How do you think humanity will be affected by climate in the future?

[TerryM]

I think Friv is an optimist.

[PhillipS]

Thre are several effects of climate change that I find troubling. One is extreme weather events. Over the past two years we've seen a number of events, both here in the US and globally, that by any reasonable definition were extreme. But, of course, news tends to focus on the negative since that's considered more 'newsworthy' so maybe the news is skewed. A metric of extreme weather events that may be more objective was released recently by FEMA. Here's the plot of the last sixty or so years of Federal disasters:

That's a pretty sobering trend. But it may also reflect the inclination to have all sorts of events declared disasters so that those areas impacted can qualify for federal aid. So let's compare that chart to one put out by a major re-insurance conglomerate:

This chart only covers 1980 through 2010 but more importantly it shows the types of disasters being measured. Again, a very sobering trend. And it tracks the FEMA plot pretty closely.

What I hope everybody understands is that the costs of these extreme weather events comes out of all of our pockets. If the recovery involves federal or state aid then it's a direct taxpayer subsidy, and insurance companies, being for profit entities, recover every dollar they pay out through increased premiums. And those increased premiums are paid by (surprise!) us taxpaying citizens. So if AGW is correct in its predictions of increased extreme weather in a warmer world then expect to pay the price.

A second effect of climate change is the impact on our food supply. Anybody who has grown crops, whether a vegatable garden in ones yard or an industrial farm covering square miles of land, knows how vulnerable those crops are to extreme weather. In 2010 Russia went from being a wheat exporter to being an importer. This year their wheat crop has recovered and they will be exporting again. This year flooding in the midwest impacted the US corn harvest. Who knows what next year will bring. Here in Texas the drought is reported to have caused farmers and ranchers over 5 billion in losses. One of the fundamental predictions of AGW is that extreme weather events will become more common as global temperatures rise. If that prediction is correct, and there is a lot of evidence that it is, then our food supplies will be increasingly impacted. Several commenters have asserted that crops will benefit in a warmer climate, and while there may be some truth to that, keep in mind that a wheat crop that's been flourishing all summer can be beaten flat and lost due to a 15 minute hailstorm. Complacency is foolish.

[Sunny and Warm]

Thre are several effects of climate change that I find troubling. One is extreme weather events. Over the past two years we've seen a number of events, both here in the US and globally, that by any reasonable definition were extreme. But, of course, news tends to focus on the negative since that's considered more 'newsworthy' so maybe the news is skewed. A metric of extreme weather events that may be more objective was released recently by FEMA. Here's the plot of the last sixty or so years of Federal disasters:

That's a pretty sobering trend. But it may also reflect the inclination to have all sorts of events declared disasters so that those areas impacted can qualify for federal aid. So let's compare that chart to one put out by a major re-insurance conglomerate:

This chart only covers 1980 through 2010 but more importantly it shows the types of disasters being measured. Again, a very sobering trend. And it tracks the FEMA plot pretty closely.

What I hope everybody understands is that the costs of these extreme weather events comes out of all of our pockets. If the recovery involves federal or state aid then it's a direct taxpayer subsidy, and insurance companies, being for profit entities, recover every dollar they pay out through increased premiums. And those increased premiums are paid by (surprise!) us taxpaying citizens. So if AGW is correct in its predictions of increased extreme weather in a warmer world then expect to pay the price.

Phillip,

Methinks population growth and/or the metrics being measured have changed during that span. I'd almost have to see the list from 2005 and 2010 to believe that there were three times as many natural disasters in only five years. Of course, such monumental change over so short a period points to randomness and not a trend, especially considering temps have been in neutral during that span.

[PhillipS]

Phillip,

Methinks population growth and/or the metrics being measured have changed during that span. I'd almost have to see the list from 2005 and 2010 to believe that there were three times as many natural disasters in only five years. Of course, such monumental change over so short a period points to randomness and not a trend, especially considering temps have been in neutral during that span.

First - temps haven't been 'neutral' over the periods shown in the plots, as you've been repeatedly shown the global temps are rising. You have to do some serious and deliberate cherrypicking to 'hide the incline'. We've seen that nonsense before so please get past it.

Second - the list is available at the FEMA website. You can look at the federal disasters by year or by state. Population changes can't begin to explain the changes.

