Happy New Year, and Catastrophic Climate Change Expected

Climate model

A baby born in the new year can expect to live in a world that suffers the effects of catastrophic climate change, according to an article in The Guardian based on a new scientific study published in the journal Nature.

Professor Steven Sherwood at the University of New South Wales in Australia, who led the new research, said that unless emissions of greenhouse gases are cut, the planet would heat up by a minimum of 4C by 2100. The study found that as the planet heats, fewer sunlight-reflecting clouds form, causing temperatures to rise further in an upward spiral.

“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 meters as a result.

…”Climate skeptics like to criticize 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.”

For the sake of argument, it’s customary to say that climate models only predict what is likely to happen unless we do something fast. I am starting to doubt that there is anything that can be done now to prevent catastrophic climate change, or even slow it down. This is because certain tipping points, for example rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet, may have already been reached. Once a trigger is pulled, it cannot be un-pulled. The bullet is on its way.

More info:
Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing

  1. #1 by me on January 3, 2014 - 8:56 am

    it entertains me to watch the blowhards scream about gun rights and the pope while the world is ending in slow motion right under their noses. yet nobody is commenting on the end. maybe that is just human nature.

  2. #3 by Richard Warnick on January 13, 2014 - 10:53 am

    Via Think Progress. Prof. Sherwood explains his research in a video.

  3. #4 by Dennis Ware on March 9, 2014 - 11:10 am

    ..and then the Great Lakes froze over…hmm. Largest fresh water system on Earth froze about solid over.

    First time in many decades. Hard to sell snake oil when this is happening..and then this, what to say?


    Something is going on, and if history of science is any guide, the vanguard doesn’t know what’s happening, though they sure sound sure.

    No, history doesn’t lie when it comes to science, it is usually a persecuted loner who establishes the next phases of “Truth” in science. Galileo and Newton come to mind.

    Like those who believed the Earth was flat, and evil vapors made you sick, sure though they were, so much as any religionist in their belief, nothing they said altered what became to be understood as the Truth.

    It’s an evolving proposition when it comes to scientific truth.

    • #5 by Richard Warnick on March 9, 2014 - 2:14 pm

      You are ignoring the evidence of global warming in order to cherry-pick local weather events. From the NOAA National Climatic Data Center:

      The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for January was the warmest since 2007 and the fourth warmest on record at 12.7°C (54.8°F), or 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). The margin of error associated with this temperature is ± 0.08°C (± 0.14°F).

      The global land temperature was the highest since 2007 and the fourth highest on record for January, at 1.17°C (2.11°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F). The margin of error is ± 0.18°C (± 0.32°F).

      For the ocean, the January global sea surface temperature was 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F), the highest since 2010 and seventh highest on record for January. The margin of error is ± 0.04°C (± 0.07°F).

      • #6 by brewski on March 10, 2014 - 1:58 pm

        What is the standard deviation?
        The word “average” is meaningless without an understanding of standard deviation.

        • #7 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2014 - 2:32 pm

          SD = 0.2 degrees Celsius. Are you ready to join the reality-based community now?

          • #8 by brewski on March 10, 2014 - 3:27 pm


          • #9 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2014 - 4:00 pm

            I’ll give you the source if you promise to stop denying climate change. It’s in one of the NOAA references.

          • #10 by brewski on March 10, 2014 - 5:48 pm

            send me the link

          • #11 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2014 - 7:10 pm

            Because you asked so politely:

            Smith et al., 2008, Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006), J. Climate., 21, 2283-2293.

            Now please stop denying climate change. Let’s instead discuss what to do about it.

          • #12 by brewski on March 10, 2014 - 7:39 pm

            what page?

          • #13 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2014 - 11:13 pm

            You’re telling me you don’t know how to do a keyword search? Page 2285.

          • #14 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 7:34 am

            1. The document is not searchable, I tried.
            2. The 0.2 degrees quoted on page 2285 is not global temperature annual standard deviation. Are you telling me you don’t know how to read?

