Warming Climate Is Changing Life On A Global Scale

Terra Daily ^ | May 19, 2008 | Staff Writers

[cogitator]

Actual abstract for this paper:

Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents.

[cogitator]

This one.

[steelyourfaith]

An ignorant modern superstition perpetrated by the Watermelon left threatens to change life on a global scale. We are poised on the precipice, about to descend into a new Dark Age, literally.

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[ChinaThreat]

“The data showing the patterns of change are strongest in North America, Asia and Europe—mainly because far more studies have been done there, said Rosenzweig. On the other continents, including South America, Australia and Africa, documentation of changes in physical and biological systems is sparse, even though there is good evidence there of human-influenced warming itself.”

The real reason for this is there is no indication of increased temps in the southern hemisphere. The temps in the north seemed to have been rising between 1991-2000. This just happens to correspond to the timing when 100s of measuring stations were shut down in Siberia and northern Russia with the fall of the USSR. The fact of the matter is, neither hemisphere is warming. Don’t let people fool you into accepting there is even such a thing as “global warming” at this time. Does the globe warm...? Of course it does. Does it cool? Of course it does.

Is man the cause of any of this? It has not been proven.

[Lexington Green]

‘’Every time a cow farts, another polar bear drowns.’’ - John McCain

[cogitator]

The real reason for this is there is no indication of increased temps in the southern hemisphere.

No, the main reason is that the NH is 30% ocean, 70% land, and the SH is 70% ocean and 30% land, and the oceans are warming considerably more slowly than land surfaces. And recently there has been an oceanic shift favoring slightly cooler surface ocean conditions in some regions.

[Always Right]

The effects on living things include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the northern hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans' plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities.

And how is that different from the first 4 billion years of this planets existence???? This is so dumb. A mere 15K years ago the great lakes were nothing but a frozen glacier, and we are suppose to be in panic because we have 20 years of warming (which has been followed by 10 years of flat temperatures and expected to be followed by 10 years of cooling)?

[Always Right]

The researchers say it is unlikely that any force but human-influenced climate change could be driving all this

A claim which has zero basis by any reasonable scientific method.

[Always Right]

Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

That and $3.99 will get you a gallon of gas.

[cogitator]

we are suppose to be in panic because we have 20 years of warming (which has been followed by 10 years of flat temperatures and expected to be followed by 10 years of cooling)?

We'll really just have to wait and see if that happens. You're basing the latter on the expectations of the skeptical community; I don't share their optimism, though it'd be pretty darned great if it actually happens.

Believe it or not, though, there are actually people that think there isn't any warming occurring globally because a few weather stations are located near parking lots and air conditioners. Explain that to the birds who show up a week late for their food source during annual migration.

[devere]

“and the oceans are warming considerably more slowly than land surfaces. And recently there has been an oceanic shift favoring slightly cooler surface ocean conditions in some regions.”

Just create some epicycles in your models to account for the inconvenient facts. That will make everything seem semi-rational.

Seriously, are you one of the people who make a handsome living off the global warming hoax, or do you actually believe in it? Is it your religion? It does seem to be a very popular modern faith.

[r-q-tek86]

ping

[ChinaThreat]

I think the real reason of this is that there is no such thing as “global temperature”. From a scientific standpoint, can you really get an average temperature from the earth? You run into an infinite boundary when you logically dissect this notion.

The devil is in the details. Climate is not something that can be measured by a thermometer. Think about it. The earth’s atmosphere is better understood today than it has been in our history. But the the fact remains, that we understand more about the interplay between our celestial neighbors in our own solar system than we do about deep ocean currents,the interaction of GHGs in our atmosphere, and know almost nothing about the five bazillion other data sets that make up “climate”.

We may be able to understand what will probably happen in a very precise geographic location in a very restricted time frame and very restricted set of conditions. And even then, we are wrong more than 20% of the time.

You can go on and on for days trying to dissect this absurdity talking about solar winds, recurring weather cycles, non anthropogenic contributors, occean currents and blah de blah de blah. The fact is we know very very little. To think we can draw any reasonable and reliable conclusion about long term climatic trends is just absurd and quite pompous in my own educated opinion. To make policy and restrict modern convenience is mostly suicidal.

The day when they can reverse-test their models, i will listen to them. Until then, its all nonesense being pushed by grant hungry science whores. Albeit sometimes it is dangerous nonesense.

[jwalsh07]

Believe it or not, though, there are actually people that think there isn't any warming occurring globally because a few weather stations are located near parking lots and air conditioners. Explain that to the birds who show up a week late for their food source during annual migration.

Would it be possible for you to tell us the ideal date and time for birds to arrive at their destinations? And has this always been the time and date on Earth or has it varied perhaps just a tiny bit here and there?

[cogitator]

See my profile.

[cogitator]

Would it be possible for you to tell us the ideal date and time for birds to arrive at their destinations?

No. But there's a whole lot of studies out there that can explain how migration timing works. Try Google.

[devere]

“Would it be possible for you to tell us the ideal date and time for birds to arrive at their destinations? And has this always been the time and date on Earth or has it varied perhaps just a tiny bit here and there?”

The purveyors of the global warming insanity love their anecdotes about melting glaciers, polar bears in distress, and migratory birds who are supposedly late. On the other hand, temperatures haven’t risen since 1998, there is an alternative sunspot-cosmic-ray based theory that has been successfully lab-tested, and the physics of the greenhouse gas theory has been refuted by geophysicists. Not to worry; the global warming crowd has the votes, and in a political-religious dispute votes count more than facts.

