Just curious, and not sure if you live on the East Coast, but now that hurricane Sandy has torn up several states and the city of New York, have you changed your opinion much that larger & more frequent storms are already here?
Don't know where you get that. Keep repeating it and it might stick? Storms get their power from warm water, so warmer water makes stronger storms. Seems pretty simple, but you can also look at insurance studies (Munich RE comes to mind) and I just googled "global warming storms" and got a bunch of positive hits. I got some negatives too, but to say there is a "complete lack" is pretty darn thick!
They aren't talking about studies of costs. Try to follow along so you can respond to what is actually being said, not the presuppositions you hold. Please read the "Extreme weather" article in Wikipedia where they site several studies (which you can drill down into so you don't have to trust Wikipedia)
@matildaz Not sure what "referred literature" you are reading but according to a study in NATURE the satellite program GRACE shows Antarctica is losing land ice mass (Western) at an accelerating rate. And YES temps show "strong warming" in the southern oceans as well. AGAIN, where you are getting your info from in regards to Hansen's models & other models is anyone's guess because Hansen's models have been almost spot on while the others have under estimated warming/ice loss.
My fault, I misread your comment. Actually it is quite cogent. Sorry for the sarcasm. My mistake. Noam Chomsky makes the same point in a You tube video that there is a significant minority of scientists of the opinion that the consensus is too conservative, too optimistic.
"The international reinsurance company Munich Re says that increasingly large numbers of weather-related natural catastrophes are due to climate change, with global warming playing a significant role in the rising number of extreme events such as windstorms and floods which have tripled since 1980, a trend that is expected to persist." And these guys are in the business. Maybe you are aware there is a huge drought right now in the midwest? All you have to do is google it.
I have no clue what data sites you are looking at but my suggestion would be the major scientific bodies of the world. NASA, NOAA, ESA, etc., While you try looking at the real data you should also educate yourself on how the fossil fuel industry behaves, the money they spend on buying elected officials with campaign donations & especially how they treat third world countries that don't have much of a government let alone environmental policies so they simply pollute everything. Good Luck!
You are fortunate. I have children & I'm afraid for them. Why should China do anything is we do not take the lead? Are we a world leader or not? Their total emissions have surpassed ours manufacturing stuff for us and our per capita emissions are way more. Politicians breed fear of lifestyle change. This is the true alarmism. In fact the fix need not be very disruptive, though we are waiting too long to implement it. Yes, I saw Greenland news.
Well, if by "hear" you mean "read" then this from the Global Warming page of Wikipedia may be an example: "Other likely effects of the warming include a more frequent occurrence of extreme-weather events including heat waves, droughts and heavy rainfall" Have you seen the news that 97% of Greenland melted, half of that in just 4 days? I think we are farther along the path than generally recognized.
google hits are better than nothing, which is what you are offering and certainly better than name calling. There is nothing wrong with concern for 100-year events happening every year. I'm not just talking about storms but "extreme weather". That's better than complacency.
Many environmentalists are optimistic. I am not. For example, I work with software engineers and most of them are the useful idiots of which you speak. Only these are not idiots, they are pretty smart people. Logical when it comes to programming a computer but can't smell a rat under their noses. The fix would be relatively painless too. What a shame. The current weather patters are quite troubling. How do we know we have not already started down the slope of a major tipping point?
@matildaz You need to go back & read a lot more about Hansen's models...There were 3 scenarios plotted & you are simply using one that does not match the the predicted use of fossil fuels. As far as the models go most have UNDER ESTIMATED the rise in temps & melting of ice especially in the Arctic. What sucks is any scientist who dares tell the public how bad things could get is labelled an "alarmist". Seriously, if things are going to get bad do we want scientist to just be quiet?
