Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
[1] Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904 – 2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904 – 1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954 – 2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr. Citation: Holgate, S. J. (2007), On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/ 2006GL028492.







https://www.e-education.psu.edu/files/earth540/file/2006GL028492.pdf
 
GLG. Check this out.


In fact, one author of the IPCC AR4 chapter dealing with sea level rise projections, Dr. Richard Alley, recently testified before the House Committee on Science and Technology concerning the state of scientific knowledge of accelerating sea level rise and pressure to exaggerate what is known about it.
Dr. Alley told the Committee:
This document [the IPCC AR4] works very, very hard to be an assessment of what is known scientifically and what is well-founded in the refereed literature and when we come up to that cliff and look over and say we don’t have a foundation right now, we have to tell you that, and on this particular issue, the trend of acceleration of this flow with warming we don’t have a good assessed scientific foundation right now. [Emphasis added]


Thus, the IPCC projections of future sea level rise, which average only about 15 inches for the next 100 years, stand as the best projections that can be made based upon our current level of scientific understanding.
These projections are far less severe that the alarming projections of many feet of sea level rise that have been made by a few individuals whose extremist views lie far outside of the scientific consensus.

The median scenario for sea level rise projections along the Washington shoreline by the year 2050 only ranges from 0 inches near Puget Sound, to around 5 to 6 inches along the central and southern coasts, and about double that (from 2 to about 13 inches) by the year 2100.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By Christopher Booker10:05PM GMT 06 Dec 2014Comments114 Comments
Led by the BBC, the usual media suspects were quick to trumpet last week’s claims by the Met Office and the World Meteorological Organisation that 2014 is set to be “the hottest year ever”. It’s funny that the rest of us hadn’t noticed; least of all those citizens of North America and Russia whose lives were lately disrupted by record snowfalls. It is true that the temperature records compiled by the avid warmists of the Met Office and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (the one formerly run by climate activist James Hansen) have managed to show this year squeaking just ahead of 2010 as “the hottest year since records began”. But the much more comprehensive and reliable satellite records agree that 2014 is way down the list, with six of the past 16 years ahead of it.
The reason for this excitement just now, even before the final 2014 data are in, is that it is timed to coincide with yet another two-week UN climate conference in Lima, where thousands of officials and activists are gathered to whip up support for next year’s planned “universal climate treaty” in Paris.
What worries them more than anything is the unavoidable evidence that global temperatures have shown no significant rise for 18 years, making ever more nonsense of all those scary computer model predictions relied on by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But so carried away are they by their quasi-religious belief system that, when it was again proposed in Lima that richer nations should pay poor countries $100 billion a year to protect them from runaway global warming, the UN’s chief spokesman, Christiana Figueres, dismissed this as “a very, very small sum”. What is needed to decarbonise the global economy, she said, is “$90 trillion over the next 15 years”. It makes the £1.3 trillion we Brits are committed by the Climate Change Act to pay to halt global warming within 36 years look like chicken feed.
 
Predictions of climate

04 Jun 2007 | 08:03 BST | Posted by Oliver Morton | Category: Climate Science, Climate variability, Communicating Climate Change, Kevin Trenberth

Posted by Oliver Morton on behalf of Kevin E. Trenberth

I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presumably through the IPCC assessments (the various chapters in the recently completedWorking Group I Fourth Assessment report ican be accessed through this listing). In fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action.

In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle. For instance, if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions. Of course one can initialize a climate model, but a biased model will immediately drift back to the model climate and the predicted trends will then be wrong. Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major challenge.


The IPCC report makes it clear that there is a substantial future commitment to further climate change even if we could stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. And the commitment is even greater given that the best we can realistically hope for in the near term is to perhaps stabilize emissions, which means increases in concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases indefinitely into the future. Thus future climate change is guaranteed.

So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.

However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.

We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?

Kevin Trenberth

Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
 
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth is a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From New Zealand, he obtained his Sc. D. in meteorology in 1972 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC. He served from 1999 to 2006 on the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), and he chaired the WCRP Observation and Assimilation Panel from 2004 to 2010 and chaired the Global Energy and Water Exchanges (GEWEX) scientific steering group from 2010-2013; he is still a member and chairs the 7th International Scientific Conference on the Global Water and Energy Cycle Committee. He has also served on many national committees. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the American Association for Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and an honorary fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand. In 2000 he received the Jule G. Charney award from the AMS; in 2003 he was given the NCAR Distinguished Achievement Award; in 2013 he was awarded the Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International Prize for Water, and he received the Climate Communication Prize from AGU. He edited a 788 page book Climate System Modeling, published in 1992 and has published 520 scientific articles or papers, including 60 books or book chapters, and over 235 refereed journal articles. He has given many invited scientific talks as well as appearing in a number of television, radio programs and newspaper articles. He is listed among the top 20 authors in highest citations in all of geophysics.
 
I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presumably through the IPCC assessments (the various chapters in the recently completedWorking Group I Fourth Assessment report ican be accessed through this listing). In fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action.

In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.
 
