Climate change is accelerating.
I'll try to get to this later today.
So I'll just provide mostly facts, using data, graphs and other authentic scientific sources to show what's accurate, what's false and what's speculation in the articles.
I'll try to address one point at a time.
Let's start with this statement, which was also part of the title:
"Crowther estimates that carbon dioxide and methane emissions from thawing soils are “accelerating climate change about 12 to 15 percent at the moment,” and said past IPCC reports that left out the feedback “were way more optimistic than they should have been.”
metmike: This is blatantly false and easy to show because the exact opposite has been happening. The IPCC climate models that they claim left this out are actually all too warm, not too cool as they are stating(the person stating this above BTW is an ecologist).
The first graph below shows the measured temperatures with the blue and green dots almost all below the squiggly lines, which are the climate model temperature predictions(computer simulated) which continue to get farther and farther away from the reality of what's happening(being measured) on the real planet.
metmike: The 2nd graph shows the latest temperatures, updated thru the month of March. The last number was +0.34 deg.C vs the 30 year average. Temperatures are increasing at a rate of a bit over 1 deg. C/century. At this current rate, in 2030, when we are supposed to be hitting this catastrophic to the planet tipping point of no return, the global temperature will be less than 0.20 deg. warmer than today.
“The impact that it has on making the earth darker by removing all the snow and ice is estimated by some to be 25 to 40 percent of the warming that we’ve experienced,” Jennifer Francis, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center, told Yahoo News. “In other words, global warming is that much worse. There’s a lot of ways these things are totaled all together.”
This person that they quoted above has a P.h.D in atmospheric science. There are quite a few of them like this making dead wrong statements. It's not "worse than we thought" as they say and you can see for yourself from the actual data but it's better than they thought.
Go here and scroll down for an explanation for why they do this in my comment to Gunter:
“A molecule of carbon dioxide, on average, lasts about 100 years in the atmosphere."
metmike: There's alot of debate and different opinions on this one. It can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt because the carbon budget involves interactions between so many things. Common scientific sense tells one to question that 100 year figure that they use in fact, the majority of scientists, have found that time,, called the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere to be much less than 100 years.
Note the red line below, the one used by the IPCC goes out to 100 years and many other scientists BEFORE climate science was hijacked, pretty much agreed on something that was just a fraction of that.
From the scientist at the above link: “IN order for increased human carbon dioxide emissions to cause accelerated global warming, the climate models need to assume that carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, up to 100 or more years.
“Since the IPCC’s task is to prove any global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, they decided to proclaim that carbon dioxide was long-lived in the atmosphere – a fabricated assumption.
“They did this despite the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed studies (and corroborating empirical measurements) finding that CO2 in the atmosphere remained there a short time. Literally, a fabricated assumption, driven by political agenda, became a cornerstone of fraudulent climate model science. As a result, billions spent on climate models that are unable to predict with any accuracy."
Here another opinion:
metmike: They claim that there are positive feedbacks that the models DON"T have but the reality, the biggest positive feedback that models do have built in comes from water vapor, which amplifies the CO2 warming X3 and looks to be overdone, not under done.......which is probably part of why the climate models are too warm.
Good discussion below:
metmike: This a good discussion that explains the limited ability of CO2 to warm the atmosphere as it increases based on the known physics of CO2 being logarithmic.........in other words the more and more that you add, the less and less the effect(for each X addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, you get X-y worth of warming).This is why greatly increasing H2O is needed as the big amplifier (X3) in the climate models to get the exaggerated warming that is happening at a much slower rate in the real world.
Easier to understand to the layman:
"Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).
Plant growth shuts down at 150 ppm, so the Earth was within 30 ppm of disaster. Terrestrial life came close to being wiped out by a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. If plants were doing climate science instead of us humans, they would have a different opinion about what is a dangerous carbon dioxide level."
metmike: Another good discussion below for those with a scientific mind:
"Several things jump out at us. The first is just how ridiculous the idea of a “tipping point” really is. The amount of heat the earth radiates to space just goes up too fast for that, and the amount of CO2 that is required to maintain any temperature increase at all goes up even faster. If we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate, it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees. But what about positive feedback from water vapour?
There are plenty of things wrong with that theory. In principle, the amount of water vapour the atmosphere is capable of holding about doubles for every 10 degree rise in temperature. The theory goes that just a small rise in temperature would increase water vapour which over all has a much larger greenhouse effect than does CO2. Estimates range anywhere from double to quadruple the additional warming. The average quoted most often is 1 degree of warming from CO2 and 2 more from water vapour feedback. Is this reasonable?
