The Great Global Warming/Cooling Thread Part 2

[Halcyon Daze]

The die hard believers are becoming fewer and fewer, while the media increases it's propaganda.

Climate change the main reason they give so much support to Tony Abbot even though he's one of politics 'All-time-greatest' pieces of crap.

If only the general public weren't so easily manipulated by other issues like asylum seekers etc.

[Dolos]

The die hard believers are becoming fewer and fewer, while the media increases it's propaganda.

Climate change the main reason they give so much support to Tony Abbot even though he's one of politics 'All-time-greatest' pieces of crap.

If only the general public weren't so easily manipulated by other issues like asylum seekers etc.

 

ROFLMAO........ "General public" Just who in the hell are YOU? Are you part of some other group in this country? Royalty maybe? Part of the elite few at the top? Nobel prize winner? I know...your in the 1%.

The die hard believers are becoming fewer and fewer, while the media increases it's propaganda

Thats a bold statement that I bet you can't back up with facts cause you would be wrong. More and more people are getting on with life having realized that the alarmists were being just that. And as for media propaganda how about we hear a little from the past chairman of the ABC about their bias towards this new religion of yours.

http://www.theaustra...x-1226538612935

Calls them out pretty good. A change of government is coming and with it and end to this carbon tax nonsense. Your living in fantasy land....The amount of back flips, somersaults and u turns coming from the IPCC in their soon to be released work of science fiction will be about as emmbarrassing as the Labor governments broken surplus promise.

[Dolos]

[whitewind]

Well I just discovered today that a close friend is an avowed skeptic. After an extremely tense, heated discussion we came to the conclusion that, despite our differing views, the way to solve most environmental issues actually coincided with preventing any climate disturbance, whatever the cause, so it was a very interesting discussion indeed.

Plant trees this Christmas, we need that carbon fixed and back into the soil so we can grow more crops and stabilise the weather!

[Halcyon Daze]

Calm down Dolos, why get so frantic.

That cartoon is labeled 08 by the way, I wouldn't take it as 'gospel'.

[Dolos]

Calm down Dolos, why get so frantic.

That cartoon is labeled 08 by the way, I wouldn't take it as 'gospel'.

 

Come come boys...a cartoon drawn in 08 that points to the same sad sorry facts is just as relevant today as it was when drawn....As for being frantic? What would I have to be frantic about? Whitewind is that frantic now he is reffering to opinion polls as evidence.. Ah well...the quality of your work here has been suffering as of late but then again given your side of the fence I guess there would be little that could be added that hasn't been already smashed apart by actual observations. The IPCC is in retreat as we speak, the Australian government is as dysfunctional as any I have ever seen and will be smashed at the next election. Tony Abbott (the great man) will become Prime Minister and this nations wrecking ball of a carbon tax will be dumped in the rubbish bin where it belongs..Nope...don't really think I have too much to be frantic about. The future is looking bright....

I would like to take the opportunity to wish you guys a safe a happy Christmas. You have given me many laughs along the way this year so I thank you for that. I hope santa is good to you and yours..Have a safe and prosperous new year.

Dolos

[whitewind]

Not an opinion poll this time Dolos, a scientific prediction. Have a merry Christmas!

Met Office says 2013 likely to be one of warmest years on record

In its annual forecast for the coming year, the Met Office predicts that globally,

2013 will be 0.57C above long-term average.

• guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 December 2012 14.07 GMT
  

 

A man drinks water from a water fountain during a hot day in central Sydney. Photograph: Daniel Munoz/Reuters

Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57C above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, the Met Office said on Thursday.

"It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012," it said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

Next year was expected to be between 0.43 and 0.71C warmer than the long-term global average of 14 degrees (1961-1990), with a best estimate of around 0.57C, it said.

Its forecast is based on its own research as well as data from the University of East Anglia, the Nasa Goddard Institute of Space Studies and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Rising temperatures could be due to the natural variability of the climate and global warming from increasing greenhouse gas emissions, Dave Britton, Met Office forecaster, told Reuters.

A warmer global average temperature does not necessarily mean every region of the world will get hotter, as regional climate variability produces different effects in different parts of the world, he added.

Eleven of the 12 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, according to data from the World Meteorological Organisation.

2012 is expected to be ranked the ninth warmest, with a rise of 0.45C.

