Extreme weather and a changing climate (CNN Opin/Obama Admin Offical)

[Warfish]

Extreme weather and a changing climate

By Jane Lubchenco, Special to CNN

updated 11:17 AM EDT, Tue July 24, 2012

Editor's note: Jane Lubchenco is under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency that seeks to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources.

(CNN) -- In recent months, Americans have experienced numerous extreme weather-related events, including droughts, wildfires and heat waves.

We've witnessed the warmest spring since record-keeping began in 1895.

Thirty-one states reached record-high temperatures.

The period between July 2011 and June 2012 was the hottest 12 months on record.

And last year 14 extreme weather-related events caused an incalculable loss of human life and cost the U.S. economy more than $55 billion. Understandably, many Americans are wondering if these events are manifestations of a longer-term shift in climate.

At present we cannot definitively link any single extreme event to climate change. But it is worthwhile to consider whether the apparent increase in some extreme events has roots in a larger, longer-term trend, since that would predict a continuation of these events in the future.

That kind of understanding can have practical importance because it can inspire action to reduce economic losses and human suffering — often in relatively simple ways. If a region is likely to continue to get rainfall heavier than has historically occurred, for example, then it is sensible for city planners to consider installing larger-bore storm sewers when the time comes to replace aging infrastructure.

The science in this area is getting stronger all the time. In one recently published study, six international research teams led by scientists from NOAA and a number of countries investigated seven different 2011 extreme weather and climate events. In six of the seven, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that climate change caused by human activities played a factor in the events — affecting their severity, likelihood or frequency.

Among those events exacerbated by climate change were heat waves in Texas and Oklahoma, the East African drought and extreme temperatures in Europe and England. On the other hand, the study found no evidence that the devastating floods in Thailand last year were connected to climate change.

Another new peer-reviewed article, the "2011 State of the Climate" report compiled by nearly 400 scientists from 48 countries, documents some of the longer-term trends that are underlying some of these changes. It found that:

-- Carbon dioxide and other major greenhouse gases continue to climb, with the 2011 yearly global average the highest yet;

-- Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making oceans more acidic;

-- The Arctic is warming about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, and its sea ice is thinning dramatically;

-- And the globally averaged heat stored in the upper ocean was the highest since records began in 1993.

Such striking trends have strong implications for climate, weather and environmental and human health.

One upward trend is indisputable: At NOAA, requests for climate data have skyrocketed, and those data are increasingly helping stakeholders cope with extreme events. Last year, for example, firefighters in Texas used long-term climate information to prepare for the spring/summer 2011 wildfire season. Emergency managers along the Mississippi, Missouri and Red River basins used NOAA climate data to help lessen flooding, months before it began.

Coastal managers are using sea-level-rise data to protect crucial infrastructure.

Businesses and governments depend on climate information to make smart investments.

Electric utilities count on climate data to anticipate peak power requirements and distribute power where it is needed.

These are the kinds of practical actions that inspire me in my job as we work to make the best science available to understand and reduce the impact of extreme events on families, communities and businesses. These and other measures are essential to reducing the effects of extreme weather events and forging a safer future.

An interesting and enlightening read.

[DeanPatsFan]

No mention of one of the coldest winters in decades.

I wonder why......

[MCBNY]

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

No mention of one of the coldest winters in decades.

I wonder why......

Did you know that 9 of the last 10 years have been the hottest in history (I think, don't hold me to that officially, but the point remains)? What do you say to that?

Also, what do you think of our sea levels rising (and they ain't going back down) to unprecedented highs and Antarctica and Greenland falling apart?

[DeanPatsFan]

Originally Posted by MCBNY

Did you know that 9 of the last 10 years have been the hottest in history (I think, don't hold me to that officially, but the point remains)? What do you say to that?

I say this...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...th-is-cooling/

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling


Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.

The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.


What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.

Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.

[MCBNY]

Okay, now what do you think of the second part of my post, that I edited? Greenland & Antarctica and the sea levels rising.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

I say this...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...th-is-cooling/

You’re citing Peter Ferrar citing the Heartland Institute as a rebuttal..

[DeanPatsFan]

Originally Posted by MCBNY

Okay, now what do you think of the second part of my post, that I edited? Greenland & Antarctica and the sea levels rising.

This is what I think of it..

Greenland glaciers not set to cause disastrous sea level rises - study

Another blow for hippy doomsayers



By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Science, 4th May 2012 11:24 GMT


US government funded scientists have measured the speed of glaciers in Greenland as they move down to the sea over the past ten years, and discovered that - while the glaciers have speeded up somewhat - there's no indication that this will mean major sea level rises.

"Observed acceleration indicates that sea level rise from Greenland may fall well below proposed upper bounds," write the boffins, who are based in Seattle and Ohio.

Besides, Greenland is actually rising out of the sea. As it's ice mass melts , the weight pressure on the bedrock is eased, causing the island to rise from the sea....

[DeanPatsFan]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

You’re citing Peter Ferrar citing the Heartland Institute as a rebuttal..

I believe I did....

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by MCBNY

Okay, now what do you think of the second part of my post, that I edited? Greenland & Antarctica and the sea levels rising.