Third - the values shown in the two plots don't point to randomness, they indicate trends. Claiming that a sixty year trend is random is as silly, and as statistically illiterate, as claiming the long-term global warming trend is random. That's just hand-waving to try to dismiss data you don't like. It's pretty clear that extreme weather disasters are increasing in the US and the reality is that taxpayers will keep getting handed the bills.

So please don't tell me that even though I'm paying taxes for flooding in the Midwest and the drought in Texas I'm better off because some Canadian farmer will have bigger profits ten years from now.

[Sunny and Warm]

First - temps haven't been 'neutral' over the periods shown in the plots, as you've been repeatedly shown the global temps are rising. You have to do some serious and deliberate cherrypicking to 'hide the incline'. We've seen that nonsense before so please get past it.

Second - the list is available at the FEMA website. You can look at the federal disasters by year or by state. Population changes can't begin to explain the changes.

Third - the values shown in the two plots don't point to randomness, they indicate trends. Claiming that a sixty year trend is random is as silly, and as statistically illiterate, as claiming the long-term global warming trend is random. That's just hand-waving to try to dismiss data you don't like. It's pretty clear that extreme weather disasters are increasing in the US and the reality is that taxpayers will keep getting handed the bills.

So please don't tell me that even though I'm paying taxes for flooding in the Midwest and the drought in Texas I'm better off because some Canadian farmer will have bigger profits ten years from now.

Phillip,

You completely misread my post.

First - When I said temps, I meant 2005 to 2010. They are neutral at best in that time frame. One cannot use AGW to explain a 2.5 times increase in disasters in that very small time frame.

The world doesn't work so fast, so something else is at work.

Second - The FEMA plot is garbage. We all know the govt is handing out declarations like a drug addict in an opium den to curry favor with the public.

Third - I could show you a plot of tropical storms per year for the last 60 years as well and which shows a similar uptick in more modern times. Of course, technology changed how many we saw, so the trend was skewed.

You should be more careful and suspicious of data that pretends to show sharp rises of anything over short periods. There usually is an underlying reason for it, and it is usually not obvious. Or, you could insist that it is AGW, which is much less apparent than this particular trend.

[skierinvermont]

Thre are several effects of climate change that I find troubling. One is extreme weather events. Over the past two years we've seen a number of events, both here in the US and globally, that by any reasonable definition were extreme. But, of course, news tends to focus on the negative since that's considered more 'newsworthy' so maybe the news is skewed. A metric of extreme weather events that may be more objective was released recently by FEMA. Here's the plot of the last sixty or so years of Federal disasters:

That's a pretty sobering trend. But it may also reflect the inclination to have all sorts of events declared disasters so that those areas impacted can qualify for federal aid. So let's compare that chart to one put out by a major re-insurance conglomerate:

This chart only covers 1980 through 2010 but more importantly it shows the types of disasters being measured. Again, a very sobering trend. And it tracks the FEMA plot pretty closely.

What I hope everybody understands is that the costs of these extreme weather events comes out of all of our pockets. If the recovery involves federal or state aid then it's a direct taxpayer subsidy, and insurance companies, being for profit entities, recover every dollar they pay out through increased premiums. And those increased premiums are paid by (surprise!) us taxpaying citizens. So if AGW is correct in its predictions of increased extreme weather in a warmer world then expect to pay the price.

A second effect of climate change is the impact on our food supply. Anybody who has grown crops, whether a vegatable garden in ones yard or an industrial farm covering square miles of land, knows how vulnerable those crops are to extreme weather. In 2010 Russia went from being a wheat exporter to being an importer. This year their wheat crop has recovered and they will be exporting again. This year flooding in the midwest impacted the US corn harvest. Who knows what next year will bring. Here in Texas the drought is reported to have caused farmers and ranchers over 5 billion in losses. One of the fundamental predictions of AGW is that extreme weather events will become more common as global temperatures rise. If that prediction is correct, and there is a lot of evidence that it is, then our food supplies will be increasingly impacted. Several commenters have asserted that crops will benefit in a warmer climate, and while there may be some truth to that, keep in mind that a wheat crop that's been flourishing all summer can be beaten flat and lost due to a 15 minute hailstorm. Complacency is foolish.

I would guess both of these charts are bunk. Especially the FEMA one which is entirely based on politics. I would like to see something scientific.