[mil-vet]

So, Antarctica isn't affected by global change? Last I checked, it WAS part of the ecosphere!

These GW chicken-little panic mongerers are a hoot! In 1974 these same people were obsessing over global cooling. In any case, their data is faulty at best and more idiotic than "junk science" at worst.

Depending on the source, temperatures have been stable or decreasing over the last three to 9 years. Whateverthecase, the Arctic ice cap is larger this year than any other in recorded history (ice cap measurements go back approximately 200 years), snow levels in the Rocky mountains are WAY above normal, there are 35 egregious errors (or lies) in Gore's movie, current temperatures are significantly below those of the midieval times (a period of unparalleled growth and prosperity), and the litany of data showing the "concern" of the chicken-little panic mongerers is totally and uterly unfounded goes on and on (like this sentence).

Note that as temperatures were rising here on earth in the 80's and 90's, the caps on Mars were also shrinking, proving unequivocally that temperature increases are the result of activity on the sun, something on which mankind has no impact. My SUV makes no difference to temperatures on earth; neither does cow flatus!! The fact is that carbon dioxide DOES increase with temperature, but lags the temperature curve by about 300 years. Temperature causes carbon dioxide, not the opposite. Idiots!

The whole premise of GW requires the suspension of logical thought, or ANY thought, for that matter. It's the same lack of thought required to accept current, ongoing lies, for example, darwinism is more than a badly flawed theory, islamics are open to negotiation, increasing taxes makes more money for the gov't, making everyone defenseless (taking guns away from law-abiding citizens) decreases violent crime, and any number of other easily disproven hypotheses!

There, THAT ought to liven things up a bit!

[Yo-Yo]

Global-warming myth

By Patrick J. Michaels
May 16, 2008

On May Day, Noah Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute of Marine Science, published a paper in Nature forecasting no additional global warming "over the next decade."

Al Gore and his minions continue to chant that "the science is settled" on global warming, but the only thing settled is that there has not been any since 1998. Critics of this view (rightfully) argue that 1998 was the warmest year in modern record, due to a huge El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean, and that it is unfair to start any analysis at a high (or a low) point in a longer history. But starting in 2001 or 1998 yields the same result: no warming.

The Keenlyside team found that natural variability in the Earth's oceans will "temporarily offset" global warming from carbon dioxide. Seventy percent of the Earth's surface is oceanic; hence, what happens there greatly influences global temperature. It is now known that both Atlantic and Pacific temperatures can get "stuck," for a decade or longer, in relatively warm or cool patterns. The North Atlantic is now forecast to be in a cold stage for a decade, which will help put the damper on global warming. Another Pacific temperature pattern is forecast not to push warming, either.

Science no longer provides justification for any rush to pass drastic global warming legislation. The Climate Security Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, would cut emissions of carbon dioxide — the main "global warming" gas — by 66 percent over the next 42 years. With expected population growth, this means about a 90 percent drop in emissions per capita, to 19th-century levels.

Other regulatory dictates are similarly unjustified. The Justice Department has ruled that the Interior Department has until May 15 to decide whether or not to list the polar bear as an endangered species.

Pressure to pass impossible-to-achieve legislation, like Lieberman-Warner, or grandstanding political stunts, like calling polar bears an "endangered species" even when they are at near record-high population levels, are based upon projections of rapid and persistent global warming.

Proponents of wild legislation like to point to the 2007 science compendium from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, deemed so authoritative it was awarded half of last year's Nobel Peace Prize. (The other half went to Al Gore.) In it there are dozens of computer-driven projections for 21st-century warming. Not one of them projects that the earth's natural climate variability will shut down global warming from carbon dioxide for two decades. Yet, that is just what has happened.

If you think about it, all we possess to project the future of complex systems are computer models. Therefore, if the models that serve as the basis for policy do not work — and that must be the conclusion if indeed we are at the midpoint of a two-decade hiatus in global warming — then there is no verifiable science behind the current legislative hysteria.

What does this mean for the future? If warming is "temporarily offset" for two decades, does all the "offset" warming suddenly appear with a vengeance, or is it delayed?

Computer models, like the one used by Keenlyside, et al., rely on "positive feedbacks" to generate much of their warming. First, atmospheric carbon dioxide warms things up a bit. Then the ocean follows, raising the amount of atmospheric water vapor, which is a greater source of global warming than carbon dioxide. When the ocean does not warm up, it seems that the additional warming is also delayed.

All of this may mean that we have simply overestimated the amount of warming that results from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

That final point has been a subject of debate for a long time. Several recent publications in the peer-reviewed literature argue that observed changes in temperature show the "sensitivity" of temperature to increasing carbon dioxide is lower than earlier estimates.

All of this suggests a 21st-century warming trend that will be lower than the average value calculated by the climate models in the IPCC compendium.

But who really knows? Before Keenlyside dropped his bombshell, few scientists would have said publicly that global warming could stop for two decades. Anyone raising that possibility would doubtlessly have been treated to the smug reply that "the science is settled," and that only the most bumptious ignoramus could raise such a question.

One final prediction: The teeming polar bear population will be listed as "endangered," and in the next year or two, Congress will pass a bill mandating large and impossible cuts in carbon dioxide.

What is "settled" is the politics, not the science.

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

[I got the rope]

The oceans are not warming.