Most scientists blame increasing temperatures on man-made greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels and say they can lead to rising sea levels and extreme weather events. Global carbon dioxide emissions hit a record high in 2011, led by China, the International Energy Agency said in May.

This year has already seen several examples of extreme weather events, such as superstorm Sandy, which hit the east coast of the United States in October. Parts of the United States also experienced their worst drought in more than half a century this summer.

Britain had been suffering a drought before a record wet spring and early summer.

Last week, a leaked draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showed global average temperatures could be more than 2C above average by 2100 and may reach 4.8C.

Low-lying island states and other countries vulnerable to rising sea levels, floods and hurricanes have been putting pressure on developed countries to curb greenhouse gas emissions and keep the rise in temperatures to within a limit of 2C this century.

A UN conference in Doha aimed at curbing emissions ended earlier this month with modest progress.

[Halcyon Daze]

Here's one for ya Dolos

West Antarctica has warmed much more than scientists had thought over the last half century, new research suggests, an ominous finding given that the huge ice sheet there may be vulnerable to long-term collapse, with potentially drastic effects on sea levels.

http://www.nytimes.c...finds.html?_r=0

Here's the abstract

Abstract

There is clear evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is contributing to sea-level rise. In contrast, West Antarctic temperature changes in recent decades remain uncertain. West Antarctica has probably warmed since the 1950s, but there is disagreement regarding the magnitude, seasonality and spatial extent of this warming. This is primarily because long-term near-surface temperature observations are restricted to Byrd Station in central West Antarctica, a data set with substantial gaps. Here, we present a complete temperature record for Byrd Station, in which observations have been corrected, and gaps have been filled using global reanalysis data and spatial interpolation. The record reveals a linear increase in annual temperature between 1958 and 2010 by 2.4±1.2 °C, establishing central West Antarctica as one of the fastest-warming regions globally. We confirm previous reports of West Antarctic warming, in annual average and in austral spring and winter, but find substantially larger temperature increases. In contrast to previous studies, we report statistically significant warming during austral summer, particularly in December–January, the peak of the melting season. A continued rise in summer temperatures could lead to more frequent and extensive episodes of surface melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. These results argue for a robust long-term meteorological observation network in the region.

Don't let those cartoons lead you astray Dolos, they're not that hard to debunk with some good old fashioned SCIENCE!

[qualia]

Putting an End to the Myth that Renewable Energy is too Expensive

The Washington Post recently published an excellent piece of investigative journalism in which they found that the Heartland Institute has teamed up with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in an effort to reverse state renewable energy mandates across the USA. ALEC is a highly controversial organization, essentially comprised of corporations which draft up legislation favorable to their interests, and then pass it along to legislators who will introduce and attempt to implement their bills in state legislatures and US Congress.

The Washington Post reports that ALEC has drafted the Electricity Freedom Act, which would repeal state renewable electricity standards (RESs), which require that a given state meet a certain percentage of its electricity demand with renewable sources by a certain date. For example, California has an RES to supply 33% of its electricity demand with renewables by 2020, and overall 29 states (plus the District of Columbia) have RESs in the USA. A further 7 states have non-mandatory renewable electricity goals (Figure 1).

http://www.skeptical...nsive-myth.html

 

sorry to force you to click away, i couldn't beb bothered sorting it out

[Halcyon Daze]

Another bushfire season and more records broken, seems to happen every other year nowadays...

Edited January 10, 2013 by Halcyon Daze

[whitewind]

http://www.smh.com.a...0112-2cmhu.html

Scepticism about climate change in Australia may be something else that will melt during the nation's great heatwave.

''There's a powerful climate change signal in extreme weather events in Australia,'' said Joseph Reser, an adjunct professor at Griffith University's school of applied psychology. ''The current heatwave is outside people's experience.''

A study released by the university and co-written by Professor Reser found Australians were more ready to accept climate change was happening - and many believed they were experiencing it.

The peer-reviewed national survey conducted in mid-2011 and published late last year found 39 per cent of respondents viewed climate change as ''the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it''.

Two-thirds saw climate change as a serious problem ''right now''.

Conditions across the country in recent days would provide evidence to support this view. A delayed monsoon over northern Australia has left a string of high-pressure systems to dominate weather patterns over the continent for a fortnight. Temperatures have reached 49 degrees in some areas while the country posted a record average temperature of 40.33 degrees last Monday. Seven of the 20 hottest average maximum days have a 2013 time stamp.