If the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere always “maxed out” it might be, but we know that doesn’t happen. Instead, let’s look at what has actually happened."
"To Wanless, the evidence is clear that we’ve already reached a tipping point when it comes to the cascading impacts of climate change on sea level rise.
“Once you start adding up these different feedbacks, because that’s the only thing we have to go on in the modern era, well, there are all these things that are speeding up ice melt, some of which we’re just becoming aware of, like the collapse of the high ice sheets."
metmike: I agree that melting ice will decrease albedo, which will allow more solar radiation to be absorbed at the surface...........a positive feedback.
Is the ice melt actually accelerating though? This would cause sea level increase to accelerate higher.
See the data/evidence that this is NOT happening in this discussion:
Antartica Ice Melt
However, Arctic sea ice for this time of year, April is currently at the low mark for the last 30 years........even though the bottom for the least amount occurred in September 2012.
They state: “My work on ancient climate shows we have these rapid pulses of rise that are rather dramatic, up to 10 meters of sea level rise certainly within a century, and that’s a really rapid disintegration of ice,” Wanless said. “We’re just seeing the beginning of ice melt and the beginning of the warming of the waters reaching up to the Arctic, in what is most certainly going to be the beginning of one of these rapid pulses.”
So we have the current increase at just over an inch/decade or a foot/century from actual measurements..............to them stating a more than 30 feet within a century.
With regards to the UN's IPCC climate crisis report last October, mentioned in this story, here is how we addressed the junk science in it back then.
On the 2nd article:
metmike: I'm good with that stat!
"Scientists say to keep a livable planet, we need to cut the level to 350 parts per million."
metmike: That's 100% bullsheet and completely made up. The optimal level for life is around double the current level, which they state accuratelyas 411 parts per million.
"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."
"A consequence of higher temperatures is the melting of the polar ice caps, which is causing sea levels to rise. The world's oceans have risen about an inch in the past 50 years due to melting glaciers alone, a study published this month in the journal Nature found."
metmike: An inch in past 50 years???
I believe them.
"Extreme weather events exacerbated in part by climate change killed almost 250 Americans and cost the nation at least $91 billion in 2018, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."
Look at the climate related deaths PLUNGING below during the last century!
"here’s the truth about the effects of the warming"
Figure 2. Average annual climate-related (blue line) and non-climate-related (red line) deaths in natural disasters. Data from OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database
"Hurricanes Michael, resulting in $25 billion damages, and Florence, with $24 billion in costs, were the other two big weather disasters in 2018."
metmike: There has been no trend in hurricanes over the last 40 years!
Tropical storm activity has NOT increased as we have been told, even as CO2 soars higher. Graph below of Accumulated Cyclone Energy(not increasing) vs CO2 increasing massively:
"That means that by 2080, New York City could have the climate of Arkansas. Minneapolis could be more like Kansas and San Francisco could have weather closer to Los Angeles than its current foggy climate. Other cities further south could experience climates with no modern equivalent in North America.
“The children alive today, like my daughter who is 12, they’re going to see a dramatic transformation of climate. It’s already underway,” said study lead author Matt Fitzpatrick of the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science."
metmike: The government report came out with stuff like that back in November 2018.
See how that was obliterated with authentic science and data:
"Unusual warmth in the U.S. West in 2018 contributed to a disastrous wildfire season that killed dozens of people. In monetary terms, western states endured their costliest wildfire season on record: $24 billion in damage."
metmike: This is true, the wildfires were very bad. However, one of the biggest contributors is that the increase in CO2 is accelerating plant growth which is providing more fuel for wildfires................and food for humans/other creatures.
What's interesting too is that many of the updated global climate models actually have California getting wetter with global warming.........which makes complete sense.
1. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture. We've seen global precipitation increase in recent decades because of this.
2. A warmer Pacific ocean would also send more moisture into the atmosphere and cause more El Nino's and a shift in the jet stream. El Nino's increase rain along the West Coast.
"They found that warming in the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures, an area about 2,500 miles east of the international date line, is the main reason for the predicted increase in precipitation levels.
The warming sea surface temperatures encourage a southeastward shift of the jet stream, which helps steer more rain-producing mid-latitude cyclones toward California.
"Essentially, this mechanism is similar to what we in California expect during an El Nino year," Allen said. "Ultimately, what I am arguing is El Nino-like years are going to become more the norm in California."
metmike: However, these are speculative climate models and I wouldn't hang your hat on the simulation results below.
