More climate change proof

by Andy Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:52 pm

1 in 20 chance of it all going tits up by year 2100.
Written by a professor of climatology and atmospheric sciences.
Possibly better qualified than Tom's D in GCSE science .
http://dailym.ai/2h6JM6U

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:03 pm

This is a thread aimed at another member.

Say something intelligent and maybe nobody will notice.

by Andy Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:This is a thread aimed at another member.

Say something intelligent and maybe nobody will notice.

Did you read the article? Or can you read the article?
This is a thread that the climate change will affect our great grandchildren.
Stick your head in the sand like an ostrich if you want, because you, I and everyone on here will be pushing up daisies by then.
But our future generations will bear the brunt of our follies.
I hope you can sleep comfortably with that thought.

by Andy Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:This is a thread aimed at another member.

Say something intelligent and maybe nobody will notice.

Thag could be why few take any notice of you, the alt right on here and the Floppers

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:41 pm

Angry Andy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:This is a thread aimed at another member.

Say something intelligent and maybe nobody will notice.

Did you read the article? Or can you read the article?
This is a thread that the climate change will affect our great grandchildren.
Stick your head in the sand like an ostrich if you want, because you, I and everyone on here will be pushing up daisies by then.
But our future generations will bear the brunt of our follies.
I hope you can sleep comfortably with that thought.

Ah well, that's what happens when populations rise - pollution happens. Don't ask me if that affects climate change though.

by Guest Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:This is a thread aimed at another member.

Say something intelligent and maybe nobody will notice.

Rags creating trouble again

by Tommy Monk Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:38 pm

Yawn...

by Ben Reilly Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:04 pm

I changed the thread title -- you're not supposed to reference other users in the title, unless it's a friendly thread.

by Andy Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:03 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:I changed the thread title -- you're not supposed to reference other users in the title, unless it's a friendly thread.

Not a problem Ben.
The link still shoots down Tommys view on climate change in flames.
The author is a world leading expert. But he isnt a genius. Just massively intelligent and well read.

by Tommy Monk Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:49 pm

Not true hand shandy... they are merely speculating...

Yawn...!

by Andy Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:20 pm

Toms ideas of reading about climate change is 'Topsy and Tim enjoy the summer, autumn and winter'.

by Tommy Monk Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:47 pm

Maybe hand shandy could post some of the actual facts that he thinks he has seen being presented in this article...?

Laughing

by Andy Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:10 pm

Deflection. Answer the article. Not me.

by Tommy Monk Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:26 pm

I have... I said it's mere speculation... you disagreed claiming 'facts'... so I asked you to highlight these 'facts' in a post here for us all to consider...

Surely it would be easy for you to list a few of these 'facts' that you say are contained in the article...???

Laughing

by Tommy Monk Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:35 pm

And as usual... when hand shandy is challenged to provide actual facts to back up his waffle... he runs away...!!!

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:33 pm

good weather = climate change = more research dollars

bad weather = climate change = more research dollars

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:42 pm

Another thread where hand shandy has run away...!

Laughing

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:34 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4899512/Mathematics-predicts-sixth-mass-extinction-2100.html

dont get too excited folks, this sounds like the same bunch of experts who predicted the end of the world with the Y2k fiasco, and every other missed end of the world deadline since

More climate change proof Cartoo10

by 'Wolfie Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:41 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4899512/Mathematics-predicts-sixth-mass-extinction-2100.html

dont get too excited folks, this sounds like the same bunch of experts who predicted the end of the world with the Y2k fiasco, and every other missed end of the world deadline since

Geeze, you're one pathetic fucktard, SlimyBumBandit :

Anti science
Anti democracy
Anti clear thinking
Pro big business
Pro "flat world"
Pro stupidity

Over 97% of qualified people are in agreement over mankind-affected acceleration on climate change;

A small minority of tech' experts agreed with the self-declared Y2K TEOTWAWKI "experts" that you so glibly refer to..

The very opposite of the idiotic scenario that you are pushing there... More climate change proof 4183205388

by nicko Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:47 am

Sorry Wolfie, it's been confirmed that it is a big con so that so called "experts" can keep themselves on the money train and Goverments can go on extracting money on the pretence of green taxes.

Anyway, lets see what comes out in the future. If i'm wrong so be it.