Every once in awhile I take all the ice out of the freezer to defrost it. Once defrosted it makes much better ice.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

I believe I did....

A conservative lawyer who is a Senior fellow for the Heartland institutes entitlement and budget policy doesn't seem all that credible on this issue.

[DeanPatsFan]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

A conservative lawyer who is a Senior fellow for the Heartland institutes entitlement and budget policy doesn't seem all that credible on this issue.

Less credible than universities and scientists sucking from the government teat to "study global warming"?


I didn't think so....


Global warming is caused by the sun and solar activity... Nothing more.

Please explain the warming and cooling periods on this planet long before man even came into existence...

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

Less credible than universities and scientists sucking from the government teat to "study global warming"?


I didn't think so....


Global warming is caused by the sun and solar activity... Nothing more.

Please explain the warming and cooling periods on this planet long before man even came into existence...

If your point is you don't believe in it because you don't think the science is credible that's fine say it. Posting complete BS to disprove the science you don't believe in is simply more BS.

I'm fine with global warming, floods, famine, death and destruction. A good pandemic, meteor or huge volcano will ultimately change the data anyway.

I believe in it but I'm not in favor of a Political solution. Hopefully enough individuals will change their behavior or they won't.

[shakin318]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

You’re citing Peter Ferrar citing the Heartland Institute as a rebuttal..

ok, then how about these guys:

Claude Allegre, former Director, Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
J. Scott Armstrong, Co-Founder, Journal of Forecasting and International Journal of Forecasting
Jan Breslow, Head, Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
Roger Cohen, Fellow, American Physical Society
Edward David, Member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences
William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Michael Kelly, Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge
William Kininmonth, former Head of Climate Research, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
James McGrath, Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Technical University
Rodney Nichols, former President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator
Nir Shaviv, Professor of Astrophysics, Hebrew University
Henk Tennekes, former Director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
Antonio Zichichi, President, World Federation of Scientists, Geneva


Here's what they have to say about it:

http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/b...ource=activity

[DeanPatsFan]

Originally Posted by shakin318

ok, then how about these guys:

Claude Allegre, former Director, Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
J. Scott Armstrong, Co-Founder, Journal of Forecasting and International Journal of Forecasting
Jan Breslow, Head, Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
Roger Cohen, Fellow, American Physical Society
Edward David, Member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences
William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Michael Kelly, Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge
William Kininmonth, former Head of Climate Research, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
James McGrath, Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Technical University
Rodney Nichols, former President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator
Nir Shaviv, Professor of Astrophysics, Hebrew University
Henk Tennekes, former Director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
Antonio Zichichi, President, World Federation of Scientists, Geneva


Here's what they have to say about it:

http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/b...ource=activity

Morons... all of them.

Little Ricky Maddow says the earth is warming and mankind is at fault...

If you don''t believe her, ask the world"s greatest climatologist Al(fraud)Gore....

[quantum]

Originally Posted by shakin318

ok, then how about these guys:

Claude Allegre, former Director, Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
J. Scott Armstrong, Co-Founder, Journal of Forecasting and International Journal of Forecasting
Jan Breslow, Head, Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
Roger Cohen, Fellow, American Physical Society
Edward David, Member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences
William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Michael Kelly, Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge
William Kininmonth, former Head of Climate Research, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
James McGrath, Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Technical University
Rodney Nichols, former President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator
Nir Shaviv, Professor of Astrophysics, Hebrew University
Henk Tennekes, former Director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
Antonio Zichichi, President, World Federation of Scientists, Geneva


Here's what they have to say about it:

http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/b...ource=activity

Liars and deniers, every one! And some of them owe me money.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

If your point is you don't believe in it because you don't think the science is credible that's fine say it.

I neither belive in it nor disbelieve in it as yet.

The science, for what it is, is credible in the majority IMO.

However, it's incomplete and partial. A very short-term understanding with very limited measurements and exceptionally limited historic record with which to compare it to.

Put simply, I see the issue as like math problem with 1,000,000,000 variables.

And we know maybe 10,000 of the variables values.

I simply do not yet belive we know enough to prove the case.

And I cannot seperate the political agenda related to Man-Caused Global warming from the science, and who (generally and in the majority) is funding that science.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Just another laughable misstep on your transition to full-time liberal

"The sun fried, people died!"

[Ruby2]

I think man has proven that they are capable of absolutely outstanding things.

To say that they couldn't play a role in warming the earth is a biased / head in the sand argument.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

I think man has proven that they are capable of absolutely outstanding things.

To say that they couldn't play a role in warming the earth is a biased / head in the sand argument.

and yet temps can and did get really high before the industrial revolution...

(must've been all those indentured servants serfs an' slaves sweatin' and movin' their limbs- teh "wind warm" factor)

gd help us if you're ever a mod

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

and yet temps can and did get really high before the industrial revolution...

(must've been all those indentured servants serfs an' slaves sweatin' and movin' their limbs- teh "wind warm" factor)

gd help us if you're ever a mod

No one is saying that industry is the sole cause.

I just wouldn't be shocked if it played it a part.