Half-a-degree of warming boosted extreme weather

[Binary_Bark]

​

Half a degree Celsius of global warming has been enough to increase heat waves and heavy rains in many regions of the planet, researchers reported Friday.
Comparing two 20-year periods—1960-79 and 1991-2010—between which average global temperatures jumped 0.5 C (0.9 F), scientists found that several kinds of extreme weather gained in duration and intensity.
The hottest summer temperatures increased by more than 1 C (1.8 F) across a quarter of Earth's land areas, while the coldest winter temperatures warmed by more then 2.5 C (4.5 F).
The intensity of extreme precipitation grew nearly 10 percent across a quarter of all land masses, and the duration of hot spells—which can fuel devastating forest fires—lengthened by a week in half of land areas.
These changes were well outside the bounds of natural variability, according to the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
"We have to rely on climate models to predict the future," said lead author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research.
"But given that we now have observational evidence of around 1 C warming, we can also look at the real-life impacts this warming has brought," he said in a statement.
In science, observed trends are generally seen as more reliable than projections, which can vary sharply depending on the assumptions made.
Changes in climate—sometimes defined as "average weather"—can only be detected across time periods measured in decades or longer.
0.5 C does matter
Global warming caused mostly by the burning of fossil fuels began slowly in the early 19th century with the onset of industrialisation, but has accelerated rapidly over the last 50 or 60 years.
The 196-nation Paris Agreement, inked in the French capital in 2015, vowed to cap the rise of the planet's average surface temperature at "well under" 2 C (3.6 F), and to "pursue efforts" to block it at 1.5 C (2.7 C).

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-half-a-degree-boosted-extreme-weather.html#jCp

 

[Bizkit87]

I personally can't believe we are still trying to convince people of climate change, we should have long been busy with repairs

 

[rietrot]

Lol yeah. They experienced the same extreme weather in the past.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I personally can't believe we are still trying to convince people of climate change, we should have long been busy with repairs

The post just below yours is a good case in point.

 

[Pitbull]

The post just below yours is a good case in point.

Is he wrong?

Let's take away everything we know of the climate and the changes. Are you disputing the earth has not been hotter before or colder before?

He's 100% correct. No one is disputing climate change that is a given fact, it has been changing back and forth for millions of years... The cause is the dispute. No matter which side of the fence you're on. His statement isn't wrong.

 

[Bizkit87]

Is he wrong?

Let's take away everything we know of the climate and the changes. Are you disputing the earth has not been hotter before or colder before?

He's 100% correct. No one is disputing climate change that is a given fact, it has been changing back and forth for millions of years... The cause is the dispute. No matter which side of the fence you're on. His statement isn't wrong.

But never has CO2 risen at the rate that it is now. Never has deforestation been at a rate it is now [now being last 50 years]. We are allready seeing the actual effects on rising sea levels in Strand and Camps Bay.

We shouldn't be disputing that we [as humanity] is accelerating this change

 

[Pitbull]

But never has CO2 risen at the rate that it is now. Never has deforestation been at a rate it is now [now being last 50 years]. We are allready seeing the actual effects on rising sea levels in Strand and Camps Bay.

We shouldn't be disputing that we [as humanity] is accelerating this change

That is a completely different debate.

Orbital pointed at rietrot and says comments like that is why people should be convinced climate change is real. I have not seen rietrot disputing that it's not He made a very valid point. His statement doesn't disprove climate change. He actually confirms it's real and has been for millions of years...

So just confused as to what Orbital is crying about now...

 

[SauRoNZA]

That is a completely different debate.

Orbital pointed at rietrot and says comments like that is why people should be convinced climate change is real. I have not seen rietrot disputing that it's not He made a very valid point. His statement doesn't disprove climate change. He actually confirms it's real and has been for millions of years...

So just confused as to what Orbital is crying about now...

Possibly relates to prior statements from rietrot and not necessarily just this post?

 

[rietrot]

But never has CO2 risen at the rate that it is now. Never has deforestation been at a rate it is now [now being last 50 years]. We are allready seeing the actual effects on rising sea levels in Strand and Camps Bay.

We shouldn't be disputing that we [as humanity] is accelerating this change

Lol rising sea levels. What you're seeing is most likely the effects of erosion. There is natural events like volcanoes that pump out far more CO2 than people.
We need the higher CO2 levels to encourage plant growth and stop desertification.

 

[scudsucker]

Rietrot owns a certified associate degree in climatology, issued by the University of Climate Research, Weather Patterns and Associated Witchcraft, in Lagos.

His thesis (written at the end of the 6 week correspondence course) is available on their website, just search for the seminal work "I am right and everyone else is wrong". You can get it in several formats: HTML, PDF or just an empty .txt file.

 

[rietrot]

Rietrot owns a certified associate degree in climatology, issued by the University of Climate Research, Weather Patterns and Associated Witchcraft, in Lagos.

His thesis (written at the end of the 6 week correspondence course) is available on their website, just search for the seminal work "I am right and everyone else is wrong". You can get it in several formats: HTML, PDF or just an empty .txt file.

Well, not everyone else is wrong. My views aren't unique and if you go on the consensus BS of 97% or whatever that was then 3% of actual climate scientists agree with me.

 

[scudsucker]

....or whatever that was then 3% of actual climate scientists agree with me.

I'm sure Professor Adewale of UniCRWP&AP agrees with you. I'm sure he doesnt believe in "consensus BS" either.

Doesn't it concern you slightly that you are in the 3% (your number) against a every sensible climate scientist on this planet?

