another article for the deniers to through rocks at

Schadenfreude

patriot and widower
i could not resist posting this one
yes, global climate change is happening and CO2 is contributing to it


Scientists connect global warming to extreme rain

Associated Press/AP Online


By SETH BORENSTEIN WASHINGTON - Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger, two studies suggest, with scientists for the first time finding the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warming on downpours that often cause deadly flooding.

Two studies in Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature link heavy rains to increases in greenhouse gases more than ever before.

One group of researchers looked at the strongest rain and snow events of each year from 1951 to 1999 in the Northern Hemisphere and found that the more recent storms were 7 percent wetter. That may not sound like much, but it adds up to be a substantial increase, said the report from a team of researchers from Canada and Scotland.

The study didn't single out specific storms but examined worst-of-each-year events all over the Northern Hemisphere. While the study ended in 1999, the close of the decade when scientists say climate change kicked into a higher gear, the events examined were similar to more recent disasters: deluges that triggered last year's deadly floods in Pakistan and in Nashville, Tenn., and this winter's paralyzing blizzards in parts of the United States.

The change in severity was most apparent in North America, but that could be because that's where the most rain gauges are, scientists said.

Both studies should weaken the argument that climate change is a "victimless crime," said Myles Allen of the University of Oxford. He co-authored the second study, which connected flooding and climate change in the United Kingdom. "Extreme weather is what actually hurts people."

Jonathan Overpeck, a University of Arizona climate scientist, who didn't take part in either study, praised them as sensible and "particularly relevant given the array of extreme weather that we've seen this winter and stretching back over the last few years."

Not all the extreme rain and snow events the scientists studied cause flooding. But since 1950, flooding has killed more than 2.3 million people, according to the World Health Organization's disaster database.

The British study focused on flooding in England and Wales in the fall of 2000. The disaster cost more than $1.7 billion in insured damages and was the wettest autumn for the region in more than 230 years of record-keeping.

Researchers found that global warming more than doubled the likelihood of that flood occurring. Similar studies are now under way to examine whether last year's deadly Russian heat wave and Pakistan floods - which were part of the same weather event - can be scientifically attributed to global warming.

For years scientists, relying on basic physics and climate knowledge, have said global warming would likely cause extremes in temperatures and rainfall. But this is the first time researchers have been able to point to a demonstrable cause-and-effect by using the rigorous and scientifically accepted method of looking for the "fingerprints" of human-caused climate change.

The scientists took all the information that shows an increase in extreme rain and snow events from the 1950s through the 1990s and ran dozens of computer models numerous times. They put in the effects of greenhouse gases - which come from the burning of fossil fuels - and then ran numerous models without those factors. Only when the greenhouse gases are factored in do the models show a similar increase to what actually happened. All other natural effects alone don't produce the jump in extreme rainfall. Essentially, the computer runs show climate change is the only way to explain what's happening.

In fact, the computer models underestimated the increase in extreme rain and snow. That is puzzling and could be even more troubling for our future, said Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who wasn't part of the study.

Similar fingerprinting studies have found human-caused greenhouse gas emissions triggered changes in more than a dozen other ecological ways: temperatures on land, the ocean's surface, heat content in the depths of the oceans, temperature extremes, sea level pressure, humidity at ground level and higher in the air, general rainfall amounts, the extent of Arctic sea ice, snowpack levels and timing of runoff in the western United States, Atlantic Ocean salinity, wildfire damage, and the height of the lower atmosphere.

All those signs say global warming is here, said Xuebin Zhang, a research scientist for the Canadian government and co-author of the Northern Hemisphere study. "It is affecting us in multiple directions."
Most of the 10 outside climate experts who reviewed the papers for The Associated Press called the research sound and strong.

However, climate scientist Jerry North of Texas A&M University, while praising the work, said he worried that the studies were making too firm a connection based on weather data that could be poor in some locations. But Francis Zwiers of the University of Victoria, a lead author of the study with Zhang, said the data was from National Weather Service gauges and is reliable.

"Put the two papers together and we start to see an emerging pattern," said Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who wasn't part of either study. "We should continue to expect increased flooding associated with increased extreme precipitation because of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas. And we have no one to blame but ourselves."
---
Online:
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature
A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .
 
another article for the deniers to through rocks at

First of all... it is "THROW" rocks at... not "THROUGH" ...you might go "through" something, like a window, when you "throw" a rock. Please educate yourself beyond a third grade level before tackling complicated things like science.

But this is the first time researchers have been able to point to a demonstrable cause-and-effect by using the rigorous and scientifically accepted method of looking for the "fingerprints" of human-caused climate change.

They admit in their own words, the studies were conducted on the premise that man causes global warming. In other words, the study doesn't find that man causes global warming, they've already decided he does, the study shows what effects are caused by their preconception. This is backwards science. This is, taking a presumption and pretending it's a fact, and trying to build a scientific case around the presumption.