I also read through the RE Munich report and found that there were 37 wildfires reported in the first half of 2011, which composes 100% of the 37 "climatological events" which are the yellow portion of the bars in the bar graph. Thus the yellow portion of the bar is pretty much a wildfire count. And it appears that the number of wildfires has gone up from just 3-6 per year to dozens per year since 1980. This of course is bogus. My guess is the wildfire count in the 1980s they only counted big fires. This is corroborated by a later chart which shows the total # of acres burned hasn't increased. Only the count has. Which means what they're probably doing is counting more small fires. Or counting only fires in which insurance claims were made.

[Sunny and Warm]

Phillip,

I got this from the Munich reinsurance site you posted from earlier. It shows all 960 "events" worldwide in 2010. I've yet to find what the parameters are for this designation, so if you could assist, that would be great. In the meantime, I would point you to a particular point of interest in this world view. Note the climotological events in yellow/brown. Then note that the USA has as many as the rest of the world combined? Also notice that the more advanced the society, the more climotological events they have. It's as if Mother Nature is giving the polluters the middle finger. Doesn't seem right to me that 5-10% of the land mass in the world has 90+% of the climotological disasters. What do you make of this particular point? I'm sure I'll find other quarks as I study it later.

http://www.munichre....worldmap_en.pdf

I should also add that the USA has a solid half of all meteo events in the world last year. We seem to be especially unlucky.

[skierinvermont]

Phillip,

I got this from the Munich reinsurance site you posted from earlier. It shows all 960 "events" worldwide in 2010. I've yet to find what the parameters are for this designation, so if you could assist, that would be great. In the meantime, I would point you to a particular point of interest in this world view. Note the climotological events in yellow/brown. Then note that the USA has as many as the rest of the world combined? Also notice that the more advanced the society, the more climotological events they have. It's as if Mother Nature is giving the polluters the middle finger. Doesn't seem right to me that 5-10% of the land mass in the world has 90+% of the climotological disasters. What do you make of this particular point? I'm sure I'll find other quarks as I study it later.

http://www.munichre....worldmap_en.pdf

I should also add that the USA has a solid half of all meteo events in the world last year. We seem to be especially unlucky.

There's a good chance they're defining losses by the number of claims filed or the $ losses which would explain why the U.S. has the most and the upwards trend over time. We need to know what their standard is.. my guess is it's not a scientific standard since it's not a scientific study.

[WeatherRusty]

Phillip,

You completely misread my post.

First - When I said temps, I meant 2005 to 2010. They are neutral at best in that time frame. One cannot use AGW to explain a 2.5 times increase in disasters in that very small time frame.

The world doesn't work so fast, so something else is at work.

Second - The FEMA plot is garbage. We all know the govt is handing out declarations like a drug addict in an opium den to curry favor with the public.

Third - I could show you a plot of tropical storms per year for the last 60 years as well and which shows a similar uptick in more modern times. Of course, technology changed how many we saw, so the trend was skewed.

You should be more careful and suspicious of data that pretends to show sharp rises of anything over short periods. There usually is an underlying reason for it, and it is usually not obvious. Or, you could insist that it is AGW, which is much less apparent than this particular trend.

Most people in the know will tell you that La Nina is primarily responsible for many of the prolific rain and snow events which have taken place over the past couple of years. The same is true for the Texas drought and probably elsewhere as well. The Arctic Oscillation has played a large role as have other feature of the general circulation such as the PDO and AMO.

So what is it about the condition of the atmosphere, ocean and land interfaces which is different than it might have been several decades ago? Is it generally warmer? Is there more moisture in the global atmosphere? Is there less sea ice during the late summer and throughout the fall season than there used to be?

If the Dust Bowl of the 30's was partly the consequence of a -PDO are we about to experience something similar, only worse with higher temps and deeper drought?

Why did we just this past spring smash several tornado records in the eastern part of the U.S?

Why did Pakistan suffer it's worst flooding event we know of last year? Why the coincident Russian heat wave? Record breaking floods many times over around the U.S.. Australian flooding far beyond the norm. Brazilian flooding far beyond the norm. Freaky mid Atlantic state snow storms, during one of the warmest years on record (2010).

Is there a common thread to all of this?

[Sunny and Warm]

Is there a common thread to all of this?