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:51 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4899512/Mathematics-predicts-sixth-mass-extinction-2100.html

dont get too excited folks, this sounds like the same bunch of experts who predicted the end of the world with the Y2k fiasco, and every other missed end of the world deadline since

Geeze, you're one pathetic fucktard, SlimyBumBandit :

Anti science
Anti democracy
Anti clear thinking
Pro big business
Pro "flat world"
Pro stupidity

Over 97% of qualified people are in agreement over mankind-affected acceleration on climate change;

A small minority of tech' experts agreed with the self-declared Y2K TEOTWAWKI "experts" that you so glibly refer to..

The very opposite of the idiotic scenario that you are pushing there...

*new poll just out*

97% of people say they would tell a lie if paid enough money

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:34 pm

Green from me SB...!

by 'Wolfie Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:16 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Geeze, you're one pathetic fucktard, SlimyBumBandit :

Anti science
Anti democracy
Anti clear thinking
Pro big business
Pro "flat world"
Pro stupidity

Over 97% of qualified people are in agreement over mankind-affected acceleration on climate change;

A small minority of tech' experts agreed with the self-declared Y2K TEOTWAWKI "experts" that you so glibly refer to..

The very opposite of the idiotic scenario that you are pushing there...

*new poll just out*

97% of people say they would tell a lie if paid enough money

Let me guess...

You polled 15 of your fellow Flappers, 14 of them agreed with you, but one was all "um, yeah, maybe, no, but, sometimes.. .

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:30 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:
*new poll just out*

97% of people say they would tell a lie if paid enough money

Let me guess...

You polled 15 of your fellow Flappers, 14 of them agreed with you, but one was all "um, yeah, maybe, no, but, sometimes.. .

what about you wolfie??

would you tell a lie if the price was right??

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:32 pm

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21275/climate-scientists-climate-models-have-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=091817-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

A new report published by a team of prominent climate scientists confirms what many skeptics have pointed out for years: the climate models have overestimated the amount of global warming and failed to predict what climatologists call the warming "hiatus," over 20 years of almost no change in temperatures.

The report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience on September 18, acknowledges that most of the models of warming trends failed to predict the "slowdown" in warming post-2000, resulting in less pronounced warming than predicted and thus more room in the CO2 "emissions budget" for the coming decades. The report in part intends to "reset" the estimations for the new predictions on when the earth will hit what the U.N. has determined to be dangerous warming levels.

The team of climate scientists notes that in failing to predict the warming "hiatus" in the beginning of the 21st century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models overestimated temperature increases, consequently setting key benchmarks for warming earlier than they need to be, given the actual numbers.

"The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions," University of Exerter's Pierre Friedlingstein, one of the study's authors, told The Washington Post. "So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower," he added.

Another co-author, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis' Joeir Rogelj, explained to the Post that the models used by the IPCC have made two mistakes: "slightly overestimat[ing] historical warming" and "underestimat[ing] compatible historical CO2 emissions"

"These two small discrepancies accumulate over time and lead to an slight underestimation of the remaining carbon budget," said Rogelj. The new study, he said, attempts to "reset the uncertainties, starting from where we are today."

The report follows a study by another team of climate scientists published in June 2017 that likewise determined that the actual increases in warming post-2000 was "generally smaller than trends estimated" from the models. Here's the abstract of the study:

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

The Daily Caller notes a few other reports by climate scientists in the last few years that have likewise underscored the climate models' overestimation of warming, with one determining that the models have predicted 2.5 times more warming than has actually been observed:

Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have noted the climate models have been over-hyping warming for decades. Scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville has testified before Congress on the matter.

Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than has been observed. ...

[The] author and atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue wrote about the new “consensus” on global warming in the wake of a June study by prominent climate scientists.

That study found “satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:05 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4906110/Greenpeace-storm-ship-loaded-Volkswagen-diesel-cars.html

i take it this is what you fanatics want??

to walk everywhere??

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:02 am

smelly-bandit wrote:

*new poll just out*

97% of people say they would tell a lie if paid enough money

So your claim is that the vast majority of scientists are unethical based on what exactly?

Second, did you actually read the report itself which is linked from daily wire link?

As it clearly backs climate change being effected by humans?

Also this report has yet to be corroborated.

