Titanium Cat

Yes but you actually stated that in general areas that are cold and wet now will become colder and wetter and places that are warm and dry will become warmer and dryer with climate models show both warming and cooling in specific areas. This is not supported by mainstream models I have seen and the ones analyzed by the IPCC. The links to the IPCC reports are big PDF's (19Mb) so I have cut and pasted the graphs in question.

IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 - Global Climate Projections Page 20 in the PDF (766 in the overall report)


As we can see from the IPCC's multi-model summary graphs extremely cold Antarctica warms significantly and the second coldest place on the planet, the Arctic, warms the most. The vast majority of all the continents warm without particular emphasis on the hottest regions. There are no marked regions of cooling even for the B1 model scenarios which show the least amount of warming.

IPCC AR4 Technical Summary Page 76



Again there is no general consistency in changes in regional precipitation in relation to how wet or dry they are now. The very dry Antarctic and Arctic get substantially wetter as does most of dry Central-Western Asia. Most of hot and dry North Africa gets drier but it's a mixed bag for equatorial Africa and a lot of uncertainty for parts of North and South America and most of Australia. Note there are a fair number of white areas on the maps which represent regions where fewer than two thirds of the models agree on the direction of precipitation change, there is much more variability in it than in temperature projections.

There is a significant variability in all predictions which is why they use statistical models to estimate the size of the error. Some are more certain (temperature change) and some are less certain (ocean currents). We don't know what will happen for certain but we do know what is likely (sometimes very likely) to happen for various components of climate change.

I am not sure that I understand what you are claiming. There are a variety of long term projections covering numerous climatic events, ie. temperature, precipitation, cyclonic activity etc., and these are based on 30-100 plus years of supporting data. I don't see any major changes (especially a reverse) in those kind of projections over the short term being at all likely. Better estimates of individual forcings and potential feedbacks might improve the accuracy of models but I sincerely doubt they will flip any of the core conclusions.

The reason I find them conflicting is that some of the things you have claimed simply are not supported by the vast majority of the published literature including the summaries of the IPCC. It doesn't help to put out false generalizations on the topic which are often twisted into demonstrations of great uncertainty by the denialist camps and and it is more damaging than useful to give improbable scenarios like the shutdown of the North Atlantic Circulation as something of serious concern. Again it lends itself to abuse by those who will exclaim "science fiction" towards the very real and serious scientific argument for climate change.

Except that most of the conflicting information isn't actually information, it's disinformation. There is an overwhelming consensus in the true scientific community that is being undermined by a small percentage of scientists and paid disinformation specialists.

I agree this is a sign of climate change we should be concerned with but at the same time sometimes too much is made of such events. It in itself won't raise sea levels but does forcast future glacial melting on Antarctica which would.

I agree with you on climate change possibly being the most critical issue facing humans in the next fifty years and yes it does have to be a world wide effort, but I disagree that what the US does will be small peanuts. As the leader of the industrialized world and the nation who has by far contributed the most to the problem, the US must stand up and take responsible action on the issue. Everything it does will have a major influence on the rest of the world in terms of emission reductions and renewable energy development both in the physical sense and in economic direction.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

Titanium Cat

I think the above part of the article you quoted is more relevant than the section you bolded. I also agree with Dr. Broecker's analysis of the issue which is at the end:

I think it is far better to concentrate on events that we know are almost certain to occur that will cause great hardship for hundreds of millions of people than to invoke scenarios of disaster that are very unlikely to occur and which we cannot predict with any sort of significant reliability.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

Dawnling

No matter what causes it or if it will happen or not,

creating HUGE numbers of people is stupid

and

air and food are the main issues.
We can do many things to make clean water but
we can't fake food.

Air is VERY FINITE and the air we breathe
REQUIRES
the EXHALING of PLANTS!

Those think that land should be cleared are stupid

OldManOnFire

[quote]Based again on what I understand, the data you provide are very generalized, and here's what I believe can happen. As oceans warm and more energy is released into the atmosphere, places in the US which are affected by storms of rain and/or snow, during the next ten years or so, they will worsen. The hurricanes will be more damaging, higher winds and more precipitation. Storms coming into WA and OR will drop more rain. This same moisture will fuel worse snow storms in the Rockies and across the northern US. In essence, in these type of areas, it will get wetter and colder than today. In warm and dry areas, it will get warmer and dryer. In ten years or so, as the Earth warms further, this is when I believe cold and wet areas will see warmer temperatures and arid locations will see draught. I'm only talking about the US since it is obvious that warming trends in the poles is already at work.

China and India are basically saying; okay USA, you had your turn to industrialize and to muck up the environment and you've done this pretty much unimpeded for 100 years...now it's our turn. Sure they will do some things better than the US did when it started it's industrialization, but both China and India are not going to let anything slow them down for the next few decades. If China and India are surpassing US emissions by a potential factor of 3 to 6, in the grand scheme of things it won't help much for the US to drastically change. Economically, in a global market place, it will actually make it more difficult than it already is for the US to compete. This is a very complex issue that cannot be resolved solely by a China, or an India, or the US.

