Remember when so many places around the world in recent years were having long winters and barely any springs? The Credentialed Media who were members of the Cult of Climastrology said “no big deal.” That’s when they weren’t attempting to blame nature for masking the signs of anthropogenic climate change. Now, though
The U.S. Geological Survey hails an early spring — and ties it to climate change
As the nation basks in some of the warmest February weather it has seen in decades, the U.S. Geological Survey has been quick to point out that the early spring conditions are another symptom of climate change.
On Thursday, the USGS shared a new analysis just released by the USA-National Phenology Network, which the agency helps to fund, showing that an early spring has already swept through the Southeast and is continuing to work its way across the country. As the agency points out, the new analysis reaffirms a fact scientists have known for at least a decade now — that “climate change is variably advancing the onset of spring across the United States.â€
And this means doooooom!
These findings, along with the newly released maps of this year’s springs, are just another way of pointing to the progression of climate change, Weltzin noted. He also noted that, although the balmy conditions this February may seem nice on the surface, an early spring can come with all kinds of downsides. For one thing, the onset of warm weather is also associated with the reemergence of disease-carrying parasites and insects, such as ticks and mosquitoes.
It can also carry serious agricultural risks. Early springs are sometimes followed by sudden frosts or droughts later in the summer, which can be devastating for crops that have already begun to grow. It has happened several times in the recent past, Weltzin pointed out — in 2012, the grape harvest in Southwestern Michigan was ravaged by a sudden cold snap following an early spring, and a similar incident hammered the tree nut harvest in the Southeast in 2007, he said.
Everybody panic!
As far as the latest climate news goes, there are other indicators of the long-term climatic changes that are happening in the United States, Weltzin noted. But the onset of spring remains one of the more dramatic red flags.
Red flags!!!!!
Do you know what the USGS doesn’t say? Whether the warming is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, or mostly/solely caused by nature. Or even somewhere around 50/50. And that’s what the debate is about: causation. More and more papers are showing that it is primarily natural. Even small variations in the solar system can cause “chaos” with the climate of not just Earth, but other planets. Warmists are fond of blaming nature for “masking” warming during the years of the Great Pause. Why can nature not be mostly responsible for the warming itself?
Teach: You’re the one mocking reasoned, scientific discussion of facts as DOOOOOOM!! and PANNNNNNIC!!
We’ve set several record highs in Missouri this “winter” breaking highs set all the way back in 2016. Mid seventies weather in February in Missouri is extreme. We are in the midst of cold snap now and the low this morning is only 10 degrees F over the average low.
Even most Deniers finally admit that the Earth is warming, and as predicted of them, either claim it’s all “natural” variability or that there’s no “proof” that dramatic climate change will have any negative impacts on modern human societies. Deniers will eventually admit that human generated CO2 is causing the warming.
Teach typed: More and more papers are showing that it is primarily natural.
Teach typed:
Bold claims require bold evidence. This is where you should cite said papers for critique.
Like an early spring have never happened before.
Evah!
Gosh. What will those climate scientists come up with next?!
Maybe what the temperature of the earth should be???
The Earth doesn’t much care, being a lifeless body made up mostly of iron and silicates. However, modern civilization developed in a relatively stable climate. That civilization is dependent on its relationship with the environment, particularly with regard to agriculture. In addition, much of that civilization is built on coastal plains that would become inundated if there were substantial global warming.
Y’all keep repeating this talking point.
Can you define “substantial” global warming?
Would that be warming within or outside the range of “natural variability”?
And how would y’all know if you cannot define what the “normal” warmth of the earth is or should be?
From the LA Times:
The Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick said: “Even if we built a couple of dams, we don’t have water to fill them. We’re tapped out. The traditional answer of building more reservoirs won’t solve our problems.†Building additional reservoirs does little when there’s no snow or rain to fill them.
Indeed, so certain were they of their “facts†that California Governor Moonbeam mocked those who thought the infrastructure should be shored up:
Eight grade science, indeed. The very people who believe a persons gender is determined by what mood he’s in when he wakes up is telling us about science. Ha!
The science indicates that La Niña conditions tend to increase precipitation. Climate change will also tend to exaggerate the cycles between hot and cold, wet and dry.