Just 4.2 per cent of the survey's 4347 respondents selected the option ''there is no such thing as climate change'' and 8.5 per cent could be considered strong sceptics, Professor Reser said.

He said a ''remarkable'' finding was 45 per cent of respondents reported direct personal experience of climate change. By contrast, the ratio in the US was about a quarter, he said.

That experience included floods (29 per cent), bushfires (23 per cent) and cyclones (18 per cent).

Perceived climate-change experiences varied according to voting intentions. Some 75.7 per cent of Green voters and 60.3 per cent of Labor selected the ''We are already feeling the effects'' option. Among National Party supporters, 40.5 per cent picked the option but just 32.7 per cent of Liberal voters did.

Results of a test about climate change also saw divergent results.

''Those who voted Green or Labor were simply more objectively knowledgeable about the phenomenon and the issue,'' he said. ''Our female respondents were generally more knowledgeable, more concerned.''

 

[whitewind]

I find interesting that Peter Hannam, who is writing for SMH about climate change has the official job title of "Carbon Economy editor" which would add fuel to the conspiracy theorists fire of concern that it's all about taxes. I don't know much about him, his background or his concerns, how unpartisan he is, but I imagine he is concerned about climate change but also supports the current economic system. I have enjoyed his articles over the past week, they seem fairly unbiased and he has been on the front page for a while (owing to the current weather) but he must also have the support of SMH to do so. Anyone know much about this journalist?

"Peter Hannam covers carbon economy issues ranging from the business of renewable energy and carbon trading to the science of climate change for Fairfax Media."

[Dolos]

From the very same SMH that is just about broke hey Whitewind. The one that nobody reads.....the one about to be taken over by our wonderful miner, Gina Rinehart and super quick money man John Singleton.....won't be much for Peter Hannam to report on given my good friend and soon to be leader of this once great country, Tony Abbott will do the right thing by Australians a ditch this dud tax.

http://www.theaustra...3-1226544825295

Climate alarmisim reporting will go the same way as is happening at the New york Times....It has become about as important as the once great "Global Cooling" of the 70's....

http://www.guardian....nvironment-desk

Thats nine repoters suddenly no longer panicking the public...bloody good out come. And please don't confuse 'weather' with 'climate'....

Much much more to post and I will when time permits. We'll have a good look at the backtracking being done by the MET in the UK....So much happening at the moment that contradicts you guys I just don't know where to start...

[Dolos]

This don't sound too good. More secret dumps on the IPCC. The termonology describes some here brilliantly...."CLIMATE CHANGE CATASTROPHE CULT" Yes a cult...Prominent scientists have voiced concern they say...They are using 'propaganda' over peer reviewed science? Well I'll be.

Secret Santa Whistleblower Files End Climate Change Catastrophe Cult, Says Friends of Science

 

About time we had some 'Friends of Science'...for too long now this cult has been allowed to bastardise the science all aided and abetted by misguided greenies. The damage been done is immense. Take the bushfires as an example. Green groups will be humiliated over the damage they have caused over the coming year. Things will change...people are waking up.

Laframboise releases “Secret Santa” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) internal files that reveal more attempts by agenda-driven activists to skew the science on climate change. In 2012 the UK met weather office revealed no global warming for at least 16 years while IPCC admits global warming predictions were way off and there is no trend in extreme weather.

This week 3 USB drives of IPCC internal documents that a “Secret Santa” whistle-blower delivered to investigative journalist Donna Laframboise continue to erode the credibility of the human-caused ‘global warming’ theory. Files reveal that the IPCC agenda-driven activists who have invaded the IPCC continue to advocate the adoption of their ‘climate crisis cult’ propaganda over peer-reviewed science. Prominent scientists have voiced similar concerns.

 

I like their thinking. "It's the sun stupid".

Further, the IPCC itself stated that there was no trend toward more extreme weather, confirming the Oct. 31, 2012 Wall Street Journal statement by Roger Pielke Jr. in "Hurricanes and Human Choice" that “There are no signs that human-caused climate change has increased the toll of recent disasters....”

“And finally, the IPCC admitted and then evaded recognition that the sun is a major factor in climate change,” says Gregory.