Actually, no Rusty. You just described isolated weather events. No more, no less. You note tornados in the Eastern US this year being noteworthy. On what basis. Why didn't you mention tornado numbers a couple years ago when the numbers were very low? Most reliable Met station records only go back a hundred years or less. There is a reason any particular station along a river has a 100, 250, and 500 year designation. Sometimes, we get 500 year floods twice in 50 years. Does this mean we have a changing climate? Not necessarily. It may be another 1000 years before we get the next one.

I know it is easy for the AGW side to point to these extreme events and say gotcha, because that's what sells to your constituents. However, I believe you're missing the boat. Climate change is less sexy and takes much longer to prove in the record. For example, say a 250 house has a basement, and didn't have any problems for all that time, but in the last five years, the basement has become unusable due to high water tables associated with large annual rainfall numbers. Now it's only five years, but most people can see that something is up that a 250 year old basement can't be used anymore, and would likely associate it with rainfall changes. You guys just jump the shark too much.

[LithiaWx]

Actually, no Rusty. You just described isolated weather events. No more, no less. You note tornados in the Eastern US this year being noteworthy. On what basis. Why didn't you mention tornado numbers a couple years ago when the numbers were very low? Most reliable Met station records only go back a hundred years or less. There is a reason any particular station along a river has a 100, 250, and 500 year designation. Sometimes, we get 500 year floods twice in 50 years. Does this mean we have a changing climate? Not necessarily. It may be another 1000 years before we get the next one.

I know it is easy for the AGW side to point to these extreme events and say gotcha, because that's what sells to your constituents. However, I believe you're missing the boat. Climate change is less sexy and takes much longer to prove in the record. For example, say a 250 house has a basement, and didn't have any problems for all that time, but in the last five years, the basement has become unusable due to high water tables associated with large annual rainfall numbers. Now it's only five years, but most people can see that something is up that a 250 year old basement can't be used anymore, and would likely associate it with rainfall changes. You guys just jump the shark too much.

I could not have verbalized my response any better than this, well done...

[The_Global_Warmer]

So our CO2 output (and it's feedbacks) since the mid 1800's hasn't provided us with a +1C difference over 150 years???? How are we going to manage 2-3C over 79 years with addition (forecasted linear) CO2 increase (and presumed positive feedbacks)??

Co2 might have an easier job when there is so much less ice around...don't forget aerosols and the sun has been in a pretty constant strong state.

But the ice is the key to all of this. Since the Sun is extremely consistent, it won't change anytime soon.

No one will answer my question about the Sun and the Ice when the ice is gone because everyone has now seen first hand how powerful the sun is on the arctic...

the only response is the AMO is the driver...it's the deficit.

I think we might want to look into taking a whole lot of Earth from other places..I mean something fierce and use this to help manpulate the arctic water flows in the 0-100 meter areas...we might be able to help keep MY ice in places where it can build up..who knows...but we can't blow anything up or dig with so much methane all over or oil or whatever that could get out. I mean maybe we could just shrink the arctic and leave just deeper waters so the sun can't use the shallow water to heat up the 5 gallon bucket to boiling water then dump it in the 200 gallon bath. How many dumps does it take for the bath to warm? Not many.

The North Atantic is "cool". The Land Masses are not. Nor is the arctic where there is ice.

I gotta tell ya....when I looked at the Surface temps from Nov 1-April-1 There was a huge almost crazy correlation to arctic anomalies and sun activity. Now you can also see when the arctic reached a certain point. Also the early 90s suck because of the volcano in terms of straight on data.

The Volume has a very distinct pattern of declining at the end of a solar Max while rebounding during the middle or end of a solar min.

1. You can see this right now since 2006. Of course 2007 was anomalous and right after we reached the bottom..but it quickly rebounded during a all out multi year min. Back2Back years saw 22.5-23.5km3 gains(in thousands) that is extremely impressive. And was during two "colder" winters. But the sun regulates water temps more than anything..and the sun in a weaker state probably couldn't warm the water as deep..so bottom melt among things didn't last or wasn't as strong..allowing the arctic to grow a lot more. As you go back it is harder to find these obvious examples because the ice was older and steadier..but the mid to late 90s show this well.

2. As soon as the sun fired up again we see a fall off in summer volume retention. The higher activity logically would have a larger impact on summer months relative to the winter. That is when the sun can hit the open water with more energy. The early 80s see's a quick drop in summer retention going into the max. The late 80s see's a quick drop going into the max. The 90s were affected by the Volcano..so it;s hard to say and GHG output at this time was accelerating very fast and probably also started to play a larger role. But the the late 90s see's a fall. We level off a bit then another fall as the max ends. I am guessing the Negative ENSO may have helped the early 2000s some. It was also a much weaker solar max.