As of Jan 2021, Hansen 1988 forecast model... Scenario A has verified. Warming over-estimated by 2.2 to one. Less than half the forecasted warming. This is typical of almost all historical climate model projections
@@matildaz Sorry but your claims are 100% FACTUALLY UNTRUE! ...And easily proven so if you're willing to look at the scientific data & NOT just repeat what Right Wing talk show host say & Right Wing funded websites publish. ...The climate models dating back even before Hansen's have shown to be accurate & if anything many have been conservative in their predictions. Several, including Hansen's are so sensitive in fact they can accurately model the effects of a single volcanic eruption has on the entire Earth's climate! For example the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines Hansen's model along with others accurately predicted it would COOL THE PLANET by a degree Celsius over 2-3 years. ...Not only do the models accurately match the warming we see in satelite & ground observations but the models also accurately predict ice loss at the poles as well. And the inaccuracies seen in some models are to the low side especially when it comes to the extremely rapid rate in which ice is melting not only at the poles but across the globe's mountain glaciers. My suggeston to you would be GO STRAIGHT TO THE SCIENCE...Don't allow others to tell you what they want you to think the science is. Much like the Theory of Evolution when it comes to the science support Anthropogenic Climate Change & Global Warming there is no longer a debate if its true or taking place...That was settled decades ago within the scientific community & those who who've spent their lives & careers study it. The debates now center around just how catastrophic things will become around the globe with every year & decade we humans put off making real changes to our behavior!! If you care about the FACTS, the TRUTH, the SCIENCE...There is not a better source for the lay person than this... skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
@matildaz You may be a Meteorologist but that literally means NOTHING! Are you studying "climate" or do you track weather? That is what I thought. So, you can save the characters needed to profess your alleged profession. Hansen's model laid out 3 different paths depending on whether we reduced CO2, stayed on the same path or increased the rate of CO2 output...You are simply misinterpreting the data. I would suggest you revisit the model. The same goes for the other models. Later.
Just curious, and not sure if you live on the East Coast, but now that hurricane Sandy has torn up several states and the city of New York, have you changed your opinion much that larger & more frequent storms are already here?
Not sure what you are talking about...Could you clarify? Thanks.
7 experts explain The Human Role in Global Climate Change: ruclips.net/video/7_aHyhVRYks/видео.html #climatechange
Don't know where you get that. Keep repeating it and it might stick?
Storms get their power from warm water, so warmer water makes stronger storms. Seems pretty simple, but you can also look at insurance studies (Munich RE comes to mind) and I just googled "global warming storms" and got a bunch of positive hits. I got some negatives too, but to say there is a "complete lack" is pretty darn thick!
They aren't talking about studies of costs. Try to follow along so you can respond to what is actually being said, not the presuppositions you hold.
Please read the "Extreme weather" article in Wikipedia where they site several studies (which you can drill down into so you don't have to trust Wikipedia)
@matildaz Not sure what "referred literature" you are reading but according to a study in NATURE the satellite program GRACE shows Antarctica is losing land ice mass (Western) at an accelerating rate. And YES temps show "strong warming" in the southern oceans as well. AGAIN, where you are getting your info from in regards to Hansen's models & other models is anyone's guess because Hansen's models have been almost spot on while the others have under estimated warming/ice loss.
This global warming is cold here at my house! Can I get some of the climate change money to pay my power bill?
My fault, I misread your comment. Actually it is quite cogent. Sorry for the sarcasm. My mistake. Noam Chomsky makes the same point in a You tube video that there is a significant minority of scientists of the opinion that the consensus is too conservative, too optimistic.
"The international reinsurance company Munich Re says that increasingly large numbers of weather-related natural catastrophes are due to climate change, with global warming playing a significant role in the rising number of extreme events such as windstorms and floods which have tripled since 1980, a trend that is expected to persist."
And these guys are in the business.
Maybe you are aware there is a huge drought right now in the midwest?
All you have to do is google it.
I have no clue what data sites you are looking at but my suggestion would be the major scientific bodies of the world. NASA, NOAA, ESA, etc.,
While you try looking at the real data you should also educate yourself on how the fossil fuel industry behaves, the money they spend on buying elected officials with campaign donations & especially how they treat third world countries that don't have much of a government let alone environmental policies so they simply pollute everything. Good Luck!
You are fortunate. I have children & I'm afraid for them.