In their limited commentary on the sun’s role, the IPCC appear to believe the sun’s impact on climate is limited to the powerful radiant light it sheds on earth (Total Solar Irradiance). Friends of Science say that in fact, the more relevant scientific factor is the magnetic field of the sun that is projected by solar winds. Changes in solar magnetic flux directly impact the earth’s climate.

Why is the IPCC so reluctent to share this information? Too much money to be made in trading in carbon dioxide maybe? The more you read the more obvious it becomes..

As noted in the Friends of Science position paper on Doha, “The total energy emitted by the Sun varies only a fraction of a percent, but the solar magnetic field has increased nine fold from 1890 to 1990."

This is but one cyclical factor of solar and cosmic activity that directly and indirectly affects earth’s climate, but the IPCC and its bevy of agenda-driven activists focus only on CO2. There is no substantial review of solar climate science.

For 25 years the IPCC has projected frightening predictions of a baking hot, unlivable earth created by human use of fossil fuels and allegedly caused by rising carbon dioxide (CO2).

 

I guess it would be a difficult thing to admit you were wrong but hey, so much money to be made why not keep this charade up?

“A trillion dollars has been wasted on carbon reduction schemes in the past decade,”

 

And the earths temp has been reduce by how much because of it? NIL....

Much much more here.

http://www.prweb.com...web10308274.htm

[qualia]

http://youtu.be/u_0JZRIHFtk

[qualia]

Alec Rawls, an occasional guest poster on the climate contrarian blog WattsUpWithThat who signed up to review the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (as anyone can), has "leaked" a draft version of the report and declared that it "contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing." This assertion was then repeated by James Delingpole at The Telegraph (with some added colorful language), and probably on many other climate contrarian blogs.

If the IPCC was to report that the sun is a significant player in the current rapid global warming, that would indeed be major news, because the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature and data clearly show that the sun has made little if any contribution to the observed global warming over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Percent contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), sulfur dioxide (SO2), the sun, volcanoes, and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Wigley and Santer 2012 (WS12, dark green).

So why would the latest IPCC report contradict these studies when its purpose is to summarize the latest and greatest scientific research? The answer is simple — it doesn't. Rawls has completely misrepresented the IPCC report.

Cosmic Source of Confusion

The supposedly "game-changing admission" from the IPCC report is this:

"Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system...The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

This statement refers to a hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Institute, who has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures. The GCR hypothesis suggests that when they reach Earth, GCRs (high-energy charged particles originating from somewhere in our galaxy) are capable of "seeding" clouds; thus at times when a lot of GCRs are reaching the Earth's surface, more clouds will form. Clouds generally have a cooling effect on the Earth's temperature, because they reflect sunlight.

So the hypothesis goes like this: high solar activity means a strong solar magnetic field, which deflects more GCRs away from Earth, which means less cloud formation, which means less sunlight is reflected away from Earth, which means more warming. This GCR-caused warming would amplify the warming already being caused by increased solar activity. Conversely, cooling from decreased solar activity would hypothetically be amplified by more GCRs on Earth, more clouds, more reflected sunlight, and thus more cooling.

It's important to note that so far virtually all scientific research on GCRs has shown that they are not effective at seeding clouds and thus have very little influence over the Earth's temperature. In fact, as Zeke Hausfather has noted, the leaked IPCC report specifically states this:

"...there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of [cloud condensation nuclei] or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way."

But more importantly in this context, even if GCRs did influence global temperature, they would currently be having a cooling effect.

Solar Activity is Down, Greenhouse Gases are Up

Rawls also provides the following quote from the IPCC report (emphasis added):

"There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI [total solar irradiance] and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m^–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m^–2."

The term "radiative forcing" refers to a global energy imbalance on Earth, which may be caused by various effects like changes in the greenhouse effect or solar activity. A positive forcing will result in warming temperatures, while a negative forcing will result in cooling.

Here the IPCC is saying that since 1980, the sun and volcanoes have combined to cause a slightly negative global energy imbalance, which means they have had a slight cooling influence on global temperatures over the past three decades. Indeed, solar activity has decreased a bit over that timeframe (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.

As we would expect, lower solar activity including a weaker solar magnetic field has translated into a slight increase in GCR flux on Earth (Figure 3). Note that on the left-hand axis of Figure 3, GCR counts decrease going up the axis in order to show the relationship with temperature, since fewer GCRs hypothetically means fewer clouds, less reflected sunlight, and higher temperatures.