If true, all it means is that it has bought us some precious time left to make changes before it is too late.

The 2015 Paris agreement's ambitious goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C remains within reach, a study suggests.

The study is one of several to address the "carbon budget", which - among other things - determines how much CO2 the planet can emit and still reach a given limit for global warming. It indicates the 2015 target, perceived by some as tough, could be met with very stringent emissions cuts. It used computer models that project climate behaviour into the future.

The aim of the Paris deal was "holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5C."
But scientists admit they were taken by surprise by the ambition of the 1.5C figure.
The results of the work with computer models have been published in Nature Geoscience. This type of work necessarily contains uncertainties regarding the way the Earth's climate will respond in future and how quickly societies can move away from fossil fuel use.

But the study authors say: "Pursuing 'efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C' is not chasing a geophysical impossibility".

Co-author Michael Grubb, from University College London, said: "This paper shows that the Paris goals are within reach, but clarifies what the commitment to 'pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C' really implies."

Those commitments would require strengthening the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) - the pledges to cut emissions contained in the Paris agreement.

Previous estimates of the remaining 1.5C carbon budget, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment of the climate, were around four times lower.

But unlike those figures, which relied on one line of evidence, the new study uses multiple approaches to examine the same question, arriving at a rather different result.

Co-author Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, from the University of Exeter, said: "This is very good news for the achievability of the Paris targets."

Prof Myles Allen, another author, from the University of Oxford, told BBC News: "In the main body of the IPCC assessment, what it would take to meet a 1.5C goal wasn't assessed in any detail. To be honest, it wasn't thought to be the policy priority at the time.

"Perhaps it should have been, but that was the view of the academic community then. But the ambition of Paris caught a lot of people by surprise."

Analysis by David Shukman, BBC Science Editor:
The climate models are exaggerating. The predictions are too alarmist. The Tuvaluans and other islanders are safer than we thought. These are among the conclusions that some might reach from this latest work. In reality, nothing is quite that straightforward. The models are simulated approximations of possible futures. Inevitably they are going to be at least slightly adrift of reality, either in the amount of warming or its timing.
They come with caveats and margins of error. In many ways, it's remarkable that these computer constructs are even roughly on track. And models designed to come up with very broad potential outcomes for the end of the century may not be fine-tuned enough to give more detailed forecasts year-by-year.

The authors themselves are anxious that their research is not misunderstood. The need for urgent action to reduce emissions is unchanged, they say. It's just that the most ambitious of the Paris Agreement targets is not as unachievable as many once thought, that there is time to act, though the task remains a monumental one.

Myles Allen added: "For a two in three chance of keeping temperatures within 1.5C, we'd have to reduce emissions in a straight line to zero from where we are now over the next 40 years.

"It's possible, but extremely challenging. So if people are saying: can we now relax? That's not the right message to take at all."

Different take
Scientists agree urgent action will be needed to tackle the effects of rapid temperature increase over the next century.

But a study earlier this year in the journal Nature Climate Change suggested the allowable carbon budget had probably been overestimated.

It said the "pre-industrial baseline" used to benchmark present day warming was probably older than the IPCC had assumed.

Therefore, the degree of warming since that baseline was probably greater than had been believed.
On Twitter, one of the authors of that report, Prof Michael Mann, said the latest research in Nature Geoscience, "doesn't account for [the] pre-industrial baseline issue we examined".

He added: "There is some debate about [the] precise amount of committed warming if we cease emitting carbon immediately. We're probably very close to 1.5C."

Meanwhile, another paper in Nature Geoscience, by Gunnar Myhre, from the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, in Oslo, and colleagues, suggests the greenhouse effect caused by human-induced CO2 emissions is now half-way to doubling compared with pre-industrial conditions.
Although the concentrations themselves have not yet reached the halfway mark, this is being described as an iconic watermark.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41319885

by Andy Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:11 am

Of course Tom hasn't read the report, Thor.
He has his own fixed, myopic viewpoint that fits his far right agenda.
"I'm alright Jack, pull the ladder up", pretty much fits the bill.
Only a dolt would believe the increased rate of climate change during the last 50 years, which co-incides with man's ability to self destruct the planet through carbon and CO2 emmissions, is just a routine cyclic phase of climate.
The kids at our local special needs school have a better grasp and understanding of climatology .

by 'Wolfie Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:13 am

smelly-bandit wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4906110/Greenpeace-storm-ship-loaded-Volkswagen-diesel-cars.html

i take it this is what you fanatics want??

to walk everywhere??

