Anastasia Romanou of Columbia University's Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, New York, also showed that the apparently opposing forces of global warming and global dimming can occur at the same time.[45] Global dimming interacts with global warming by blocking sunlight that would otherwise cause evaporation and the particulates bind to water droplets. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. On the other hand, global dimming is affected by evaporation and rain. Rain has the effect of clearing out polluted skies.

Brown clouds have been found to amplify global warming according to Veerabhadran Ramanathan, an atmospheric chemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA. "The conventional thinking is that brown clouds have masked as much as 50 percent of global warming by greenhouse gases through so-called global dimming... While this is true globally, this study reveals that over southern and eastern Asia, the soot particles in the brown clouds are in fact amplifying the atmospheric warming trend caused by greenhouse gases by as much as 50 percent."[46]

 

Name them and show the scientific research that supports them or admit that you're just blowing hot air again.

 

All some people need is for someone to tell them what to believe and they never do any checking if it fits what they want to believe.

 

Sigh, posted before but you know how it goes, you guys never read anything. You fail to realize that one hypothesis is just that. Now if you really thought about it, industrialization has not abated, in fact it has increased dramatically with China which is much dirtier so what explains the warming and current hiatus?

 

No, I'm laughing at your post. You claim whatever you like. You have nothing. NOTHING

 

So none of the deniers are willing to state a hypothesis.

That confirms the status of denialism as pseudoscience. Real science is falsifiable. Since deniers won't even put for a hypothesis, it's impossible to falsify it. Denialism falls more in the category of religion.