Figure 3: Global average surface temperature (red, NASA GISS) vs. GCR flux on Earth (blue, Krivova & Solanki 2003), with 11-year running averages.

So, if GCRs really do amplify the solar influence on global temperatures, since 1980 they are amplifying a cooling effect. In fact, GCRs reaching Earth recently hit record high levels (Figure 4), yet temperatures are still way up.

Figure 4: Record cosmic ray flux observed in 2009 by the Advanced Composition Explorer (NASA)

Physical Reality Intrudes on Rawls

Rawls has argued to the contrary by claiming that the climate is still responding to the increase in solar activity from the early 20th century, and that GCRs are amplifying that solar warming from over 60 years ago. This argument is simply physically wrong. As Figure 2 illustrates, when solar activity rises, temperatures follow suit very soon thereafter. In fact, during the mid-20th century, solar activity and global surface temperatures both flattened out. Are we to believe that the planet suddenly began responding to the pre-1950 solar activity increase in 1975—2012, after not warming 1940—1975? The argument makes no physical sense.

On top of that, the hypothetical GCR process is a relatively rapid one. Cloud formation from GCR seeding should occur within days, and clouds have very short lifetimes. For GCRs to have a warming effect, solar activity must be increasing right now. It is not, in fact solar activity has been essentially flat and slightly declining in recent decades. Changes in solar activity from 60+ years ago have no bearing whatsoever on GCRs today.

IPCC Shows Global Warming is NOT Solar

To sum up,

• The leaked IPCC report states that there may be some connection between GCRs and some aspects of the climate system.

   

 

• However, the report is also consistent with the body of scientific literature in stating that research indicates GCRs are not effective at seeding clouds and have very little influence on global temperatures.

   

 

• Solar activity has been nearly flat and slightly decreasing in recent decades, meaning that if GCRs do amplify solar influences on climate, they are amplifying a cooling effect.

   

 

The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming. The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion. In fact, in attempting to argue to the contrary, Rawls has scored an own goal by showing that if anything, GCRs are currently amplifying a solar cooling effect.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

just skip to the conclusion if you can't be bothered reading all that.

[qualia]

Last week, blogger Alec Rawls leaked a working draft of the 5th Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One section of the IPCC report examines the role of the sun on climate change and concludes that since 1980, solar activity has decreased and had a slight cooling influence on our climate. Over the last few decades of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

This is hardly a new revelation. In recent years, a number of peer-reviewed studies have investigated the role of the sun on climate change. In 2004, solar researcher Sami Solanki examined solar activity and climate over the last 11,400 years. Upon observing a recent divergence between sun and global temperature, Solanki concluded “solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”. More recently, UK scientist Mike Lockwood concluded that “…solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise…”.

This steady flow of peer-reviewed research finding a negligible solar influence is inconvenient for climate sceptics, who are desperate to blame global warming on the sun (in fact, they’re happy to blame it on anything other than human activity but the sun is the most popular option). How has the sun myth persisted in the face of such a persistent stream of empirical evidence? The most common method is cherry picking.

A striking example of solar cherry picking comes from the Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, whose main message was promotion of the sun myth. The documentary’s key piece of evidence was a graph of solar activity and global temperature, which

. By cherry picking the data, the producers of The Great Global Warming Swindle attempted to hide the recent decline in solar activity.

The most misleading cherry picks are those where the cherry picked interpretation is the opposite of the conclusion suggested by the full body of evidence. This is the case with Alec Rawls’ interpretation of the leaked IPCC draft. While Rawls’ breaking of a disclosure agreement is unethical, his distortion of the science is more destructive.

Rawls quotes a line from the IPCC draft speculating about a possible mechanism that may amplify the solar influence on climate. From this single sentence, he concludes that the sun must have a greater impact on recent global warming.

One possible mechanism that amplifies the sun’s influence on climate is galactic cosmic rays. The hypothesis, proposed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, is that cosmic rays originating from outside our solar system may seed clouds on Earth. Clouds generally reflect incoming sunlight, which cools our climate. Protecting us from cosmic rays is the sun’s magnetic field, which grows stronger as the sun brightens. When solar activity weakens, more cosmic rays hit the Earth. If cosmic rays do happen to affect clouds, then a weaker sun leads to more cosmic rays causing more clouds, which will have a cooling effect.