“It will undoubtedly get wet again within a few years. Anybody who tells the public that this drought is ‘the new normal’ without qualifying that statement is unwisely suggesting that California is going to forever remain as dry as it is now. People who believe this are primed to feel resentment when the rains return, potentially causing them to stop supporting some much-needed policy changes that are needed to enhance California’s resilience to drought.” — Park Williams. See Williams et al., Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012–2014, Geophysical Research Letters 2015.
Substantial warming would be warming that is of degree or rapidity such that it disrupts agriculture, inundates human coastal populations, and leads to widespread ecological disruptions and extinction.
Current warming is of degree and rapidity well beyond what is expected due to natural causes alone.
“Normal” isn’t a well-dfeined term in context. Perhaps you mean what is expected due to natural causes alone. Current warming is of degree and rapidity well beyond what is expected due to natural causes alone. Projected anthropogenic warming is expected to be damaging to ecosystems and disruptive to human civilization.
So you really don’t have an answer.
Handwaving is not an argument.
What is expected due to natural causes?
Good question. See Meehl et al., Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate, Journal of Climate 2007.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/meehle_2004.jpg
Oh fuck, here we go with the graphs again.
The ones with pretty lines and shit.
Another nonanswer, kiddies.
Should I repost my graph again?
No. You should reply substantively. You asked what was expected due to natural causes. We provided not just a graph, but a scientific research paper which answered your question.
No you supplied a 404 error and a meaningless graph.
Is that substantive?
Here we have on showing minimal human causatioat best.http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.IE61cT9s.8qkYoLxX.dpbs
“causation”
100-200 yr droughts in California were common in the past. Your SUV was not at fault
And that is true. There is no proof of negative impacts on climate change. Only assertions that haven’t come true. Except in ten yrs they will come true, we promise
We supplied the graph as published in Meehl et al., Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate, Journal of Climate 2007. It shows exactly what you asked for, which was what is expected with regards to climate due to natural causes, including solar and volcanism.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/meehle_2004.jpg
The paper has serious problems, but even granting that anthropogenic loss of carbon sinks is the primary cause of increased atmospheric CO2, it’s still anthropogenic.
Ah, graphs…
http://www.jir.com/graph_contest/index.html#MoreGraphs
More graphs seriously…
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-o/
And the undisputed graph…
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
One of the most obvious flaws is that the author confuses the residence time of an individual molecules of CO2, which are in constant exchange with the oceans and other sinks, with the residence of the net atmospheric carbon which is on the decadal scale.
Can’t find the exact chart in the 1990 IPCC report. There’s a similar chart, but without the odd y-scaling. It’s marked global, not europe, and they note in the text that the Medieval Warm Period may not have been global.
Keep searching…
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-o/
I’ll make easy for y’all since you won’t find it at SkS…
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/
Your claim was that the chart was found in the IPPC report. It’s not. There’s a similar chart, but without the odd y-scaling. It’s marked global, not europe, and they note in the text that the Medieval Warm Period may not have been global.
If you are going to more than wave your hands, it means you have to actually address the content of our comment.
See the above, kiddies…
You didn’t link to any scientific studies, but a linkfest. Clicking through, trying to find scientific studies, most of them don’t support your contention. You might cite a single research paper for discussion.
While most scientists agree that there was a global Medieval Warming Period, the amount of warming was much higher in Europe than in the rest of the globe. If you look at current reconstructions, you will see it represented.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
And once again you linked to a worthless graph.
It directly contradicts your suggestion that modern temperature reconstructions do not show the Medieval Warm Period. We also answered the question concerning what would be expected without anthropogenic factors.
If that’s what you believe
but graphs are not proof that the earth is warming because of CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Any Denier can respond:
1. What further evidence would you require as “proof” that human-generated CO2 is causing the current warming period?
2. If not human-generated CO2, what is causing the current warming period?
Ahem…
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/27/20-new-papers-affirm-modern-climate-is-in-phase-with-natural-variability/#sthash.b8yhRpTd.dpbs
Read and enjoy. The earth is not doomed and there’s no proof of global warming/climate change because of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels.
It simply isn’t happening, except in your little fevered imaginations and the dark recesses of your flawed computer models.
Oh, and they have graphs to prove it.