OldBlackDog said:
[1] Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904 – 2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904 – 1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954 – 2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr. Citation: Holgate, S. J. (2007), On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/ 2006GL028492.



https://www.e-education.psu.edu/files/earth540/file/2006GL028492.pdf
Click to expand...

As usual you have no idea what this paper means.... Typical...
You must have got your "idea bubble" from "tonys house of pizza and climate change" denial website.
Did you bother to read and understand the science paper? I didn't think so...

FYI the author was attempting to see if he could tease out the accelerated sea level data using just 9 tide stations using data from 1904 – 2003 only, as this set of data is his expertise.
Heck of a good idea as there are thousands of tide stations all over the world and if we could use 9, well that would save a lot of work. His conclusion was nope can't do it. Perhaps you should do your homework and read (understand) another paper (2008) from the same author.....
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1771/pdf

Here is an idea for you...... why don't you go to the experts on accelerated sea level change?
They know a fair amount more than "Tony"
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
 
OldBlackDog said:
No, just passing on an article from a paper, just as you do when it works for you.
Click to expand...

Again it's stunning that you use stuff like this to make your argument.
Advice: quit using crazy and you won't be painted with the same brush
 
So where are your peer reviewed papers to show that you are his equal?

This is what you are fighting for?? Really?

KANCI KULON, Indonesia (AP) — About $1 billion in loans under a U.N. initiative for poor countries to tackle global warming is going toward the construction of power plants fired by coal, the biggest human source of carbon pollution.

Japan gave the money to help its companies build three such plants in Indonesia and listed it with the United Nations as climate finance, The Associated Press has found. Japan says these plants burn coal more efficiently and are therefore cleaner than old coal.
 
OldBlackDog said:
GLG. Check this out.
Dr. Alley told the Committee:
This document [the IPCC AR4] works very, very hard to be an assessment of what is known scientifically and what is well-founded in the refereed literature and when we come up to that cliff and look over and say we don’t have a foundation right now, we have to tell you that, and on this particular issue, the trend of acceleration of this flow with warming we don’t have a good assessed scientific foundation right now.
Click to expand...
Is this what he said 10 years ago? Why did he say that?
You could check with "Tony's HoP and climate change" or watch the video below.
If I were you I would that this scientist's word very seriously. I do......
[o4oMsfa_30Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4oMsfa_30Q
 
While we are in discussion, the Earth will keep warming, the droughts will get worse, oceans acidify, food will grow scarce; ice will vanish, the seas will rise, flooding will become commonplace and then climate change may emerge from the background of debate and become the widely accepted reality.

Because of industry lobbying, flawed thinking and a lack of vision, Harper has bound Canada to a carbon-based economy. Meanwhile, we are missing out on the benefits of a green energy revolution; instead of contributing to solutions we only compound the climate problem.
 
http://noc.ac.uk/people/simonh
So how do you match up?


GLG said:
As usual you have no idea what this paper means.... Typical...
You must have got your "idea bubble" from "tonys house of pizza and climate change" denial website.
Did you bother to read and understand the science paper? I didn't think so...

FYI the author was attempting to see if he could tease out the accelerated sea level data using just 9 tide stations using data from 1904 – 2003 only, as this set of data is his expertise.
Heck of a good idea as there are thousands of tide stations all over the world and if we could use 9, well that would save a lot of work. His conclusion was nope can't do it. Perhaps you should do your homework and read (understand) another paper (2008) from the same author.....
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1771/pdf

Here is an idea for you...... why don't you go to the experts on accelerated sea level change?
They know a fair amount more than "Tony"
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Click to expand...
 
However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.
 
OldBlackDog said:
Predictions of climate

04 Jun 2007 | 08:03 BST | Posted by Oliver Morton | Category: Climate Science, Climate variability, Communicating Climate Change, Kevin Trenberth

However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.

We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?

Kevin Trenberth

Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
Click to expand...

That was then and it's now 2014 and most of this has been done.
Get with it.... Have you even read any science in this decade....??
 
Now you are just making stuff up again.
Most of it has,been done, really you expect us to believe that.


GLG said:
That was then and it's now 2014 and most of this has been done.
Get with it.... Have you even read any science in this decade....??
Click to expand...
 
You are telling us that you are not trying to cut back on global warming?
You have told us that the IPPC is right.
So here is the article telling us that the money supposedly for global warming is being spent on coal.
This is your group.

GLG said:
Making stuff up again i see. Since when did I link or quote this website..... never.
Is that the best you can do.... "Making stuff up"
Typical....
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SpringVelocity
Prawning Closed Again for 3 month Window
Replies
0
Views
2K
SpringVelocity
SpringVelocity
SpringVelocity
Prawn Closure
Replies
3
Views
4K
seachicken
seachicken
SVIAC
IMPORTANT: Feb. 27 Fisheries Town Hall Mtg. in Langford
Replies
13
Views
2K
PEETZcanada
PEETZcanada
CIVANO
April 1 rules
Replies
75
Views
9K
searun
searun
W
Government of Canada working to rebuild Pacific salmon populations
Replies
9
Views
3K
mbowers
mbowers
Back
Top