The US must work through the UN and the top five or ten industrialized nations MUST work together in lock-step to force change.

Thank you for your great information...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

OldManOnFire

Well...I was just responding to your statement: "The Day After Tomorrow isn't just a movie, it's wild science fiction and I haven't read anything by a respected climatologist that even comes close to agreeing with it's scenario."

There is plenty to read on this, and whether it can happen tomorrow or 100 years from now, it is still a legitimate scenario (sans the sensationalistic creativity).

I completely understand the models used for global climate changes are the best we have today. But I also understand that models are created from assumptions, and the data used in the models is created from assumptions, so although lots of scientists generally agree in some areas, they also disagree in other areas. We have no experience with this science so it changes every day. No one knows for sure if in fact there is anything we can do to slow, stop or reverse the process?? No one knows if we have passed some point-of-no-return?? There are lots of unknowns, lots of assumptions, and lots of confusion within the masses.

This may sound a little stupid, and this person has no applicable technical knowledge, but I was just reading a Malcolm Forbes article in which he clearly states that there is no possibility that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. Now it makes no difference if Forbes is a buffoon or not; the fact is he is a very popular, successful and powerful person, well educated, with one hell of an audience, and apparently has not been convinced by IPCC data. This cannot be discounted in the overall discussion. This is but one example of millions who are waiting for a consensus opinion...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

OldManOnFire

This is not a direct response to your statement above, but one thing I really don't understand is that no matter the horrific scenarios about global climate change, or CO2 emissions, or dependence on oil, or of rising costs, etc., THERE IS LITTLE DOWNSIDE RISK in taking steps to alter the way we live. All the steps and options are great ideas. They make our lives more sustainable. Yet even knowing this, most Americans will not take any action until their asses are on fire...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

Dawnling

I hear you loud and clear and I agree.

Where shall we start with the boot-in-butt program?

Titanium Cat

I provided the global model projections because that’s what we were discussing. Projections 80-100 years in the future tend to be fairly generalized. Here is the North American projection for temperature and precipitation from Chapter 11 of the IPCC AR4 (page 44 of the PDF, 890 overall, it’s another big one, 11Mb)



Overall I’d say your reasoning is quite sound. The Pacific Northwest for instance is forecast to have drier summers but wetter winters. The Rockies might get heavier snow storms but this does not mean they will get cooler, warmer winters bring more snowfall to areas of higher altitude and latitude. Probably the most troubling aspect of climate change in North America (besides Arctic melting) is that central US will get more precipitation in the winter but less in the summer growing season. Combine that with substantial warming and it will likely cause very significant agricultural problems in the world’s breadbasket.

At this point we are probably both arguing from the same viewpoint and I agree that the US has to work together with the UN in some sort of synchronized agreement. The US is China’s number one export market so once the US has joined the rest of the industrialized world in an emission reduction standard they can apply serious economic incentives for China (and India) to reduce their future emissions in a more timely fashion.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

Titanium Cat

Okay but I wasn’t referring to just the disruption of the MOC. The sensationalist creativity as you call it stretched it way beyond reality. The shutdown of the North Atlantic Circulation occurs early in the 21st century which is extremely improbable, but it also happens at a ridiculously fast pace where a couple of decades of regional cooling occur in just a few months. And the idea of these monster storms which suck in -100 degree temperatures that almost instantly freeze everything in its path is pure science fiction. Again I point to Dr. Broecker’s analysis, by the time conditions exist to cause a rapid meltdown of the Greenland ice sheets to disrupt the MOC, the earth and especially the northern latitudes will have warmed significantly and the resulting cooling will not have the kind of ice age effect that the movie portrays.

I think we can be fairly certain that we can slow the process but I doubt it can be reversed in the short term (~100 years). As to a point of no return, I assume you mean the melting of the Greenland ice sheets and then the Antarctic ones. I think most scientists would say we are not there yet and have a fair way to go, but that the tipping point could come faster than we think if we don’t change direction soon.

The people who consider Steve Forbes a credible source of information on climate change aren’t waiting for a consensus opinion; they don’t care what the science says. He’s a liar and is repeating common denialist claims that have little or no validity to them whatsoever. He started his column out with a huge lie about what Bill Clinton said about the economics of climate change and the rest of it is more garbage.

What do you do with stuff like that? I don’t know, as I said people who are listening to him have likely already made their mind up and don’t want to change anything. I think you have to concentrate on getting the message out to the genuinely confused groups who will accept change when they see it needs to be done and can be done without the hyped up economic horror stories that are being spread by those who wish to hang onto the status quo.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

OldManOnFire

You'll need to line up all 300 million of us and do lots of butt kicking!

You might need to try the Kick-Shove-Ignite-Run campaign?? This is where you ask us to assume the position, you give us one swift boot in the butt, you shove a cherry-bomb inside us, you ignite it, and run about ten paces! Now...if the look on our faces continue to have that same absent and dumb look as you see in insane-Bush, repeat the process...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...