The jury is still out on whether cosmic rays amplify the sun’s effect on climate. A number of studies have examined any possible link between cosmic rays and climate and found no link. Reviewing this body of evidence, the current draft of the IPCC report concludes that the cosmic ray mechanism is too weak to have any significant influence on climate.

Regardless of whether cosmic rays or any other mechanism amplifies the sun’s influence, the key fact here is that the solar effect on climate in recent decades has been that of cooling. Any mechanism that amplifies the solar effect would increase the cooling. This is the opposite conclusion to that of Alec Rawls who used a single, isolated sentence in a draft document to support his argument.

Those who reject the scientific consensus on climate change ignore years of research by solar scientists who have repeatedly concluded in study after study that the sun has had a negligible contribution to recent global warming. This is just one part of the accumulating body of evidence that has led the IPCC to release ever strengthening statements on the human role in global warming.

Consequently, the current draft of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment report concludes that it is virtually certain that humans are causing climate change.

 

https://theconversation.edu.au/sun-and-climate-moving-in-opposite-directions-says-leaked-ipcc-report-11375

[qualia]

p.s. looking forward to the next el nino. global avg. temps are already at the level of the '98 el nino event, so the next one should be a doozy.

[Dolos]

p.s. looking forward to the next el nino. global avg. temps are already at the level of the '98 el nino event, so the next one should be a doozy.

 

Looking forward to it.....why? Does that justify something? anything? Does that make you right? Why is it those in the CLIMATE CHANGE CATASTROPHE CULT seem to rejoice at the possibility of a natural disaster or two. Do you enjoy seeing cattle dieing in farmers paddocks? Crops withering in the fields. Will you then beat your chest and scream “I was right” You always seem so disturbed if actual observations dispute alarmist predictions. Then you all run off and look for another weather event to back up your strange beliefs. Once in a cult and within a cults mind set it’s hard to get out I suppose. You will look for anything to prove yourselves right.

[qualia]

lol

[whitewind]

Dolos I will respectfully point out that "looking forward to" frequently means the opposite, it's one of those phrases which is steeped in sarcasm. I read Qualia's post as having this meaning, and looking back at it that meaning still seems clear. As in, he is most absolutely NOT "looking forward with anticipation".

For myself, the opposite is true; while I love Australia to bits, and love the warmth compared to my native England, sometimes I find the heat really oppressive and I feel quite ill, certainly compared to most others who work outside, so I for one seriously dislike the current heatwave we are experiencing, even though I'm in one of the (currently) coolest places on the continent.

[qualia]

Bengali Forests Are Fading Away

Jan. 10, 2013 — Mangrove forests of the Sundarbans are disappearing, taking endangered species like the Bengal tiger with them.

RAPID deterioration in mangrove health is occurring in the Sundarbans, resulting in as much as 200m of coast disappearing in a single year.

A report published January 11 in Remote Sensing by scientists from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) states that as human development thrives, and global temperature continues to rise, natural protection from tidal waves and cyclones is being degraded at alarming rates. This will inevitably lead to species loss in this richly biodiverse part of the world, if nothing is done to stop it.

ZSL's Dr Nathalie Pettorelli, senior author of the paper says: "Our results indicate a rapidly retreating coastline that cannot be accounted for by the regular dynamics of the Sundarbans. Degradation is happening fast, weakening this natural shield for India and Bangladesh."

The name 'Sundarban' can be literally translated as 'beautiful forest' in the Bengali language. The area is is the largest block of continuous mangrove forest in the world, being home to almost 500 species of reptile, fish, bird and mammals, including the endangered Bengal tiger.

Sarah Christie, ZSL's tiger conservation expert says: "The Sundarbans is a critical tiger habitat; one of only a handful of remaining forests big enough to hold several hundred tigers. To lose the Sundarbans would be to move a step closer to the extinction of these majestic animals."

Although mangroves are rare, they are an important barrier against climate change, providing protection to coastal areas from tsunamis and cyclones. They are also the most carbon rich forests in the tropics with high carbon sequestration potential, meaning their degradation and loss substantially reduce our ability to mitigate, and adapt to, predicted changes in climatic conditions.