Essentially, the computer runs show climate change is the only way to explain what's happening.

When, in the entire history of our planet, has the climate remained unchanged? My guess is, NEVER! The climate has changed, from one dramatic extreme to another, for BILLIONS of years! It's been warmer, it's been colder, and at a time when no man existed on the planet. To "discover" that "climate change is happening" is not some huge revelation, it's perfectly normal and the planet has been doing this for years, all by itself.

And we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Because you started off eliminating any other possibility, but to blame man. This contradicts the scientific method completely.
 
pussy
most people believe in GW, even most on the rigth.
They don't think it's enough of a danger to fuck our way of living.
 
morons. I just got done dealing with a week and a half of below freezing temps and 6 inches of ice and snow.....in texas.

there is no global warming.
 
two short years ago the claim was a drier world. Now it causes more moisture, which was what the sceptics said a decade ago!! And the moisture (humidity) does two things. First, we'll expect greater warming from increases in frequency of relatively humid days from the vastly more important greenhouse effect of water vapor, and we can expect greater cloud formation if sunspot activity is at weak levels, thus allowing relatively more cosmic rays which will collide with water vapor and induce condensation.

If the sunspots were at a high level, less clouds would form and we would have larger warming effects from the increases in humidity.

CO2 is just fluctuating based on the ocean ability to sequester increases in concentration. CO2 doesn't have enough cumulative effect to DRIVE climate. CO2 is definately causing some forcing, but not enough to warrant mitigation attempts proposed.
 
The craziest thing about this debate to me is that, even if it could be 100% proven that man is MOSTLY responsible (which can never be proven), no one acknowledges what would have to be done to mitigate or reverse that.

People who DO believe it 100% propose the most watered-down measures imaginable; it's like they just enjoy grandstanding. Seriously - if man is causing global warming, does anyone think it will make a bit of difference if we cut emissions by 5 or 10%, or start using better light bulbs?

Even if we stopped the use of fossil fuels 100% - like, cold turkey, which is an impossibilty - it still wouldn't reverse anything at this point, at least in our lifetimes or that of our kids & their kids. And that's if it could be proven that man really contributes a lot to the effect.
 
The craziest thing about this debate to me is that, even if it could be 100% proven that man is MOSTLY responsible (which can never be proven), no one acknowledges what would have to be done to mitigate or reverse that.

People who DO believe it 100% propose the most watered-down measures imaginable; it's like they just enjoy grandstanding. Seriously - if man is causing global warming, does anyone think it will make a bit of difference if we cut emissions by 5 or 10%, or start using better light bulbs?

Even if we stopped the use of fossil fuels 100% - like, cold turkey, which is an impossibilty - it still wouldn't reverse anything at this point, at least in our lifetimes or that of our kids & their kids. And that's if it could be proven that man really contributes a lot to the effect.

Which is why we need to stop with this bullshit funding of trying to prove man is responsible.

As I know you agree... we should do everything in our power to limit the fossil fuel use. It is good for our health, good for our national security and good for the environment.
 
Which is why we need to stop with this bullshit funding of trying to prove man is responsible.

As I know you agree... we should do everything in our power to limit the fossil fuel use. It is good for our health, good for our national security and good for the environment.

Yep. But it's a different philisophy that way - you come at it from a different angle, and clearly, one that appeals much more to common sense.

I get embarassed when I see some of the politicians talk about global warming. There was some clip of Barbara Boxer - who I otherwise like - talking about the weather and how we had to act "right away" to stop climate change, as though a 5% reduction in emissions, or whatever she was proposing, would grind things to a halt.

It's as clear an example of someone self-righteously proclaiming their own ignorance on a topic as anything else I can think of in DC. And that's really saying something.
 
morons. I just got done dealing with a week and a half of below freezing temps and 6 inches of ice and snow.....in texas.

there is no global warming.

This has to be dumb quote of the week:

In Texas there is no global warming!!! Oh right.

They havent really noticed it in Goonhavern, Cornwall either.
 
What I love about the AGW crowd is how they pull out these scientific studies which show things like more severe storms in recent years, higher precipitation rates in given areas, etc. etc. etc - all of which is (usually) based on reasonable data, but when push comes to shove, there is NO data supporting the conclusion that these measured changes are CAUSED by varying CO2 levels. AGW supporters simply accept the claim to be true because that is what they want to believe.

In fact, the data available far more indicates that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels FOLLOW climate changes, rather than precede them. This is true for ice core analysis, tree ring analysis, geochemical analysis, oceanic floor core analysis, etc. etc. etc.

Are we to believe that climate change violates every principle of modern physics, with cause which FOLLOWS effect?
 
i could not resist posting this one
yes, global climate change is happening and CO2 is contributing to it


Scientists connect global warming to extreme rain

Associated Press/AP Online


By SETH BORENSTEIN WASHINGTON - Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger, two studies suggest, with scientists for the first time finding the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warming on downpours that often cause deadly flooding.