You keep on repeating unsubstantiated and baseless mining and oil propaganda published by such "newsworthy" sources as The Daily Flail and FauxNews, to back your moronic anti-climate/anti-science claims, Smelly'...

But keep failing to actually provide any evidence to support your stupidity..

Are you even capable of producing some original sentences for yourself ?

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:16 am

Angry Andy wrote:Of course Tom hasn't read the report, Thor.
He has his own fixed, myopic viewpoint that fits his far right agenda.
"I'm alright Jack, pull the ladder up", pretty much fits the bill.
Only a dolt would believe the increased rate of climate change during the last 50 years, which co-incides with man's ability to self destruct the planet through carbon and CO2 emmissions, is just a routine cyclic phase of climate.
The kids at our local special needs school have a better grasp and understanding of climatology .

It is clear neither have read the report.
They have read a news article from a site that argues against humans altering climate change to the effect we see today. So the article has given its own spin on things.
Have to go to work, so see you later Andy

by 'Wolfie Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:56 am

smelly-bandit wrote:http://www.dailywire.com/news/21275/climate-scientists-climate-models-have-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=091817-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

A new report published by a team of prominent climate scientists confirms what many skeptics have pointed out for years: the climate models have overestimated the amount of global warming and failed to predict what climatologists call the warming "hiatus," over 20 years of almost no change in temperatures.

The report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience on September 18, acknowledges that most of the models of warming trends failed to predict the "slowdown" in warming post-2000, resulting in less pronounced warming than predicted and thus more room in the CO2 "emissions budget" for the coming decades. The report in part intends to "reset" the estimations for the new predictions on when the earth will hit what the U.N. has determined to be dangerous warming levels.

The team of climate scientists notes that in failing to predict the warming "hiatus" in the beginning of the 21st century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models overestimated temperature increases, consequently setting key benchmarks for warming earlier than they need to be, given the actual numbers.

"The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions," University of Exerter's Pierre Friedlingstein, one of the study's authors, told The Washington Post. "So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower," he added.

Another co-author, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis' Joeir Rogelj, explained to the Post that the models used by the IPCC have made two mistakes: "slightly overestimat[ing] historical warming" and "underestimat[ing] compatible historical CO2 emissions"

"These two small discrepancies accumulate over time and lead to an slight underestimation of the remaining carbon budget," said Rogelj. The new study, he said, attempts to "reset the uncertainties, starting from where we are today."

The report follows a study by another team of climate scientists published in June 2017 that likewise determined that the actual increases in warming post-2000 was "generally smaller than trends estimated" from the models. Here's the abstract of the study:

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

The Daily Caller notes a few other reports by climate scientists in the last few years that have likewise underscored the climate models' overestimation of warming, with one determining that the models have predicted 2.5 times more warming than has actually been observed:

Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have noted the climate models have been over-hyping warming for decades. Scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville has testified before Congress on the matter.

Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than has been observed. ...

[The] author and atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue wrote about the new “consensus” on global warming in the wake of a June study by prominent climate scientists.

That study found “satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model

"Prominent" scientits !?! Bullshit...

Two unknown professors in tomfoolery, from some backwoods oil-company owned "university", leading a team of corporate_shills falsely labelled as "climate scientists", publishing some pro' oil/gas/mining propaganda in a little inhouse magazine masquerading as a scientific "journal"..

You call that evidence ???

Try harder next time, Bozo...

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:19 am

oh here come the shifting goal posts

apparently the only prominent scientists are the ones supporting climate change

lol!

youre so hysterical man

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:20 am

love tucker

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:40 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:oh here come the shifting goal posts

apparently the only prominent scientists are the ones supporting climate change

youre so hysterical man

So you really did not read the report did you smelly?

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:07 pm

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:oh here come the shifting goal posts

apparently the only prominent scientists are the ones supporting climate change

youre so hysterical man

So you really did not read the report did you smelly?

did you watch tucker dismantle the idiot bill nye??

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:13 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you really did not read the report did you smelly?

did you watch tucker dismantle the idiot bill nye??