3. During the Mid 2000s we see a yearly fall off..but this coincides with GHGs increasing even faster, the Solar Output was good until 2006. So even in the decline it was there. Enso was mostly positive or neutral. The AMO was strong in the mid 2000s falling off as well during the big solar min. This period also lost it's MY ice shield in the 2007-08, flushing which was mostly wind driven(another seperate force on the ice).

4. After 2007, it was over. It is like losing your star player and the team is still pretty good...and plays .500 ball for a while before an epic collapse. the factors turned..the so called grand min should have done something..it did. It helped the ice in the winters. But the ice is now to thin. And the ice couldn't stay in tact in summer and has left to much ocean ice free to soak in the sun's rays. Weather patterns from 2008-present have been neutral for the arctic basin overall. But the ice was hit one to many times.

5. Now we are going into a solar max....even a weak one will still energize the sun. And this is when the ice is at it's worst. There is almost no old thick ice left. The feedback is jogging fast and is either going to pull a hammy, decide to just jog or start sprinting to the finish.

How EXCITING!!!

[skierinvermont]

Friv.. the albedo feedback from ice loss is pretty weak.. the primary reasons that more warming is expected this century than last is that CO2 is supposed to rise faster and aerosols are supposed to rise slower than last century.

CO2 has risen a mere .8ppm/year over the last century on average. It's now rising 2ppm/year and continuing to accelerate. The rise in CO2 this century will likely be 2-3.5X that of last century. And the increase in aerosols, which has masked much of the warming, will be less due to improved pollution standards.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Friv.. the albedo feedback from ice loss is pretty weak.. the primary reasons that more warming is expected this century than last is that CO2 is supposed to rise faster and aerosols are supposed to rise slower than last century.

CO2 has risen a mere .8ppm/year over the last century on average. It's now rising 2ppm/year and continuing to accelerate. The rise in CO2 this century will likely be 2-3.5X that of last century. And the increase in aerosols, which has masked much of the warming, will be less due to improved pollution standards.

We haven't had much ice loss yet.

Like I asked before....compared to any given summer right now or before..how would a decade of summers with August 1st-October 1st with under 1,000,000km2 hold up against the sun having places like the Kara, Beaufort, ESB, Barents, all ice free for months on end with no ice near them to cool the waters?

2007 and 2011 gave us a sneak preview..with the ice only going under 5,000,000km2 for short period. Knock off another 3,000,000kmn2 over a two month period. How warm can the Arctic seas get with no ice around and months on end of near constant sun light.

http://www.athropolis.com/sun-fr.htm

Let's pretend it is August 1st...and the arctic looks like this:

That Light blue line is August 1st. the Darker one is September 1st and the shaded is the MIN.

Lets say it is a 2007 like summer. So for pretty much all of July through September the ESB, Kara, Laptev, Barrents are ice free.

Just imagine 4-5 days straight of a HP sitting over the ESB/Laptev a nice 1030-1040 Fatty with 5-10C 850s+ with it. It is August 1st to the 5th. With the nearest ice Around the North Pole.

The sun is up all day everyday...what is going to happen? I am sure physics can give us the answer.

I know it's hypothetical. But we have seen already this power of the sun, even a weaker one at the high latitudes shining constantly what it can do.

Please do some math for me..I can start looking into it. But just from a logical place the amount of solar energy that those places would consume would be crazy...with a constant flow from the sun..no let up..no night time break...just constant. No ice to interfere. That sounds pretty scary to me. Maybe that's why it sucks...but I think at that point that energy would end up filtering out of the arctic since it won't be going to ice melt.

Oh and I agree with your 2nd statement...that sucks too

[WeatherRusty]

Actually, no Rusty. You just described isolated weather events. No more, no less. You note tornados in the Eastern US this year being noteworthy. On what basis. Why didn't you mention tornado numbers a couple years ago when the numbers were very low? Most reliable Met station records only go back a hundred years or less. There is a reason any particular station along a river has a 100, 250, and 500 year designation. Sometimes, we get 500 year floods twice in 50 years. Does this mean we have a changing climate? Not necessarily. It may be another 1000 years before we get the next one.

