Global Warming Much Much worse than predicted.

reply to post by poet1b

Ah, my apologies. That does make more sense now that I reread your post with that correction.

That being said, I am not seeing failed predictions, I am seeing GW happening much faster than predicted.

I remember predictions that the ocean would be a few feet higher today than it was 20 years ago. It is not.

I remember Hurricane Katrina supposedly being the beginning of monster tropical storms... nope, the tropics have actually been pretty quiet since then.

I can remember predictions that the Antarctic would be losing ice like crazy by now. Nope, the Antarctic is doing just fine.

The only prediction I have seen come to pass is the Arctic ice melt, and on that I believe we agree that we need to find out why warmer water is entering the Bering Straits.

If we are seeing the Arctic ice free in ten years or less, do you think you will recognize that this is for real? What would convince you that GW is happening?

If the Arctic ice completely disappears, I will believe that something potentially problematic is happening, but then again I believe that now. In order for me to believe in CO2-based Global Warming, I need to see a major rise in temperatures globally (as in 10 degrees or so, enough to dismiss the possibility of noise or chaotic anomalies), reported by well-maintained and properly positioned sensors, and I need to see repeatable, openly detailed experiments that indicate CO2 can cause those effects.

I have seen none of that. The reported temperature increases are so small as to be indistinguishable form normal weather anomalies, the sensors are poorly-positioned and not maintained, and no experiments are being conducted as to how CO2 is absorbing radiation which is apparently outside the absorption spectra we have discovered CO2 to have, how the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is creating such a massive effect from such a small concentration, and perhaps how industrial areas which produce more CO2 are warming faster than undeveloped areas.

Heck, I would be happy to see someone set up two identical clear plastic enclosures, one with normal CO2 levels and one with twice the normal concentration, and compare temperatures over time. I could do that, but I simply don't have the desire to prove something I am already sure of. Multi-million-dollar apparati are not required in order to experiment... only to make people believe BS doesn't smell.

I will not believe in the theory because someone else believes in it, because someone thinks it is important, or because someone spent $10,000,000 on an experiment and then reported the results instead of publishing the experiment for reproduction and peer review.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

An anomaly is anything which does not match expectations or is out of the ordinary. In the case of Global Warming, there are quite many anomalies every year. Every time the weather is hotter than average, colder than average, there is a flood outside of a flood plain, etc., that is an anomaly. The Arctic Melt is an anomaly simply because it is a deviation from what we expect.

One could actually argue that any chaotic system is composed more of anomalies than of expectations.

I write not to disagree with this, but to clarify (I hope). An anomaly is not so much a variation from what we expect, but a difference to some more or less arbitrarily chosen base line.

For example, in the case of the NASA GISS dataset, the anomalies are the difference between the specific data point for a year and the averages for the period 1951-1980. Observation minus Baseline equals Anomaly. It is the anomaly that is reported and averaged over time to find the trends.

This means that we can compare different reporting models with more confidence. What does it mean to compare a data point taken from a surface station on land with a ship mounted surface station or with a station mounted and calibrated to a different specification? You can see that it is much more meaningful to compare the 'anomaly'.

For example, one station, in say College Station, Texas, might report a temperature of 102 degrees. and another differently calibrated station at Dallas Fortworth Airport might report a temperature of 105. The difference might be from lots of reasons, maybe the DFW one is close to an air conditioner compressor or something. But if we report the temperature as an anomaly we automatically take those differences into account. Each station has its own baseline, so the College Station reading might be 1.2 degrees above its base line, and the DFW reading might be 1.3 degrees above its base line.

I just want to emphasize that the baseline is not what we expect it is what we have chosen.

reply to post by TheRedneck

I remember predictions that the ocean would be a few feet higher today than it was 20 years ago. It is not.

Link to a scientific publication please? Hyperbole from 'National Enquirer' like publications don't count by the way.

My recollection is a prediction for sea level rise as the ice caps melt. I remember discussion of worst case scenarios that reported how much the sea would rise if Greenland and/or Antarctia lost their ice caps altogether. I never saw anyone predict that either would completely lose their ice caps.

I believe you are setting up a straw man argument here.

I remember Hurricane Katrina supposedly being the beginning of monster tropical storms... nope, the tropics have actually been pretty quiet since then.