What has that got to do with you not reading the actual report?

Misdirection by any chance?

I think Tucker is very funny sometimes.

Yet it shows you are badly misdirecting.

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:24 am

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

did you watch tucker dismantle the idiot bill nye??

What has that got to do with you not reading the actual report?

Misdirection by any chance?

I think Tucker is very funny sometimes.

Yet it shows you are badly misdirecting.

i barely register you or your posts didge.

do i read the shite you post??

no, because you have no credibility

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:28 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:

What has that got to do with you not reading the actual report?

Misdirection by any chance?

I think Tucker is very funny sometimes.

Yet it shows you are badly misdirecting.

i barely register you or your posts didge.

do i read the shite you post??

no, because you have no credibility

Contradiction alert

And yet more misdirection.

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:34 am

Here are just a number of new reports on climate change.

Climate change

1. Modelling past, present and future peatland carbon accumulation across the pan-Arctic region
"We found that peatlands in Scandinavia, Europe, Russia and central and eastern Canada will become C sources, while Siberia, far eastern Russia, Alaska and western and northern Canada will increase their sink capacity by the end of the 21st century."

2. Annual and seasonal tornado trends in the contiguous United States and its regions

"The annual analyses indicate that the number of tornadoes per year declined in the West, North Great Plains, South Great Plains, and Midwest regions, but increased in the Southeast." ... "Seasonal analyses suggest that the proportion of tornadoes occurring in the contiguous United States in summer is decreasing whereas the proportion occurring in fall is increasing. This is especially apparent in the Southeast."

3. Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity

"Newer metrics relating global warming directly to the total emitted CO2 show that in order to keep warming to within 2 °C, future CO2 emissions have to remain strongly limited, irrespective of climate sensitivity being at the high or low end."

4. Dynamic response of an Arctic epishelf lake to seasonal and long-term forcing: implications for ice shelf thickness
"We show that the Milne Ice Shelf, Ellesmere Island, was stable before 2004, after which time the ice shelf thinned rapidly."

5. Future changes in tropical cyclone activity in high-resolution large-ensemblesimulations

"The global number of TCs decreases by 33% in the future projection. Although geographical TC occurrences decrease generally, they increase in the central and eastern parts of the extratropical North Pacific. Meanwhile, very intense (category 4 and 5) TC occurrences increase over a broader area including the south of Japan and south of Madagascar. The global number of category 4 and 5 TCs significantly decreases, contrary to the increase seen in several previous studies. Lifetime maximum surface wind speeds and precipitation rate are amplified globally. "

6. Response of Tropical Cyclone Activity and Structure to Global Warming in a High-Resolution Global Nonhydrostatic Model

"The model projected that the global frequency of TCs is reduced by 22.7%, the ratio of intense TCs is increased by 6.6%, and the precipitation rate within 100 km of the TC center increased by 11.8% under warmer climate conditions. These tendencies are consistent with previous studies using hydrostatic global model with cumulus parameterization." ... "Hence, this study shows that the horizontal scale of TCs defined by the radius of 12 m s-1 surface wind is projected to increase compared with the same intensity categories for SLP less than 980 hPa."

7. Air-Sea CO2 Exchange in the Ross Sea, Antarctica

"We find that the Ross Sea is a lesser atmospheric CO2 sink (-7.5±0.5 Tg C yr−1, -1.3±0.1 mol C m−2 yr−1) than previously reported (-13 Tg C yr−1, -1.7 to -4.2 mol C m−2 yr−1)."

8. Estimation of the fossil fuel component in atmospheric CO2 based on radiocarbon measurements at the Beromünster tall tower, Switzerland

9. Mechanistic drivers of re-emergence of anthropogenic carbon in the Equatorial Pacific

10. On the Relationship between Intensity and Rainfall Distribution in Tropical Cyclones Making Landfall over China

11. Observational uncertainty and regional climate model evaluation: a pan-European perspective

12. Estimation of melt pond fractions on first year sea ice using compact polarization SAR

13. Tropically driven and externally forced patterns of Antarctic sea ice change: reconciling observed and modeled trends

14. Heat waves in Finland: present and projected summertime extreme temperatures and their associated circulation patterns

15. Comparison of four inverse modelling systems applied to the estimation of HFC-125, HFC-134a, and SF6 emissions over Europe

16. Chemical feedback from decreasing carbon monoxide emissions

17. How well does the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting Interim Reanalysis represent the surface air temperature in Cuban weather stations?