The graph shows the proportion of the planet in drought, by intensity, 1982-2012. The graph comes from a paper in a new Nature publication called Scientific Data and is open access.
metmike: You want to see drought?
Let's go back to the 1930's in the USA
The map below is the drought index in 1934. Even though this drought lasted for almost a decade, it was not permanent climate change and more of a weather phenomena. Human's poor farming strategies in those days did make things worse.
Can you imagine if we had this going on today?
metmike: It would absolutely be seen as the affects of human caused climate change............and I do believe there has been man made climate change, which is why the Cornbelt and your crops have been treated to the longest stretch of drought free conditions in recorded history.
Only 1 major, widespread drought in the Cornbelt from 1988 to 2019(2012).......over 3 decades, when the average historically was over 1/decade(if you throw out the 1930's as an aberration.
Instead of having the average 3 major droughts in the Cornbelt over the last 30 years, during (so called catastrophic) human caused climate change, there has only been 1.........along with the increasing CO2 causing yields to go up 25% from atmospheric fertilization because of the proven law of photosynthesis.
Remember the Dust Bowl 1930's?
That was fun!
How about you cliff.........fun for you too?
Yes!!! That's exactly the stuff you should be using cliff. That is the authentic science.
Not the wildly speculating articles that tell us about the sea levels going up over 30 feet this century (when are going up at a foot/century) and and polar bears dying(as they increase) and crops being hurt when they benefit or droughts increasing............when they have not or recent climate change hurricanes and climate deaths, when the data shows otherwise.
Those are some solid, scientific links!
Oh, did you know that metmike is in that 97% of atmospheric scientists agree on at least half of the global warming is being caused by humans number?
From your link:
"Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier."
"Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world"
"The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969."
"Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century."
TRUE........actually, it's been more than that.
"The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events."
TRUE and VERY TRUE!
"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent."
TRUE, except this is very misleading and the oceans will never get close to being acidic or this being a problem.... studies show this to not be anywhere close to being detrimental at any point. See the results from over 100 studies below.
metmike: So we also hear that this will lead to catastrophic impacts to life in the oceans........those based on extreme, almost impossible plunges in PH from current levels.
Fortunately, we have hundreds of experiments/studies and can use these, as well as reasonable ranges of how low the PH could possibly get to go by.............readily available with a comprehensive analysis/discussion and conclusion at this site below. You will be surprised to find out that many studies found decreasing PH to benefit life in the reasonable range to which it might drop.......so the idea of climate change disaster for sea life is still.........hogwash:
Then, in what could be considered a compromise between the IPCC and what the work of Tans (2009) suggests, we present in Figure 11 the portions of the graphs that extend significantly beyond the upper pH reduction limit of Tans' analysis and that end where "the warped world of the IPCC" begins.
Figure 11. Same as Figure 9, but truncated at the pH value defining the beginning of "the warped world of the IPCC."
The most striking feature of Figure 11 is the great preponderance of data located in positive territory, which suggests that, on the whole, marine organisms likely will not be harmed to any significant degree by the expected decline in oceanic pH. If anything, in fact, the results suggest that the world's marine life may actually slightly benefit from the pH decline, which latter possibility is further borne out by the scatter plot of all the experimental data pertaining to all life characteristic categories over the same pH decline range, as shown below in Figure 12.
life characteristic categories over the same pH decline range, as shown below in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Percent change in the five measured life characteristics (calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival) vs. decline of seawater pH from its present (control treatment) value to ending values extending up to the beginning pH value of "the warped world of the IPCC" for all individual data points falling within this pH decline range.
"The results we have depicted in the figures above suggest something very different from the doomsday predictions of the climate alarmists who claim we are in "the last decades of coral reefs on this planet for at least the next ... million plus years, unless we do something very soon to reduce CO2 emissions," or who declare that "reefs are starting to crumble and disappear," that "we may lose those ecosystems within 20 or 30 years," and that "we've got the last decade in which we can do something about this problem." Clearly, the promoting of such scenarios is not supported by the vast bulk of pertinent experimental data.
Two other important phenomena that give us reason to believe the predicted decline in oceanic pH will have little to no lasting negative effects on marine life are the abilities of essentially all forms of life to adapt and evolve. Of those experiments in our database that report the length of time the organisms were subjected to reduced pH levels, for example, the median value was only four days. And many of the experiments were conducted over periods of only a few hours, which is much too short a time for organisms to adapt (or evolve) to successfully cope with new environmental conditions (see, for example, the many pertinent Journal Reviews we have archived under the general heading of Evolution in our Subject Index). And when one allows for such phenomena, the possibility of marine life experiencing a negative response to ocean acidification becomes even less likely.