Again, link to a scientific publication please? My recollection

I remember people pointing out that as the Earth's Atmosphere/Ocean system absorbs more energy, there will be more unpredicability in the weather and that storms will likely be more frequent and/or more energetic. I think there have been more storms than average the last few years and there have been stronger storms that Katrina (Yasi for one). This year may be a 'low' point, but remember that the PDO is storing a lot of the energy buildup in the sub surface ocean for the last few years. This will end eventually and the likely outcome is more frequent and stronger storms.

Again, I believe you are setting up a straw man argument here.

I can remember predictions that the Antarctic would be losing ice like crazy by now. Nope, the Antarctic is doing just fine.

This is not correct. Antarctic Sea Ice is apparently growing for a number of reasons (one of which is land ice melt 'freshening' the Antarctic waters and thus raising the freezing point), however, the more important measure is the Antarctic land ice mass. Sea Ice melt does not contribute to sea levels, land ice does.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years. Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.
...
Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2, bottom panel) show an increasing contribution to sea level with time, although not as fast a rate or acceleration as Greenland. Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr.

There is variation between regions within Antarctica (Figure 2, top panel), with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet losing ice mass, and with an increasing rate. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over this period but not enough to offset the other losses. There are of course uncertainties in the estimation methods but independent data from multiple measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.

reply to post by rnaa

Thank you; that is a better explanation of "anomaly" than I was able to put into words. i can only add that the baseline should be an expected value.

As to your next post asking for sources, however: no. I have linked to numerous sources in the past and all of them can be located by searching the ATS archives. I acknowledge the need for sourcing statements, but after a certain period of time doing so, continual regurgitation of links becomes an exercise in futility. I have no interest in nor time to maintain a database of reading material, especially when my experience with this subject informs me that it would be easier to convince the Amish there is no God than to convince a Global Warming believer that the planet is not in immediate and dire peril.

We are still here in 2013; oceans have not inundated the coasts; crops are still growing. I need no journal entries to prove or verify those facts.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I have seen most of the sources that Global Warming deniers put up, and they are pure garbage.

I have never seen that oceans would be a few feet higher by now. All the legitimate sources have been saying maybe ocean levels will increase by meter by the end of the century. Read the Op, where my prediction is considerably more that what mainstream science is claiming, and that isn't a couple of feet by now.

Increases in hurricane are not supposed to happen yet, but in the next ten years or longer, and even this is a maybe.

The Antarctica is losing ice from the continent at an accelerating rate. You want to tell yourself that isn't so, then that is you decision, but you are denying reality at that point.

Look at the previous page on this thread at the IPCC link. Look at the quote I posted.

www.climatechange2013.org...

This is what the scientific community is saying about global warming, and you can look at their past reports if you want, to see if their prediction are what you claim.

reply to post by TheRedneck

As to your next post asking for sources, however: no. I have linked to numerous sources in the past and all of them can be located by searching the ATS archives.

That doesn't wash. It is too easy to hide false claims behind that attitude. If you have a scientific paper making those claims, then "we" can acknowledge your correct argument or show that the prediction was an outlier, not an accepted claim. Without it, it is just your assertion, pulled out of your behind.

I acknowledge that there have been sensationalist press claims of doom and gloom. I do not acknowledge that scientific researchers have claimed that peer reviewed papers have ever made the claims you assert for the current time frame.

It never happened. Your memory is faulty.

We are still here in 2013; oceans have not inundated the coasts;

Tell that to the people of Tuvalu. Their entire country is disappearing in front of their eyes.

reply to post by rnaa

Interestingly enough, it seems that Tuvalu is getting larger and is in less danger of disappearing. For the counter-intuitive science, check here and it's links.

Tuvalu is growing

reply to post by charles1952

Interesting but not really surprising that the beaches have gotten wider. Beaches are a dynamic environment. In Hawaii some are getting wider and some are getting smaller. If there is a sufficient "reservoir" of offshore material, it can be pushed ashore by higher sea levels. But there are limits.
phys.org...

I wonder how seawater intrusion into the water table is influenced. Can't really grow stuff in saltwater.
www.pacificwater.org...

reply to post by charles1952


What that post doesn't tell you is that Island area can increase but that increase does not have to be above water. Nice try Anthony Watts... or not so much.

reply to post by Kali74

At least he didn't claim that sea levels aren't rising.
Or did he?

reply to post by Phage


Haha... no he didn't, his phrasing is about the only clever thing he's got going on. He said "not sinking"... which was never the issue to begin with.

ETA: Wow he did say it. “The sea level will go up and the island will start responding."

