Earth temperature increases and extreme weather: Is it Climate Change?

23
1740

MONTGOMERY VILLAGE, Md., May 30, 2014 – Most reasonable people believe that Climate Change is real. What they don’t appear to agree is on its effects on the weather. Disagreement centers on two points:

  1. Temperature effects on the earth; and
  2. Extreme weather occurrences and other phenomena.

Those who oppose 1. above talk about the fact that surface temperature on the Earth hasn’t increased as predicted by Climate Change theorist in the last decade. They point at several studies that demonstrate that. This by itself is not sufficient proof. Some point out that increases in temperature would be less than the more than linear correlation with carbon dioxide concentrations.

ClimateChange2

 


The number of data points on temperature are by definition limited. Local weather, air particle pollution and other phenomena like El Niño can bias any readings. A study done some years ago theorized that the increase of particle pollution in the atmosphere as the result of more human activity in developing countries and volcanic activity could be causing the “shading” of the sun rays.

Another issue ignored by the doubters of earth warming theories is that there is evidence already of sea rise in many places of the globe and the melting of permanent ice in places like Greenland.

The doubters also point to a decrease of heavy-toll hurricanes and other violent weather in the last decade to discredit that man-made carbon dioxide increase has any effect on extreme weather. The fact is that when these fewer weather phenomena occur, they are more violent and cause more damage that in the past. In the case of hurricanes, the sea level rises can be a logical contributor.

It is also a fact that due to extended drought in the West of the US has extended the forest fire season significantly. The droughts in some places have broken records.

Many of those that doubt or openly dismiss the intensity and imminent effects of Climate Change do not disclose the source of their funding. Organizations like the Heartland Institute will not reveal their multimillion dollar contributors, and this is all legal. The Heartland Institute that has in the past defended tobacco corporations, has gone from being a total denier to preaching that Climate Change may be beneficial.

Unfortunately enough money has been spent in attacking Climate Change that only 35% of the public believes it is an important issue. The billions spent by the fossil fuel lobbies and the political right wing (opposed to new regulations) have been very effective.

Finally, it is obvious to anyone researching or just plain reading about Climate Change, that the natural phenomena overlaid the increase of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere is very difficult to study and predict. The precautionary principle tells us that if there are many signs pointing in a certain direction, it is a good idea to prevent its effects if they could be negative. The overwhelming majority of published works on this subject support Climate Change as the result of human activity.

Mario Salazar, getting future beach front property in Idaho (like the old song says), is the 21st Century Pacifist is on Twitter (@chibcharus), Google+ and Facebook (Mario Salazar).

 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Borderlord

    The burden of proof is on those who are pressing the global warming agenda.
    The climate models have predicted ten times the actual global temperature change over the past ten years. When theoretical models conflict with with facts, we really need to change the models, but, instead, many of the ‘true believers’ are trying to alter the facts, or falling back to a position claiming that short-term results don’t mean anything. This is a really interesting position, because it is what many of us have been saying all along – that a hundred or so years is certainly short term in relation to climate, and data derived from earlier periods is only reliable in regards to long-term changes.

    • My sentiments exactly.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      There were never predictions that the global temperature change would be 10 times higher. Also, if you have ever used a model, they are just estimates that depend on the data available. With something as complex as weather, any model would be highly unpredictable with the data available today.

      • Borderlord

        You are quite correct in that there were no predictions. They were actually postdictions (OK, estimates), based on models to compare about ten years of records with what the latest models *would have* predicted if they had been available earlier.
        The actual temperature change was 0.1 degrees, where the models estimated a one degree rise.
        It is not weather we are discussing, but climate, which is an even more complex subject.

  • rand

    No, its global warming.

  • Steve Davidson

    Borderlord is correct. The burden of proof is always with those making claims. Borderlord is further correct that IPCC models fail at forecasting global warming, especially after 1998.

    It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of data. My newest article, published yesterday, cites two sets of data from the University of Alabama Huntsville comparing IPCC model forecasts to measured temperatures. I can’t link them directly from here, so you’ll have to look up the article.

    The two graphs look similar, but are actually quite different. The first one compares global surface temperatures to IPCC AR5 CMIP5 models. The second compares mid-level troposphere temperatures at the equator with similar model forecasts. The importance of the 2nd plot is that AGW theory specifically predicts more warming at altitude in the tropics near the equator. The data indicates that forecast is wrong.

    In both cases model forecasts are far off. The reason they are so far off is because the earth climate system is less sensitive to increases in CO2 than IPCC models assume. They assume that there is about 3X more warming (caused by climate forcings) than generated by CO2 alone. The data says IPCC models are wrong. Earth’s climate is less sensitive to CO2 changes than the IPCC believes.