That, seeing as you have never studied climate science, you might be at something of a disadvantage when it comes to criticising climate science?

Probably not.

 

[rietrot]

I'm sure Professor Adewale of UniCRWP&AP agrees with you. I'm sure he doesnt believe in "consensus BS" either.

Doesn't it concern you slightly that you are in the 3% (your number) against a every sensible climate scientist on this planet?

That, seeing as you have never studied climate science, you might be at something of a disadvantage when it comes to criticising climate science?

Probably not.

No, I've never really bother with popular opinion. It isn't that difficult. This is the information age and you can find most information freely available.
It just takes a little bit of fact checking on any of the usual fear morning to realise just how much BS "climate change" is.

 

[scudsucker]

After some consideration, I decided that instead of deriding you; I should ask you for proof of your contentions.

Do you agree CO2 levels have risen abruptly since approximately the industrial times? (For any reason)

Do you contend that increased CO2 levels leads to the reversal of desertification?

If that is the case, do you have anything to show that desertification has slowed in response to the increased CO2, since say, 1900

Do you have any evidence to support your contention that increased sea levels are solely (or significantly) a result of erosion?

Do you have any evidence to counter the suggestion that increased sea levels is a result of polar ice melting?

 

[rietrot]

Example: Right from the start

Comparing two 20-year periods—1960-79 and 1991-2010—between which average global temperatures jumped 0.5 C (0.9 F), s

Selection bias. They picked a specific period to give the results they wanted.

I tried to go a bit further, but the journalist got side tracked after the first paragraph and just repeated old info that this study supposedly confirms.
Offering no real data or useful analysis.

 

[Arthur]

I personally can't believe we are still trying to convince people of climate change, we should have long been busy with repairs

I think you're teetering dangerously towards potting at a straw man.

Personally, I haven't encountered anyone who doesn't think there's such a thing as Climate Change. In any case, it's just a simple matter of comparing climate then and now and seeing if there's a diffs. If there is, ergo, change.

What is at issue is not Climate Change per se but rather the reasons and causes of that change. Most scientists today say this current change is largely anthropogenic. A small minority dispute that. Both cite the state of current science and the hypotheses that drive their conclusions, and each critiques the hypotheses of the opposing camp. That's fine and as it should be.

Where things get muddled and muddied very fast is when the scientific debate is subsumed into a larger political and ideological debate. Suddenly we are no longer dealing dispassionately with research and science, both great treasures, but with ideology. And then things fall apart hopelessly. The sure sign of this contamination is when discussion decays into epithet-hurling, ideological labelling, and name-calling. Condescension rides a high horse. In that sort of climate no real discussion is possible.

Your comment is less than helpful because it conflates two rather distinct issues: Climate Change, and Anthropogenic Climate Change.

There are at least a dozen threads on The Great Climate Debate just on this little bulletin board. And there are dozens of not hundreds of other more focused forums and sites on this topic.

Speaking personally, it makes little sense, yet again and for the umpteenth time, to get into a mini-quote-and-link war. Neither side will be convinced by arguments wielded by the other, so we'll maar agree to disagree and move on. Life is too short to waste more time on this debate.

Of course climate changes. There's ample evidence of fairly large swings over both human and antehuman history. But I'm not yet convinced this current change is due mainly to anthropogenic factors. For all the reasons stated in other dedicated threads. Of course I know that for AGW Enthusiasts that puts me and others squarely in the camp of stupid, stubborn, anti-science, closed-minded idiots. Climate-Deniers!

So be it.

 

[scudsucker]

Example: Right from the start
Selection bias. They picked a specific period to give the results they wanted.

I tried to go a bit further, but the journalist got side tracked after the first paragraph and just repeated old info that this study supposedly confirms.
Offering no real data or useful analysis.

So you cherry pick the first "paper" you find (I have to assume you are not basing your argument on an article on a website, even if it is an article quoted in the OP.... but lets be clear, an article on a science website is NOT the same as a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal), without even attributing it.

That would be a strong indicator of selection bias.


Any answer to the five questions I posed? Feel free to cite scientific research papers in your answers.

 

[rietrot]

After some consideration, I decided that instead of deriding you; I should ask you for proof of your contentions.

Do you agree CO2 levels have risen abruptly since approximately the industrial times? (For any reason)

yes

Do you contend that increased CO2 levels leads to the reversal of desertification?

If that is the case, do you have anything to show that desertification has slowed in response to the increased CO2, since say, 1900

Yes, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094

This is the basic idea.

Do you have any evidence to support your contention that increased sea levels are solely (or significantly) a result of erosion?

I never claimed that.

Do you have any evidence to counter the suggestion that increased sea levels is a result of polar ice melting?

I am questioning how much did sea levels actually rise. Thermal expansion should contribute more than the icecaps melting.

 

[scudsucker]

Lol rising sea levels. What you're seeing is most likely the effects of erosion.

I never claimed that.

Despite your failure to provide actual science to back up your dubious claims, I feel the case can be rested here: you are a liar. You posted the first claim only a few hours ago. And you now deny it. But that same claim is in this thread!

 

[rietrot]

Despite your failure to provide actual science to back up your dubious claims, I feel the case can be rested here: you are a liar. You posted the first claim only a few hours ago. And you now deny it. But that same claim is in this thread!

No. Maybe try reading comprehension. I am questioning how much did sea levels actually rise to cause any real affects.
I think any so called damage is more likely to be something like erosion rather than "climate change"