18. Asian droughts in the last millennium: a search for robust impacts of Pacific Ocean surface temperature variabilities

19. NMME-based hybrid prediction of Atlantic hurricane season activity

20. Robust projected weakening of winter monsoon winds over the Arabian Sea under climate change

21. Sources, Sinks and Subsidies: Terrestrial Carbon Storage in Mid-Latitude Fjords

22. Observed co-variations of aerosol optical depth and cloud cover in extratropical cyclones

23. Multi-decadal scale detection time for potentially increasing Atlantic storm surges in a warming climate

24. Climate change in the Hindu Kush Himalaya

25. Simulation of tropical cyclone activity over the western North Pacific based on CMIP5 models

26. On the causes of trends in the seasonal amplitude of atmospheric CO2

27. The evolution and volcanic forcing of the southern annular mode during the past 300 years

28. Year-to-year variability of surface air temperature over China in winter

29. Multidecadal anomalies of Bohai Sea ice cover and potential climate driving factors during 1988–2015

30. A moving windows visual approach to analysing spatial variation in temperature trends on the Spanish mainland 1951–2010

31. Local-scale changes in mean and heavy precipitation in Western Europe, climate change or internal variability?

32. Precipitation–fire linkages in Indonesia (1997–2015)

33. Quantifying the Lead Time Required for a Linear Trend to Emerge from Natural Climate Variability

34. Summer monsoon rainfall variability over North
East regions of India and its association with Eurasian snow, Atlantic Sea Surface temperature and Arctic Oscillation

35. Understanding the impacts of climate change and human activities on streamflow: a case study of the Soan River basin, Pakistan

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:36 am

And some more

Climate change impacts

36. Glacier shrinkage driving global changes in downstream systems

"Here, we synthesize current evidence of how glacier shrinkage will alter hydrological regimes, sediment transport, and biogeochemical and contaminant fluxes from rivers to oceans. This will profoundly influence the natural environment, including many facets of biodiversity, and the ecosystem services that glacier-fed rivers provide to humans, particularly provision of water for agriculture, hydropower, and consumption."

37. Analysis of climate signals in the crop yield record of Sub-Saharan Africa

"We found that improved agricultural technology and country fixed effects are three times more important than climate variables for explaining changes in crop yields in SSA. We also found that increasing temperatures reduced yields for all three crops in the temperature range observed in SSA, while precipitation increased yields up to a level roughly matching crop evapotranspiration."

38. Behavioral responses to annual temperature variation alter the dominant energy pathway, growth, and condition of a cold-water predator

"In cooler years, fish ate more large prey from shallow nearshore regions, resulting in higher growth and condition than in warmer years, when fish ate more small prey from deep offshore regions. This suggests that the impacts of warming on aquatic ecosystems can scale from the individual to the food web level."

39. Carbon dioxide fertilization offsets negative impacts of climate change on Arabica coffee yield in Brazil

"The model projects that yield losses due to high air temperatures and water deficit will increase, while losses due to frost will decrease. Nevertheless, extra losses are offset by the CO2 fertilization effect, resulting in a small net increase of the average Brazilian Arabica coffee yield of 0.8% to 1.48 t ha−1 in 2040–2070, assuming growing locations and irrigation remain unchanged. Simulations further indicate that future yields can reach up to 1.81 t ha−1 provided that irrigation use is expanded."

40. Adapting to hurricanes. A historical perspective on New Orleans from its foundation to Hurricane Katrina, 1718–2005

41. Multitrophic interactions mediate the effects of climate change on herbivore abundance

42. Winners and losers as mangrove, coral and seagrass ecosystems respond to sea-level rise in Solomon Islands

43. Climate change resiliency in Caribbean SIDS: building greater synergies between science and local and traditional knowledge

