Global Warming is Increasing and Could Exceed 4º C by 2100!

Dantès

New member
And for those of us who have been paying attention and aren't fake scientists this can only come as discomfiting news indeed. For those who have children, or relatives who do have children, this is worrisome stuff because they are going to be feeling the effects of all this increased heat much sooner. I have remanded the fake scientists, that is those here who don't know the difference between climate and weather here, so we don't have to listen to too much oil company and coal company propaganda from the likes of those whose forte is lying!

Planet Likely to Warm by 4C by 2100, Scientists Warn

by Damian Carrington
The Guardian, Tuesday 31 December 2013 09.02 EST

The role clouds play in climate change has been something of a mystery – until now. New climate model taking greater account of cloud changes indicates heating will be at higher end of expectations

Temperature rises resulting from unchecked climate change will be at the severe end of those projected, according to a new scientific study.

The scientist leading the research said that unless emissions of greenhouse gases were cut, the planet would heat up by a minimum of 4C by 2100, twice the level the world's governments deem dangerous.

The research indicates that fewer clouds form as the planet warms, meaning less sunlight is reflected back into space, driving temperatures up further still. The way clouds affect global warming has been the biggest mystery surrounding future climate change.

Professor Steven Sherwood, at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, who led the new work, said: "This study breaks new ground twice: first by identifying what is controlling the cloud changes and second by strongly discounting the lowest estimates of future global warming in favour of the higher and more damaging estimates."

"4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous," Sherwood told the Guardian. "For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet", with sea levels rising by many metres as a result.

The research is a "big advance" that halves the uncertainty about how much warming is caused by rises in carbon emissions, according to scientists commenting on the study, published in the journal Nature. Hideo Shiogama and Tomoo Ogura, at Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies, said the explanation of how fewer clouds form as the world warms was "convincing", and agreed this indicated future climate would be greater than expected. But they said more challenges lay ahead to narrow down further the projections of future temperatures.

Scientists measure the sensitivity of the Earth's climate to greenhouse gases by estimating the temperature rise that would be caused by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere compared with pre-industrial levels – as is likely to happen within 50 years, on current trends. For two decades, those estimates have run from 1.5C to 5C, a wide range; the new research narrowed that range to between 3C and 5C, by closely examining the biggest cause of uncertainty: clouds.

The key was to ensure that the way clouds form in the real world was accurately represented in computer climate models, which are the only tool researchers have to predict future temperatures. When water evaporates from the oceans, the vapour can rise over nine miles to form rain clouds that reflect sunlight; or it may rise just a few miles and drift back down without forming clouds. In reality, both processes occur, and climate models encompassing this complexity predicted significantly higher future temperatures than those only including the nine-mile-high clouds.

"Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect," said Sherwood. "But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more."

He added: "Sceptics may also point to the 'hiatus' of temperatures since the end of the 20th century, but there is increasing evidence that this inaptly named hiatus is not seen in other measures of the climate system, and is almost certainly temporary."

Global average air temperatures have increased relatively slowly since a high point in 1998 caused by the ocean phenomenon El Niño, but observations show that heat is continuing to be trapped in increasing amounts by greenhouse gases, with over 90% disappearing into the oceans. Furthermore, a study in November suggested the "pause" may be largely an illusion resulting from the lack of temperature readings from polar regions, where warming is greatest.

Sherwood accepts his team's work on the role of clouds cannot definitively rule out that future temperature rises will lie at the lower end of projections. "But," he said, for that to be the case, "one would need to invoke some new dimension to the problem involving a major missing ingredient for which we currently have no evidence. Such a thing is not out of the question but requires a lot of faith."

He added: "Rises in global average temperatures of [at least 4C by 2100] will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don't urgently start to curb our emissions."




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/planet-will-warm-4c-2100-climate?CMP=twt_gu
 
Hey, dumb ass, your global warming ship is stuck in the ice and the crew is being rescued with fossil fuel burning machines.

Damian is a leftist so called journalist. That means you posted leftist propaganda.
 
Hey, dumb ass, your global warming ship is stuck in the ice and the crew is being rescued with fossil fuel burning machines.

That wasn't even relevant or the least bit funny when you posted it to some other thread earlier this morning. And your added sentences are nothing but an ad hominem attack with no relevant evidence to support it or say how it would be relevant even if you did! You really should get some new material. Your old material is not only repetitious but it stinks nearly as bad as those pants of yours! When are you hillbillies going to finally discover running water and washington machines. I think a few companies still make the old wringer types for backwoods applications such as yours.
 
That wasn't even relevant or the least bit funny when you posted it to some other thread earlier this morning. You really should get some new material. Your old material is not only repetitious but it stinks nearly as bad as those pants of yours! When are you hillbillies going to finally discover running water and washington machines. I think a few companies still make the old wringer types for backwoods applications such as yours.