Mangroves comprise less than 1 per cent of all forest areas across the world, amounting to roughly half the size of the UK. It is essential that the protection of mangroves becomes a priority, particularly for the charismatic species which will disappear with them if no action is taken to preserve their habitat.

ZSL's Chief Mangrove Scientific Advisor Jurgenne Primavera says: "Mangrove protection is urgent given the continuing threats to the world's remaining 14 to 15 million hectares of mangroves from aquaculture, land development and over-exploitation. The recently established IUCN SSC Mangrove Specialist Group, hosted by ZSL, will develop a global conservation strategy for mangroves based on an assessment of research and conservation needs."

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130110212334.htm

[whitewind]

Species interactions could be affected by global warming

Yale and University of Connecticut researchers report that more extinctions will take place due to global warming should “scientists fail to account for interactions among species in their models.”

According to Phoebe Zarnetske, primary author and postdoctoral fellow at Yale’s School of forestry & Environmental Studies department, “Currently, most models predicting the effects of climate change treat species separately and focus only on climatic and environmental drivers.” She goes on to state, “But we know that species don’t exist in a vacuum. They interact with each other in ways that deeply affect their viability.”

The intricacy of “species interaction networks” does not promote models that tell what effect climate change has on these predators, according to Zarnetske. She goes on to say that, by the year 2050, somewhere from 15 to 37 percent of these animals will be facing extinction.

What is the effect of other species in the food chain? Researchers indicate that predators and herbivores are strongly connected to many other animals. Researchers indicate that these species are “biotic multipliers” which increase extinction risk and change the ranges of many animals below predators in the food chain.

“Climate change is likely to have strong effects on top consumers. As a result, these effects can ripple through an entire food web, multiplying extinction risks along the way,” said Dave Skelly, a co-author of the study and professor of ecology at Yale.

The paper, “Biotic Multipliers of Climate Change Effects,” indicates that by focusing on the biotic multipliers along with their interactions with species, it is a promising way to improve what predictions of the effects of climate change have on the predators.

On Isle Royale, an island in Lake Superior, rising winter temperatures and a disease outbreak caused wolf populations to decline and the number of moose to surge, leading to a decline in balsam fir trees. Elevated temperatures in the rocky intertidal of the North American Pacific Coast indicate that without predators, the result is lower diversity among lower species. And in Arctic Greenland, research shows that without caribou and muskoxen as top herbivores, elevated temperatures can lead to less diversity in tundra plants and, in turn, affect many other species dependent on them.

“Species interactions are necessary for life on Earth. We rely on fisheries, timber, agriculture, medicine and a variety of other ecosystem services that result from intact species interactions,” said Zarnetske. “Humans have already altered these important species interactions, and climate change is predicted to alter them further. Incorporating these interactions into models is crucial to informed management decisions that protect biodiversity and the services it provides.”

Models with species interactions, according to the paper, would enable tracking of the biotic multipliers by following how changes in the abundance of species studied, such as top consumers; change the composition of communities of species. But more studies need to be done.

“Collecting this type of high-resolution biodiversity data will not be easy. However, insights from such data could provide us with the ability to predict and thus avoid some of the negative effects of climate change on biodiversity,” said Mark Urban, a co-author and an assistant professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut.

[Halcyon Daze]

I really respect to those who have fought so hard to end climate silence.

They have been picked on badly in the media for years, but they are gaining wider public support fast. Especially now that climate change is becoming visible around us.

I predict climate change will be the decisive issue at the next election.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Halcyon Daze

[Dolos]

I really respect to those who have fought so hard to end climate silence.

They have been picked on badly in the media for years, but they are gaining wider public support fast. Especially now that climate change is becoming visible around us.

I predict climate change will be the decisive issue at the next election.

 

Like it was in the US elections hey? Like it isn't all around the world now. What planet do you live on? There must be a whole different reality playing in your head but 97% of us just don't see it. I'm still trying to fathom how climate change is becoming visible around us. Are you referring to summer by any chance? Is it the bush fires raging around us because idiots in the green movement have made the issuing of fire permits almost impossible to get mean 'global warming'? Could you really be that thick? Are you saying that you believe people will link this hot spell with global warming? Only those with a barrow to push would...I love the records broken nonsense. Who's records? Lucky Australia has only been around for a couple of hundred years.