44. Multi-model comparison highlights consistency in predicted effect of warming on a semi-arid shrub

45. Increasing atmospheric humidity and CO2 concentration alleviate forest mortality risk

46. Limits to growth, planetary boundaries, and planetary health

47. Nutrients and temperature additively increase stream microbial respiration

48. Readiness for climate change adaptation in the Arctic: a case study from Nunavut, Canada

49. Native and agricultural forests at risk to a changing climate in the Northern Plains

50. Assessment of ecosystem resilience to hydroclimatic disturbances in India

51. Forest biomass, productivity and carbon cycling along a rainfall gradient in West Africa

52. Climate change and national crop wild relative conservation planning

53. Influence of climate change on summer cooling costs and heat stress in urban office buildings

54. Opportunities for joint water-energy management: sensitivity of the 2010 Western U.S. electricity grid operations to climate oscillations

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:37 am

And some more

Climate change mitigation

55. Consideration of carbon dioxide release during shell production in LCA of bivalves

"When we recalculated the total kg CO2 released in past studies including CO2 release from shell production, the additional CO2 release increased the total global warming impact category (CO2equivalents) in cradle-to-gate studies by approximately 250% of the original reported value."

56. Estimation and uncertainty of recent carbon accumulation and vertical accretion in drained and undrained forested peatlands of the southeastern USA

"In the drained (GDS) vs. intact (AR) CDR sites, carbon accumulation rates were similar with ¹³⁷Cs (87_GDS vs. 92_AR g C m^-2 yr^-1) and somewhat less at the GDS than AR as determined with ²¹⁰Pb (111_GDS vs. 159_AR g C m^-2 yr^-1)."

57. Was it worthwhile? Where have the benefits of rooftop solar photovoltaic generation exceeded the cost?

"We find that, after accounting for federal subsidies and local rebates and assuming a discount rate of 7%, the private benefits of new installations will exceed private costs only in seven of the 19 states for which we have data and only if customers can sell excess power to the electric grid at the retail price. These states are characterized by abundant sunshine (California, Texas and Nevada) or by high electricity prices (New York)."

58. The scientific motivation of the internationally agreed ‘well below 2 °C’ climateprotection target: a historical perspective

59. Public willingness to pay for a US carbon tax and preferences for spending the revenue

60. Quantifying CO₂ emissions from individual power plants from space

61. Climate change and the transition to neoliberal environmental governance

62. Global wetland contribution to 2000–2012 atmospheric methane growth rate dynamics

63. Baseline manipulation in voluntary carbon offset programs

Other papers

64. A 564-year annual minimum temperature reconstruction for the east central Tibetan Plateau from tree rings
"The level of warming from 1989 to 2014 is unprecedented over the past five centuries."

65. An update on ozone profile trends for the period 2000 to 2016

"Thanks to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and its amendments, ozone-depleting chlorine (and bromine) in the stratosphere has declined slowly since the late 1990s. Improved and extended long-term ozone profile observations from satellites and ground-based stations confirm that ozone is responding as expected and has increased by about 2 % per decade since 2000 in the upper stratosphere, around 40 km altitude. At lower altitudes, however, ozone has not changed significantly since 2000."

66. Biotic impacts of temperature before, during, and after the end-Permian extinction: A multi-metric and multi-scale approach to modeling extinction and recovery dynamics

"These results suggest that global ocean temperatures best predict patterns of extinction and recovery across several ecological metrics, and that thermal episodes during the initial extinction event and subsequently in the Early Triassic recovery period significantly suppressed benthic marine community health."

67. Constructing a long-term monthly climate data set in central Asia

68. Quantifying climate changes of the Common Era for Finland

by Andy Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:46 am

Waste of time Thor.
Smelly Bumbandit and Tommy are still reading Topsy and Tim play at the park.

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:50 am

Angry Andy wrote:Waste of time Thor.
Smelly Bumbandit and Tommy are still reading Topsy and Tim play at the park.

That is because smells hates it, when I make him look silly. As he then comes up with numerous excuses, attempting to get out of answering.

I think its hilarious, showing he cannot think past what he has plagiarized from others. It means he does not truly understand what he is posting half the time. This being a prime case, as he clearly never even read the report highlighted in the article by the Daily Wire. He just went off the article.

Cool

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:08 am

Thorin wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Waste of time Thor.
Smelly Bumbandit and Tommy are still reading Topsy and Tim play at the park.

That is because smells hates it, when I make him look silly. As he then comes up with numerous excuses, attempting to get out of answering.