Damian Carrington is a leftist propaganda pup who calls himself a journalist. Problem is he only spews leftist propaganda. This site is pathetic. Where do they keep the smart ones?
 
Dante's how long does your chevy volt take to fully recharge?

I do not own an automobile of any kind! I use public transportation exclusively. Some of the buses I ride are more modern clean vehicles; some are not. I generally take a clean bus to work and home at night which is a longer trip than simply going grocery shopping. The shorter trips are sometimes on less modern diesel vehicles. So that argument isn't even relevant to my lifestyle! I live very economically and one of the things that an actual economically structured and truncated lifestyle precludes is an automobile! There are many other consumer choices that are irrelevant, as well, but the biggest by far is the expense of a car!
 
Damian Carrington is a leftist propaganda pup who calls himself a journalist. Problem is he only spews leftist propaganda. This site is pathetic. Where do they keep the smart ones?

I don't agree the site is pathetic, some features of the site are pathetic, I could enumerate but I have elsewhere so I will save you the repetition, but certainly one of the main pathetic features recently has been your ignorant presence and the mainstream and uninteresting right wing malarky that you bring with it.
 
Damian Carrington is a leftist propaganda pup who calls himself a journalist. Problem is he only spews leftist propaganda. This site is pathetic. Where do they keep the smart ones?



dear fucking idiot,

anti warming crap is funded by the fuckers who gain money from big oil.


science is NOT on your side.

just a few BOUGHT scientists are
 
which is why they want to stop Americans from voting.

so they can win be default

Unfortunately the Democrats have not shown much enterprise in getting the voters rolled enlarged either. That is a sad fact and I'm not sure what we can do about that. Neither party really wants to bring in voters who they have no history with. They feel more comfortable with voters who they trust to vote one way or with those that they think they can convince, but they fear new voters who have no previous voting patterns. I think some of this might be related to the simple fact that much of the technology and mindset of the establishment in each party is based around models of consumerism. Just as a bank is reticent to lend money to someone with no credit history, the experts at the party level who base their computer programs on voters on the same model as credit card companies, a fact, are reticent to get involved with new voters who thy have no history with.
 
which is why they want to stop Americans from voting.

so they can win be default

This is so sad I grew up in a christian home, and new lots of really decent honorable Republicans as a teenager. To see the party degenerate into tinfoil hat reality deniers is Pathetic. The republican party was not always like this. One of the people I knew was a guy named Lee Dreyfus, who was a one term republican governor of Wisconsin. He signed the states first gay rights law into being, iirc. Now we have degenerated into a thug like Walker... Pathetic.
 
Unfortunately the Democrats have not shown much enterprise in getting the voters rolled enlarged either. That is a sad fact and I'm not sure what we can do about that. Neither party really wants to bring in voters who they have no history with. They feel more comfortable with voters who they trust to vote one way or with those that they think they can convince, but they fear new voters who have no previous voting patterns. I think some of this might be related to the simple fact that much of the technology and mindset of the establishment in each party is based around models of consumerism. Just as a bank is reticent to lend money to someone with no credit history, the experts at the party level who base their computer programs on voters on the same model as credit card companies, a fact, are reticent to get involved with new voters who thy have no history with.
The democratic party lacks credible leadership and direction, but they are on the right side of many issues.
 
You are liars. You lied about health care and you lied about Benghazi. Shame on you deranged cockroaches.

Things were Much more interesting under Reagan, when we had genuine fuck ups. How many people died in that suicide bombing of that marine base in Lebanon? And we did what, invade Granada shortly there after to cover it up? Reagan must be one fucking hell of a liberal then...or what about lying about WMD so we would invade the wrong country? Ishmael... Does your cat feel sympathy for you, given your low IQ?
 
You are liars. You lied about health care and you lied about Benghazi. Shame on you deranged cockroaches.

So much more humane to let people suffer and die, which was the republican plan. Since your all about morality, could you please explain the moral difference between someone during in a building because someone flew an airplane into it, and someone during of treatable cancer because they do not have health insurance? By that standard...hmmm.….how much blood do the republicans have on their hands?
 
Things were Much more interesting under Reagan, when we had genuine fuck ups. How many people died in that suicide bombing of that marine base in Lebanon? And we did what, invade Granada shortly there after to cover it up? Reagan must be one fucking hell of a liberal then...or what about lying about WMD so we would invade the wrong country? Ishmael... Does your cat feel sympathy for you, given your low IQ?

You're lying about Benghazi and you lied about health care. My cat says suck on it.
 
So much more humane to let people suffer and die, which was the republican plan. Since your all about morality, could you please explain the moral difference between someone during in a building because someone flew an airplane into it, and someone during of treatable cancer because they do not have health insurance? By that standard...hmmm.….how much blood do the republicans have on their hands?

Oh yeah, conservatives want people to get sick and die. Yup. We also eat puppies, destroy the planet, blah...blah.....blah...

You're very sick.
 
Back
Top