    Thus, Borderlord is right again. IPCC models need to be reworked.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Would you bet your life on these models? If you work with physical models, you know that they depend on the quality and quantity of data and the number of variables. We have had too many indications that Climate Change/Global Warming is at least affected by human use of hydrocarbons and that the increasing concentration can lead to major problems. Should we continue getting more and more data or do something about it. This is also affected by the fact that heavy fossil fuel usage can be very dangerous to our health. This resource is also limited.

  • Steve Davidson

    Without any cited references you say:
    “The doubters also point to a decrease of heavy-toll hurricanes and other violent weather in the last decade to discredit that man-made carbon dioxide increase has any effect on extreme weather. The fact is that when these fewer weather phenomena occur, they are more violent and cause more damage that in the past.”

    In yesterday’s article, “Climate Change: Where theorists and skeptics agree and disagree”, I include a plot of NOAA data showing that the incidence of major hurricanes has been decreasing since 1880. I drew it myself from NOAA’s data. They are down 2 major hurricanes per decade over 13 decades.

    What I didn’t include in my article is a plot of total global energy release by year of hurricanes done by meteorologist Dr. Ryan Mau. It plots total energy from 1972 or so forward. It shows a general increase in total energy until around 1992. After that total energy DECREASES.

    Both numbers and total energy in hurricanes is down. Even the IPCC says hurricanes has not yet been affected by human-caused global warming and won’t be until the 2nd half of this century. (IPCC AR5 report: Table SPM.1 on page 5 that I also include in my article)

    It appears the data I’ve seen and the IPCC does not support what you said.

    So… what data can you supply in support of your above claim?

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Have you forgotten about a couple of “minor” hurricanes, one in New Orleans and the other in New Jersey/New York that caused record damage? The point is that the main factor is the damage caused. Sea level increase has a lot to do with this.

      • Steve Davidson

        I’ve forgot nothing, including apparently things you don’t know. Sandy was NOT a hurricane when it made landfall. According to NOAA, it was an extra-tropical cyclone. Live a little, look that up.

        I also remember that, as of today, it has been 3,144 days since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or greater) has made landfall in the United States. That is, by far, the longest period of time without a major hurricane. In 2013 no hurricanes at all made U.S. landfall.

        I also remember that, according to NOAA records, major U.S. hurricanes have been declining since 1880!

        Anything else you’d like to know about hurricanes? If so, read the CDN article titled, “Climate Change: The Hurricane Myth”

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Steve, your comment is disingenuous. You know there is plenty of data to support what I have said. There is also interpretations of data that says the opposite. If we already know that fossil fuels are bad for the environment and public health, as well as maybe causing global warming, wouldn’t it make sense to curtail their use? This is just common sense.
      You appear to be stuck in a few examples that are either not definitive or generated by the fossil fuel industry to attack Global Warming. Give up these outliers and look at the big picture.

  • Matthew Leo

    How to lie with statistics: choose an outlier as your baseline. Example: “surface temperature on the Earth hasn’t increased as predicted by Climate Change theorist in the last decade.” People who say this always choose 1998 as their baseline, which when it occurred was by far the hottest year that ever happened. On top of this they are deliberately conflating weather with climate. Sometimes you get an unusually hot or cold year, so you don’t make individual years the star in your analysis. What you do is average a number of years together, say, a decade. If you ask “were the ten years following 1998 hotter than the ten years ending in 1998?” the answer is a resounding “yes”.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      As usual they pick whatever meets their paradigm. There is so much noise and money involved that it is impossible to dialogue.

  • John Smith

    The question is not if we caused it but can we stop it? The answer is no…so why bother.

    • mememine

      We need to know if human monkeys control the weather now? 🙂

  • John Smith

    Don’t bother commenting. Anyone that publishes an article that says “sing” where he meant ” sign” is too uninterested in his own writing to make it accurate. So you can be sure the rest is equally useless.

    • CB

      I’m a stickler for spelling as much as the next girl, but in point of fact, there isn’t a single previous example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ as high as we have today.

      That alone should give a pretty clear indication of the certainty of the catastrophe we’ve created by emitting so much CO₂.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Thank you for reading my article to the end. If that is the only thing that you find wrong with it, I take it.

  • John Smith

    Let’s see…there was a mini ice age but now we’re warmer. How did the earth warm out of it without human carbon deposits?

  • mememine

    Stop telling kids that science “believes” as you remaining “believers” do and beyond their 32 years of 95% certainty. Who’s the neocon again here?
    Only science can be certain not a mob of determined “believers” marching our children to the greenhouse gas ovens of their exaggerated crisis.

  • johnhay

    There hasn’t been more “extreme weather.” Just hurricanes alone, we’ve had years of no hurricane activity. But when you have loons like CNN anchors blaming comets and asteroid strikes on our cars, how can you deal with that kind of anti-science thinking?

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Are you a scientist?

  • Pingback: CommDigiNews Hour: VA Scandal, Climate Change , Minimum Wage economy | Communities Digital News()