I think its hilarious, showing he cannot think past what he has plagiarized from others. It means he does not truly understand what he is posting half the time. This being a prime case, as he clearly never even read the report highlighted in the article by the Daily Wire. He just went off the article.

climate change for dummies

More climate change proof 11310

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:10 am

lol, so what does smelly do.

Try desperately to inject some comedy, in some poor attempt to cover up his inability to answer points.

Priceless.

Laughing

Let me know when you have actually read the report you posted, wrongly thinking it backed your views.

Ha ha

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:31 am

there are no points to answer

man made climate change is a money making con, its such a con you guys had to re-brand it, you used to call it "global warming" at a time when everyone was shivering in their boots because of how cold it was, so you lot stopped calling it global warming and changed the name to climate change

its a myth that man can influence the weather and lots of people are getting very rich because of gullible fools like you.

im not going to waste my time reading your holy scripture and suddenly convert to your religion of climate change

the same way if a christian shoved a bible under your nose and told you that it contained all the proof you need of gods existence.

same way you think the bible is bullshit because its written by men?? well thats the same as your precious reports - written by men to control the masses

no such thing as man made climate change

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:45 am

smelly-bandit wrote:there are no points to answer
Thorin wrote:Yet more pitiful excuses

man made climate change is a money making con, its such a con you guys had to re-brand it, you used to call it "global warming" at a time when everyone was shivering in their boots because of how cold it was, so you lot stopped calling it global warming and changed the name to climate change
Thorin wrote:Yet more gibberish. So now fossil fuels do not make billions?
Flawed reasoning when again climate scientists are out to help protect the planet. Anyone claiming otherwise is poorly ignoring all the evidence of the effect of humans on the climate. Even your own study states very clearly these problems

its a myth that man can influence the weather and lots of people are getting very rich because of gullible fools like you.
Thorin wrote:Really?#
Seems to me you buy into a lot of conspiracies, as why then are not all climate scientists then billionaires?

im not going to waste my time reading your holy scripture and suddenly convert to your religion of climate change
Thorin wrote:So you admit you do not want to look at the evidence. As this will shatter your illusions.
Spoken like a true literal believer, afraid to take the outsider test. To look critically at your own beliefs/evidence, as you would of the evidence of human effects on climate change

the same way if a christian shoved a bible under your nose and told you that it contained all the proof you need of gods existence.
Thorin wrote:lol, so you now equate science to religion. That really says it all when as seen you are acting religious in thinking by refusing to look at the all evidence. So you have never read the Quran to try and understand Islam? we would both agree its bullshit, but would still study it, would we not?

same way you think the bible is bullshit because its written by men?? well thats the same as your precious reports - written by men to control the masses
Thorin wrote:lol, so you are rubbishing evidence by not actually reading it and taking it on faith, from others you have read that disagree. Proving you are a sheep to others and cannot think for yourself. You forget I read and listen to people like Ben Shapiro myself and thus read both sides of the arguments. The fact you dismiss evidence, without even looking at this, shows you are afraid to do so. And like anyone religious,
doing so, leads to doubt in your own beliefs

no such thing as man made climate change

Well all the evidence clearly is proving you wrong smelly

But thanks once again for proving you are not even up to debating a subject you do not even want to look at the evidence. You simple disqualify yourself from having such an intellectual discussion on the topic.

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:53 am

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible?lang=eng

there you go didge, have a read of that and it will prove god exists

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:55 am

smelly-bandit wrote:https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible?lang=eng

there you go didge, have a read of that and it will prove god exists

Will it smelly?

I have read it a hundred times growing up already and yet now I am an atheist.

You though have made yourself redundant on the debate of climate change, as seen, by your own admission.

My advise to you is to email Ben Shapiro for some help.
Maybe he can throw you a lifebelt, to stop you sinking so fast here?

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:01 am

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible?lang=eng

there you go didge, have a read of that and it will prove god exists

Will it smelly?

I have read it a hundred times growing up already and yet now I am an atheist.

You though have made yourself redundant on the debate of climate change, as seen, by your own admission.

My advise to you is to email Ben Shapiro for some help.
Maybe he can throw you a lifebelt, to stop you sinking so fast here?

you obviously haven't read it, if you did you would see all the proof that god exists

you must be scared of the truth

by Sponsored content