Two studies in Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature link heavy rains to increases in greenhouse gases more than ever before.

One group of researchers looked at the strongest rain and snow events of each year from 1951 to 1999 in the Northern Hemisphere and found that the more recent storms were 7 percent wetter. That may not sound like much, but it adds up to be a substantial increase, said the report from a team of researchers from Canada and Scotland.

The study didn't single out specific storms but examined worst-of-each-year events all over the Northern Hemisphere. While the study ended in 1999, the close of the decade when scientists say climate change kicked into a higher gear, the events examined were similar to more recent disasters: deluges that triggered last year's deadly floods in Pakistan and in Nashville, Tenn., and this winter's paralyzing blizzards in parts of the United States.

The change in severity was most apparent in North America, but that could be because that's where the most rain gauges are, scientists said.

Both studies should weaken the argument that climate change is a "victimless crime," said Myles Allen of the University of Oxford. He co-authored the second study, which connected flooding and climate change in the United Kingdom. "Extreme weather is what actually hurts people."

Jonathan Overpeck, a University of Arizona climate scientist, who didn't take part in either study, praised them as sensible and "particularly relevant given the array of extreme weather that we've seen this winter and stretching back over the last few years."

Not all the extreme rain and snow events the scientists studied cause flooding. But since 1950, flooding has killed more than 2.3 million people, according to the World Health Organization's disaster database.

The British study focused on flooding in England and Wales in the fall of 2000. The disaster cost more than $1.7 billion in insured damages and was the wettest autumn for the region in more than 230 years of record-keeping.

Researchers found that global warming more than doubled the likelihood of that flood occurring. Similar studies are now under way to examine whether last year's deadly Russian heat wave and Pakistan floods - which were part of the same weather event - can be scientifically attributed to global warming.

For years scientists, relying on basic physics and climate knowledge, have said global warming would likely cause extremes in temperatures and rainfall. But this is the first time researchers have been able to point to a demonstrable cause-and-effect by using the rigorous and scientifically accepted method of looking for the "fingerprints" of human-caused climate change.

The scientists took all the information that shows an increase in extreme rain and snow events from the 1950s through the 1990s and ran dozens of computer models numerous times. They put in the effects of greenhouse gases - which come from the burning of fossil fuels - and then ran numerous models without those factors. Only when the greenhouse gases are factored in do the models show a similar increase to what actually happened. All other natural effects alone don't produce the jump in extreme rainfall. Essentially, the computer runs show climate change is the only way to explain what's happening.

In fact, the computer models underestimated the increase in extreme rain and snow. That is puzzling and could be even more troubling for our future, said Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who wasn't part of the study.

Similar fingerprinting studies have found human-caused greenhouse gas emissions triggered changes in more than a dozen other ecological ways: temperatures on land, the ocean's surface, heat content in the depths of the oceans, temperature extremes, sea level pressure, humidity at ground level and higher in the air, general rainfall amounts, the extent of Arctic sea ice, snowpack levels and timing of runoff in the western United States, Atlantic Ocean salinity, wildfire damage, and the height of the lower atmosphere.

All those signs say global warming is here, said Xuebin Zhang, a research scientist for the Canadian government and co-author of the Northern Hemisphere study. "It is affecting us in multiple directions."
Most of the 10 outside climate experts who reviewed the papers for The Associated Press called the research sound and strong.

However, climate scientist Jerry North of Texas A&M University, while praising the work, said he worried that the studies were making too firm a connection based on weather data that could be poor in some locations. But Francis Zwiers of the University of Victoria, a lead author of the study with Zhang, said the data was from National Weather Service gauges and is reliable.

"Put the two papers together and we start to see an emerging pattern," said Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who wasn't part of either study. "We should continue to expect increased flooding associated with increased extreme precipitation because of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas. And we have no one to blame but ourselves."
---
Online:
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature
A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .

Curses! Foiled again! (twists handlebar moustache). When I saw the word 'denier' I thought this was going to be about ladies' hosiery!!
Damn you, sir!
 
America could build massive air treatment facilities around the world to clear out the atmospere of all the excess C02. We could also start growing forests.
 
America could build massive air treatment facilities around the world to clear out the atmospere of all the excess C02. We could also start growing forests.
We already do, they are called "Christmas Tree Farms"...

In fact, being green all year, they do a better job than deciduous trees.
 
morons. I just got done dealing with a week and a half of below freezing temps and 6 inches of ice and snow.....in texas.

there is no global warming.

no, only global climate change

hot times get hotter

cold times get colder

dry spaces wetter

wet spaces dryer

we are moving into a time of extremes
 
Thats the point fool....

Man made GW is no proven....so why the fuck change our way of living?

You're such a moron.:palm:

you are like the fools that continue to cut trees for firewood and then wonder why there are mudslides and deeper water tables
 
Back
Top