Why should China do anything is we do not take the lead? Are we a world leader or not? Their total emissions have surpassed ours manufacturing stuff for us and our per capita emissions are way more.
Politicians breed fear of lifestyle change. This is the true alarmism. In fact the fix need not be very disruptive, though we are waiting too long to implement it. Yes, I saw Greenland news.
Well, if by "hear" you mean "read" then this from the Global Warming page of Wikipedia may be an example: "Other likely effects of the warming include a more frequent occurrence of extreme-weather events including heat waves, droughts and heavy rainfall"
Have you seen the news that 97% of Greenland melted, half of that in just 4 days?
I think we are farther along the path than generally recognized.
Right, but not obvious to the scientific community of the entire world! Sure genius.
google hits are better than nothing, which is what you are offering
and certainly better than name calling. There is nothing wrong with concern for 100-year events happening every year. I'm not just talking about storms but "extreme weather". That's better than complacency.
Many environmentalists are optimistic. I am not. For example, I work with software engineers and most of them are the useful idiots of which you speak. Only these are not idiots, they are pretty smart people. Logical when it comes to programming a computer but can't smell a rat under their noses.
The fix would be relatively painless too. What a shame.
The current weather patters are quite troubling. How do we know we have not already started down the slope of a major tipping point?
There is a song I recommend for you Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick". check it out!
So your answer is "no" I take it. Figures.
@matildaz You need to go back & read a lot more about Hansen's models...There were 3 scenarios plotted & you are simply using one that does not match the the predicted use of fossil fuels. As far as the models go most have UNDER ESTIMATED the rise in temps & melting of ice especially in the Arctic. What sucks is any scientist who dares tell the public how bad things could get is labelled an "alarmist". Seriously, if things are going to get bad do we want scientist to just be quiet?
As of Jan 2021, Hansen 1988 forecast model... Scenario A has verified. Warming over-estimated by 2.2 to one. Less than half the forecasted warming. This is typical of almost all historical climate model projections
@@matildaz Sorry but your claims are 100% FACTUALLY UNTRUE! ...And easily proven so if you're willing to look at the scientific data & NOT just repeat what Right Wing talk show host say & Right Wing funded websites publish.
...The climate models dating back even before Hansen's have shown to be accurate & if anything many have been conservative in their predictions. Several, including Hansen's are so sensitive in fact they can accurately model the effects of a single volcanic eruption has on the entire Earth's climate! For example the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines Hansen's model along with others accurately predicted it would COOL THE PLANET by a degree Celsius over 2-3 years.
...Not only do the models accurately match the warming we see in satelite & ground observations but the models also accurately predict ice loss at the poles as well. And the inaccuracies seen in some models are to the low side especially when it comes to the extremely rapid rate in which ice is melting not only at the poles but across the globe's mountain glaciers.
My suggeston to you would be GO STRAIGHT TO THE SCIENCE...Don't allow others to tell you what they want you to think the science is. Much like the Theory of Evolution when it comes to the science support Anthropogenic Climate Change & Global Warming there is no longer a debate if its true or taking place...That was settled decades ago within the scientific community & those who who've spent their lives & careers study it. The debates now center around just how catastrophic things will become around the globe with every year & decade we humans put off making real changes to our behavior!!
If you care about the FACTS, the TRUTH, the SCIENCE...There is not a better source for the lay person than this...
skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
@matildaz You may be a Meteorologist but that literally means NOTHING! Are you studying "climate" or do you track weather? That is what I thought. So, you can save the characters needed to profess your alleged profession. Hansen's model laid out 3 different paths depending on whether we reduced CO2, stayed on the same path or increased the rate of CO2 output...You are simply misinterpreting the data. I would suggest you revisit the model. The same goes for the other models. Later.
7 experts explain The Human Role in Global Climate Change: ruclips.net/video/7_aHyhVRYks/видео.html #climatechange
7 experts explain The Human Role in Global Climate Change: ruclips.net/video/7_aHyhVRYks/видео.html #climatechange
7 experts explain The Human Role in Global Climate Change: ruclips.net/video/7_aHyhVRYks/видео.html #climatechange