In conclusion, claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality, based on the experimental findings we have analyzed above.
For more information on this subject, please see the many reviews we have written on this subject that are archived under the headings of Calcification, Marine Biota, and Ocean Acidification in our Subject In
So what is my beef with the other stuff, which clearly you are having a hard time understanding. Please read this over to help you understand.
My beef is almost entirely with the use/abuse of global climate model projections, based on computer programmed simulations of the atmosphere going out the next 100 years, representing the extreme, worst case scenario solutions that have almost no chances of verifying but get all the attention to scare people.
The MSM only uses the extreme, unsubstantiated, speculative stuff and doesn't tell you about the planet greening up or numerous benefits. The mainstream scientists, who have taken on the role of political activists(this group is solidly liberal) is selling it as authentic science when its fake, simulated science that's busted.
The problem is that you.............and everybody else can't tell the difference between the 2 wildly speculating stories that you provided links to,that started this thread and the 3 scientific links that you sent this morning. Which is exactly how the junk science gets imprinted into brains as authentic science. This is why it was so easy to hijack climate science.
Nobody has weather/climate records on their computer or a degree in atmospheric science. You just have to trust the gatekeepers of the information..............which often sell it like snake oil to promote a political cause.
The observations show indisputably that the climate models are all too warm, so using the warmest ones to scare people is purely a political ploy, not science.
Let me try to help with an anolagy. It would be like there was a 95% chance of rain for your farm and the most likely amount was 1 inch but we had a busted weather model that got the wrong data on a particular run and predicted 10 inches of rain(while the other ones and the observations didn't support anything more than 2 inches...............and most of this rain would be beneficial) and the weather people came out with a high confidence forecast for 10 inches of rain across the entire area..............based on the outlier model and told you to go buy boats and life rafts.
The hijacking of climate science has allowed the gatekeepers to sell this 10 inch rain forecast............because its for 100 years from now...........which never comes.
12 years ago, Al Gore(when he won the Nobel Peace Price in 2007) was saying the exact same things about climate catastrophe coming in a decade if we didn't act then......... that didn't come and now we hear will happen in 12 years as a climate crisis if we don't act today.
The catastrophe/crisis never comes but the forecast stays the same...........just shifting the time frame and telling us that its even worse then they thought before.........when it was better.
The current crisis WILL NOT come in 12 years. The chance of it becoming a crisis for this planet in 12 years is almost zero. A global temperature of 0.17 deg. C higher and sea levels 1.3 inches higher then..............a crisis? We should not believe anything that people like that tell us because they are so, so wrong about this fact which they are basing their agenda on. Pure propaganda.
The planet keeps greening up and life continues to benefit from the best weather/climate and CO2 levels in the last 1,000 years.
Think about this. What does life do in the Winter because of cold? It hibernates because there is no food. It migrates south to seek life giving warmth. It goes dormant until the warmth returns.
It's cold that kills and has always killed life. Warmth up to 2 degrees warmer than this(which we might get to in 200 years at this rate of warming) has always been beneficial to life. Forecasts for 5 degrees warmer and seas increasing 30 feet are unjustified.............and your authentic sources don't state that do they?
This is why, it's well known that climate scientists who insist that the warming is dangerous and that we are having a climate crisis(very few predict a crisis) and that the "science is settled" will NOT debate the science with those of us that disagree................with their extreme versions and the claimed harm.
We agree about the actual warming that has occurred and the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas(only an idiot can't see this-and they try to portray us as such) but not the crisis and in fact, we can prove the benefits. So they have won decisively with the convincing marketing schemes using a good vs evil battle and of course, nobody could be against a "save the planet" narrative...........except us evil deniers that only care about making money by spewing pollution into the atmosphere like its a sewer.
If the science really is settled on a climate crisis, then why not have debates using the facts to embarrass us deniers?
People or entities that know that they are right and represent the truth(especially if its settled science) would have the facts/evidence to prove it and be chomping at the bit to debate those that claim that they are wrong and/or those that they claim are deniers of the truth/settled science that they represent.
Why is it then, that so called mainstream climate scientists who we are told represent 97% of scientists that supposedly believe in dangerous warming and even a climate crisis repeatedly refuse to debate anybody that disagrees with them?
As somebody that has all the authentic data, the answer is clear to me why they won't debate but its not the one they provide as an excuse.