I know it is easy for the AGW side to point to these extreme events and say gotcha, because that's what sells to your constituents. However, I believe you're missing the boat. Climate change is less sexy and takes much longer to prove in the record. For example, say a 250 house has a basement, and didn't have any problems for all that time, but in the last five years, the basement has become unusable due to high water tables associated with large annual rainfall numbers. Now it's only five years, but most people can see that something is up that a 250 year old basement can't be used anymore, and would likely associate it with rainfall changes. You guys just jump the shark too much.

Wow.....All I can say is wow......You don't think the events I mentioned, all occurring during the past two years, are associated with La Nina as a common thread? They are isolated weather events?

All weather events are tied to each other through the state of the general atmospheric circulation, the oceans and the land. None of it is independent, it is all tied together. Change one feature and you subtly or not so subtly change them all. Weather falls into patterns as a result. Persistent patterns become climate over time. You won't find many trained in meteorology who will deny the association between the past two years of anomalous weather and the climate feature known as La Nina.

You are essentially denying climate change, the temperature has risen 0.8C but you think the attendant weather has not changed along with that rise in temperature.

[skierinvermont]

We haven't had much ice loss yet.

Like I asked before....compared to any given summer right now or before..how would a decade of summers with August 1st-October 1st with under 1,000,000km2 hold up against the sun having places like the Kara, Beaufort, ESB, Barents, all ice free for months on end with no ice near them to cool the waters?

2007 and 2011 gave us a sneak preview..with the ice only going under 5,000,000km2 for short period. Knock off another 3,000,000kmn2 over a two month period. How warm can the Arctic seas get with no ice around and months on end of near constant sun light.

http://www.athropolis.com/sun-fr.htm

Let's pretend it is August 1st...and the arctic looks like this:

That Light blue line is August 1st. the Darker one is September 1st and the shaded is the MIN.

Lets say it is a 2007 like summer. So for pretty much all of July through September the ESB, Kara, Laptev, Barrents are ice free.

Just imagine 4-5 days straight of a HP sitting over the ESB/Laptev a nice 1030-1040 Fatty with 5-10C 850s+ with it. It is August 1st to the 5th. With the nearest ice Around the North Pole.

The sun is up all day everyday...what is going to happen? I am sure physics can give us the answer.

I know it's hypothetical. But we have seen already this power of the sun, even a weaker one at the high latitudes shining constantly what it can do.

Please do some math for me..I can start looking into it. But just from a logical place the amount of solar energy that those places would consume would be crazy...with a constant flow from the sun..no let up..no night time break...just constant. No ice to interfere. That sounds pretty scary to me. Maybe that's why it sucks...but I think at that point that energy would end up filtering out of the arctic since it won't be going to ice melt.

Oh and I agree with your 2nd statement...that sucks too

Well it would take me longer to figure out the exact radiative forcing of such ice loss, but what I can tell you is that despite the decline in snow and ice globally over the last century, that doesn't even show up on the IPCC list of radiative forcing over the last century. Darkening of snow by pollution does show up as a very small albedo change, as does land-use. Land-use refers primarily to the conversion of forests into farmland which have higher albedo and thus a negative RF value.

Albedo fluctuations tend to be a pretty small player in terms of global temperatures on earth. Locally they can have a bigger effect.

Changes in surface albedo are the 5th row. Land-use and black carbon darkening show up as very small forcings, loss of snow and ice does not show up at all.

[skierinvermont]

The primary issue is that snow and ice are a small % of the earth, and the gain/loss are a % of that %.

I did find one paper that said the surface albedo RF value from ice age to a pre-industrial climate for snow&ice albedo is 2.4W/m2. That's the albedo RF difference between an ice age and present climate. By comparison, the RF value for doubling of CO2 is 3.7W/m2.

Given the changes in snow and ice you are talking about are much much smaller than the difference between an ice age and the present, I'd guess that the RF value of eliminating most remaining summer sea ice is .2-.5W/m2.

So the answer to your question is ~.2-.5W/m2 of RF if the arctic lost most remaining summer sea ice.

Which of course is a very small radiative forcing.

http://kiwi.atmos.co...r_submitted.pdf

[Sunny and Warm]

Wow.....All I can say is wow......You don't think the events I mentioned, all occurring during the past two years, are associated with La Nina as a common thread? They are isolated weather events?