Graphs are just representations of information. We provided evidence concerning anthropogenic global warming above — which you studiously ignored.
Let’s start with the first paper, Gagné et al: “Simulations of Arctic-wide sea ice extent (defined as the sum of areas over the entire Arctic with a sea ice concentration greater than 15% ) anomalies from our multi-model ensemble show a decrease over the last few decades in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases”. In other words, the very first paper notes the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Keep reading, kiddies…
If the first example is flawed, and you don’t find it defensible yourself, then there’s no reason to bother with the rest.
Yep, don’t bother to read any further.
Great argument, y’all.
We’ve apparently read further than you have. Again, if you don’t find the first example defensible, then why should anyone else?
It’s not that
Well try again…
It’s not that y’all don’t recognize your own hypocrisy, it’s that y’all don’t care.
dp,
Why are you discoursing with these clowns??? They are parsing, obfuscating and down right lying. They don’t read the articles, except for the summations and title and don’t understand the concepts at all. I suspect Zach is a group of pre-law students or other worthless people that enjoy using their new found rhetoric, for which they are not very good. Jeff, on the other hand, is mentally ill and you should feel ashamed of making fun of the ill individual, especially as he does not even know it. At the end of the day, Trump is in office and this crap on AGW stopped, dead.
In fact, we read the specific paper, and quoted from it. If you actually read the paper, you would see that they break out the component for the greenhouse effect. High concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols cooled the climate for a while, but the greenhouse effect is predominant now.
One way to tell if someone is diverting is to see whether or not they refer to the comments to which they are responding, or to the underlying data. Looking at your response, you do neither, but you do declare a vacuous victory.
Dave,
Pretty much everything you wrote is true.
Mocking the Zeta fratboys is somewhat amusing to me.
They never admit they may be mistaken or flat out wrong and constantly refer to sites such as Skeptical Science to reinforce their AGW “arguments”.
Those guys and the little fake soldier guy, who yes, is a certifiable lunatic, should never be taken seriously but should be called out and mocked at every opportunity.
Spreading a half-truth is much worse than a whole lie, because it can be partially defended and that’s what these guys do.
Don’t know about “they”, but we have been referring to empirical evidence and the primary scientific literature, e.g. Meehl et al., Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate, Journal of Climate 2007.
Another half truth by the kiddies.
Everyone can scroll down and see exactly what y’all posted.
The scientific basis for AGW is sound, but the politics have won out. End of debate. The US will now double down on amplifying global warming since the voters in several key states have spoken.
Why bother to deny the science any longer? Hubris? Ignorance? You won. Science lost.
Once again. Any Denier can respond:
1. What further evidence would you require as “proof†that human-generated CO2 is causing the current warming period?
2. If not human-generated CO2, what is causing the current warming period?
Good idea. Let’s review:
February 25, 2017 at 9:45 am: Noted that it was climate scientists who helped determine the effect of orbital mechanics on Earth’s climate.
February 25, 2017 at 10:07 am: Explained why climate is important to human civilization.
February 25, 2017 at 10:25 am: Explained why rain is not inconsistent with climate change. Quoted bioclimatologist Park Williams. Cited Williams et al. 2015.
February 25, 2017 at 10:37 am: Answered questions posed by drowningpuppies concerning what constitutes natural variability and substantial climate change.
February 25, 2017 at 11:40 am: Answered question posed by drowningpuppies concerning what would be expected due to natural causes. Cited Meehl et al. 2007.
February 26, 2017 at 10:05 am: In response to drowningpuppies, explained why graph from Meehl et al. 2007 is not “meaningless”.
February 26, 2017 at 11:04 am: Pointing out discrepancies between the chart provided by drowningpuppies and the actual chart from the IPCC report.
February 26, 2017 at 12:32 pm: Pointed to modern temperature reconstructions showing the Medieval Warm Period, contrary to the claim that they don’t.
February 27, 2017 at 11:28 am: Responded to first of a series of links, Gagné et al., showing the paper doesn’t support the claim being made about the paper.
February 27, 2017 at 3:55 pm: Responded again to Gagné et al., noting that they show the effect of greenhouse gases, contrary to the claim.
February 28, 2017 at 10:11 am: Cited again Meehl et al. 2007.
Too long, didn’t read, no one cares.
Lulz!