So now the sea levels are rising but islands have some kind magically programmed response to grow as the sea rises... unreal, lol.

reply to post by Kali74

Dear Kali74,

I'm confused by your comment. You seem to be implying that the growth of the area of the islands as photographed and surveyed is occurring underwater?

I'm sure you have more science than I do, but after reading this:

One of the highest profile islands – in a political sense – was Tuvalu, where politicians and climate change campaigners have repeatedly predicted it will be drowned by rising seas, as its highest point is 4.5 metres above sea level. But the researchers found seven islands had spread by more than 3 percent on average since the 1950s.

One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 hectares or nearly 30 percent of its previous area.

And the research showed similar trends in the Republic of Kiribati, where the three main urbanised islands also “grew” – Betio by 30 percent (36ha), Bairiki by 16.3 percent (5.8ha) and Nanikai by 12.5 percent (0.8ha).

Webb, an expert on coastal processes, told the New Scientist the trend was explained by the fact the islands mostly comprised coral debris eroded from encircling reefs and pushed up onto the islands by winds and waves.

I gathered that they are talking about growth of surface area. Do you have something available to rebut that conclusion?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Kali74

Actually, in some cases it is.
Subsidence can greatly exacerbate the problems with rising sea levels and in some places it can be significant.
coastal.er.usgs.gov...

reply to post by Phage


Yeah I edited... good point. Dude still ought to get some kind creative writing award, imo.

reply to post by Kali74

So now the sea levels are rising but islands have some kind magically programmed response to grow as the sea rises... unreal, lol.

Nothing magical. Material from offshore is carried to shore. That's the way beaches work. Some beaches get bigger, some get smaller. It depends on the topography, currents, and wave patterns.

11 of the islands showed no change in area. 11 got bigger. 4 got smaller. On most of the islands "migration" toward the lagoon was seen.

reply to post by charles1952


For one thing there is this... from your source.

Webb, an expert on coastal processes, told the New Scientist the trend was explained by the fact the islands mostly comprised coral debris eroded from encircling reefs and pushed up onto the islands by winds and waves.

The process was continuous, because the corals were alive, he said.

As far as surface area increase, which is where the coral comes in, sadly will not be the case for much longer. Coral is dying off... rapidly, due to ocean acidification. There's no way, even if the coral weren't dying that it could outpace the rising seas. And likely any papers written on the topic or policy debate regarding timelines for survivability on Atolls, already included what currently keeps the waters from completely overrunning them.

reply to post by Phage


Yeah, I get that... it's just the way it's written makes it seem like all is well and will continue to be well. My humor can be hard to read, sorry. I'm sure by next week Mr. Watts will be quoting some other paper refuting sea level rise again and all his followers will forget.

reply to post by Kali74

Dear kali74,

I am not claiming to be any sort of a scientist, simply a confused member of the public.

It was about 1970 when the models predicted we would be under ice by now. (We're not.) It was 2007 when the models predicted that the ice cap would be melted by now. (It's not.) The ice in the Himalayas was predicted to melt. (It didn't)

It was predicted that the islands would be underwater, or getting close to it, or at least shrinking. (They're not.) It was predicted that our failure to cut human CO2 emission would result in ever-increasing temperatures. ( The "pause" has everybody scrambling for an excuse why it hasn't.)

The latest predictions seem to be

[S]urface area increase, . . . sadly will not be the case for much longer.

And:

There's no way, even if the coral weren't dying that it could outpace the rising seas.

Please try to understand me. I'm simply observing that, even without looking at the papers, there is very good reason to distrust their conclusions and predictions. It almost as though they're trying to be wrong.

At least in this field, simply saying that "Scientists say . . .," or "The report shows . . .," isn't good enough anymore. Credibility has been lost. Whether they turn out to be right or not, there's no particular reason to believe them anymore. Unless, of course, one is simply looking for any confirmation of their pre-existing beliefs.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Models didn't predict we'd be under ice, water, or that that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by now. That's all drivel meant to convince you of the lie that science keeps getting climate wrong. Some scientists did hypothesize in the 1970's that we were entering an ice age however climate science has come a long way since then, and based on info at the time, it wasn't completely unreasonable to think we were.

reply to post by charles1952


Science didn't predict any of this, the claim was that it could be possible, in a worse case scenario, and a very unlikely worse case scenario.

In fact, what science predicted, as the most likely changes, have been proven to be more conservative than what has actually happened. Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are disappearing much faster at this time than predicted.

Pretty good information on the Islands, thanks for bringing it up. I imagine we will be in for many surprises.