All weather events are tied to each other through the state of the general atmospheric circulation, the oceans and the land. None of it is independent, it is all tied together. Change one feature and you subtly or not so subtly change them all. Weather falls into patterns as a result. Persistent patterns become climate over time. You won't find many trained in meteorology who will deny the association between the past two years of anomalous weather and the climate feature known as La Nina.

You are essentially denying climate change, the temperature has risen 0.8C but you think the attendant weather has not changed along with that rise in temperature.

as I sit here at my computer this morning it is painfully obvious that no one on your side, including you Rusty, has any reading comprehension skills. You're not nearly as bad as Skier, but getting there. Where you guys come up with these posts is beyond me. Please try harder to understand what is being said to you rather than fly off the handle and embarrass yourselves.

La Nina is a weather phenomenon, so obviously when I call floods, etc isolated weather events, I'm not excluding a link to Nina, a weather phenomenon. Like everything else, Nina creates conditions for certain things to happen (like loaded dice), but the full range of possibilities is still there, just skewed.

Edit: Thanks for flipping out about a non-issue with my post, and thus not answer the real questions in there than pertain to your disingenuous use of tornado stats.

[Hambone]

I think there will certainly be consequences between now and 2100 if we warm 1-2C...more if we warm 3-4C which I think is unlikely. But I do think the consequences will be relatively minor compared to if we cool 1-2C between now and then. Humanity and life in general has always thrived on warmer temps...colder conditions like the LIA and the more extreme Younger Dryas has been bad for humanity. Land that becomes ill-fit for farming will be replaced by northern boreal areas and eventually tundra that will be prime zones for agriculture. The consequences are much more political than they are on the absolute survival of humanity.

I think it won't be much of a huge effect though in the next 100 years. There will be extinctions for sure as many of the species still remnant from the last cold period finally fizzle out and as we naturally destroy their habitat.

But I'm in the boat that warming is far less destructive than cooling. There's going to be consequences either way. And they will keep coming in the century long after we are dead. The consequences though will pale in comparison when we finally start going into the next ice age. Decent cooling would cause a catastrophic food shortage for the current world population.

I think over population is a much much larger problem than the world climate.

I agree.

[BeastFromTheEast]

I agree.

+1000000

[LithiaWx]

That's why I said vote for the option that is closest to your view and then elaborate. Of course nobody's view can be reduced down entirely to one of the 4 options. My personally, I think we will have some success in lowering emissions, that climate sensitivity is not on the high end of the IPCC range, and that some of the worst case scenarios won't come to fruition. None of that is in option 4, but option 4 still is the closest to my view.

What you are describing sounds most like option #1 since you are denying the basic physics of a 3.7W/m2 CO2 forcing and the blackbody response it would produce.

I just caught this... How in the hell am I denying the basic physics of CO2 when I clearly stated that CO2 will cause some warming. What I don't buy is that it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions and I also believe a stronger player in climate change is natural cycles, at least for now. I don't believe our CO2 emissions are currently more powerful than decadal oscillations and solar activity. I also believe it will take a long time to have them overpower these natural cycles. It comes down to for me is what percentage of our warming is CO2 increase because of humanity and what percentage is due to natural causes. For now my thoughts are is CO2 is not close to half yet.... I would struggle to put a percentage on it but it does not matter my point is natural cycles are dominating for the time being.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I just caught this... How in the hell am I denying the basic physics of CO2 when I clearly stated that CO2 will cause some warming. What I don't buy is that it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions and I also believe a stronger player in climate change is natural cycles, at least for now. I don't believe our CO2 emissions are currently more powerful than decadal oscillations and solar activity. I also believe it will take a long time to have them over power these natural cycles.

How are natural cycles stronger than Co2 feedback which increases energy in the system?

[Sunny and Warm]

I just caught this... How in the hell am I denying the basic physics of CO2 when I clearly stated that CO2 will cause some warming. What I don't buy is that it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions and I also believe a stronger player in climate change is natural cycles, at least for now. I don't believe our CO2 emissions are currently more powerful than decadal oscillations and solar activity. I also believe it will take a long time to have them overpower these natural cycles. It comes down to for me is what percentage of our warming is CO2 increase because of humanity and what percentage is due to natural causes. For now my thoughts are is CO2 is not close to half yet.... I would struggle to put a percentage on it but it does not matter my point is natural cycles are dominating for the time being.

Skier knows he is overplaying the 3.7 blah, blah, blah CO2 forcing. He acts like the climate is in static state with no other influence other than this new thing called CO2. Fortunately, Gaia is not so easily influenced.

[WeatherRusty]

I just caught this... How in the hell am I denying the basic physics of CO2 when I clearly stated that CO2 will cause some warming. What I don't buy is that it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions and I also believe a stronger player in climate change is natural cycles, at least for now. I don't believe our CO2 emissions are currently more powerful than decadal oscillations and solar activity. I also believe it will take a long time to have them overpower these natural cycles. It comes down to for me is what percentage of our warming is CO2 increase because of humanity and what percentage is due to natural causes. For now my thoughts are is CO2 is not close to half yet.... I would struggle to put a percentage on it but it does not matter my point is natural cycles are dominating for the time being.

The solar cycle can dominate for less than a decade. PDO may dominate for about a decade. ENSO dominates for a year or two. These are cycles or oscillations which net out to near zero over time. The persistent growth of CO2 and it's forcing is headed in only one direction and that makes all the difference in the world over long enough time frames.

You are denying physics if you expect warming of less than 1.2C per doubling of CO2. You are denying the best estimates of climate sensitivity if you believe little to no positive feedback will attend the 1.2C, effectively enhancing the 1.2C to between 2C and 4.5C per doubling.

[WeatherRusty]

Skier knows he is overplaying the 3.7 blah, blah, blah CO2 forcing. He acts like the climate is in static state with no other influence other than this new thing called CO2. Fortunately, Gaia is not so easily influenced.

The only other forcing comes from the Sun (which forcing is tiny) and Earth's own albedo (affected by aerosol pollution from industry, volcanoes, melting cryosphere and changes in cloud etc.).

[Sunny and Warm]

The solar cycle can dominate for less than a decade unless we are in a deep minimum like now, and then we don't know. PDO may dominate for about a decade three decades. ENSO dominates for a year or two, but has a prevalent signal per the PDO signal during that time. These are cycles or oscillations which net out to near zero over time. Says who? Papers please. The persistent growth of CO2 and it's forcing is headed in only one direction and that makes all the difference in the world over long enough time frames. Unless you fail to account for more negative effects, which you clearly are.

You are denying physics if you expect warming of less than 1.2C per doubling of CO2. You are denying the best estimates of climate sensitivity if you believe little to no positive feedback will attend the 1.2C, effectively enhancing the 1.2C to between 2C and 4.5C per doubling. ... and yet, here we are, with no noticable warming since 2001.

fixed it for you. You really are too much lately with the obvious down playing of negative feedbacks/forcings.

When we get to 2020 and you're still looking at the business end of the shotgun, are you going to finally give it up Rusty???

[Sunny and Warm]

The only other forcing comes from the Sun (which forcing is tiny) and Earth's own albedo (affected by aerosol pollution from industry, volcanoes, melting cryosphere and changes in cloud etc.).

both of which can dwarf CO2, and whose effects cannot be properly defined at this time. But, let that not stop us from ruining the world economy before we find out.

[WeatherRusty]

both of which can dwarf CO2, and whose effects cannot be properly defined at this time. But, let that not stop us from ruining the world economy before we find out.

So, you deny more science if you insist the Sun's forcing dwarfs CO2 forcing.

Who is talking about ruining the world economy? We are hopeful of solving problems, not creating them....what would be the point in that.

[WeatherRusty]

fixed it for you. You really are too much lately with the obvious down playing of negative feedbacks/forcings.

When we get to 2020 and you're still looking at the business end of the shotgun, are you going to finally give it up Rusty???

Why is it that net negative feedback hasn't prevented the 0.8C of warming so far if you expect it to do so in the future?

[The_Global_Warmer]

I just caught this... How in the hell am I denying the basic physics of CO2 when I clearly stated that CO2 will cause some warming. What I don't buy is that it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions and I also believe a stronger player in climate change is natural cycles, at least for now. I don't believe our CO2 emissions are currently more powerful than decadal oscillations and solar activity. I also believe it will take a long time to have them overpower these natural cycles. It comes down to for me is what percentage of our warming is CO2 increase because of humanity and what percentage is due to natural causes. For now my thoughts are is CO2 is not close to half yet.... I would struggle to put a percentage on it but it does not matter my point is natural cycles are dominating for the time being.

Would you please give us some concrete data on why you think this is true?