          • #15 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 9:10 am

            Use Edit–> Find in your browser, or download the PDF and search using Adobe Acrobat Reader.

            You demanded a standard deviation, after which you would presumably then start accepting climate change as a fact. I gave you one. Here’s the quote:

            For example, Brohan et al. (2006) estimate that the standard error for individual station observations is 0.2°C, and typically the signal standard deviation is at least that magnitude. However, because of the large number of monthly individual LST observations that error component is greatly reduced and this crude estimate is adequate for these tests.

            So the authors took a standard deviation from station data and applied it across a global dataset.

            Please, please please join the reality-based community. The facts of global warming are in. You can’t avoid discussion of what to do by denying there is a problem.

          • #16 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 9:41 am

            Actually no, that is not what you provided. I understand that you are innumerate and don’t know the difference between the standard deviation and a hole in the ground, but the number you referenced is not even close to what I asked for. And I understand that you don’t understand. It’s not your fault. You just aren’t educated.

            Please please please join the numerate community.

          • #17 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 10:27 am

            I work with remote sensing imagery, which means I deal with standard deviations every day.

            You are pretending to be interested in statistical measures in order to keep denying that the world’s biggest problem even exists.

            That’s beyond bizarre.

          • #18 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 10:50 am

            Then why did you entirely misquote that document? You are either innumerate or dishonest. Your choice.

          • #19 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 11:44 am

            Ya got me. Global warming is a compete hoax, and the standard deviation proves it. 🙁

  4. #20 by Dennis Ware on March 10, 2014 - 2:22 pm

    NOAA? C’mon, the public has no faith in the integrity of anything American and Federal anymore. There is no point in using them to sell the Snake oil. To much bald face lying and unconstitutional acts to have any faith in this outfits claims by simple association.

    Even so, A warmer world is going to be fine, only downside might be lower human populations. That’s not really a downside given the increasing pile of all kinds of human excrement.

    The alternative would be same old Earth you seem to be afraid of losing that spawned these billions of excrement makers. Thinking that since humans have no self regulating features then the hard wired environmental ones will be forced to take hold.

    Ta ta..to many people..the current paradigm is very entropic, and not sustainable..check that..it is sustainable, but probably not with us in it.

  5. #22 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 11:53 am

    28 Reasons Why 28 Senators Are Talking About Climate Change All Night

    Thirty senators ended up participating in the event. We have a long way to go, but at least some of our elected officials understand climate change is happening.

  6. #23 by Dennis Ware on March 11, 2014 - 12:22 pm

    Sure, I’d be talking about snake oil if all that was happening is emerging deepening recession and Putin handing us our ass on a regular basis.

    They need to get elected is perhaps the most cogent reason to talk about that which they can nothing about. That way they cannot be blamed. Election year, steer clear of anything that might be demonstrably true.

    Climate change has been a pretty endemic condition on Earth. We and life adapt, or do not.

    • #24 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 12:55 pm

      If only you had one actual fact to back up any of that. 😉

  7. #25 by Dennis Ware on March 11, 2014 - 4:18 pm

    So Putin isn’t handing obama his ass? Richard?

    No warming for the last 17 years says the IPCC.

    http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5331 Heck they even use NOAA’s data. It’s a hoot!!

    Politicians running from difficult truths? That not too hard for Americans to believe with congressional approval running at what, 15%?

    Finally, I doubt any geologist worth his salt would disagree that climate change is endemic to the Earth. If you doubt it, find me a geologist who will attest that it is not.

    You seem to have plenty of time.

    • #26 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 7:31 am


      1. The Neocons are wrong. Putin isn’t a nice guy, but the Cold War is over for good. It’s not a zero-sum game of USA vs. Russia.

      2. The IPCC never said what you say they said. The atmosphere is warming more slowly than originally predicted, but this explained by ocean warming.

      Source: Skeptical Science

      3. Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the IPCC. Any scientist will tell you that this rapid climate change is unprecedented as far as we know.

  8. #27 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 8:38 am

    Richard, the scary predictions are that the last five years of flat-lined temperatures were caused by both ocean warming and solar oscillation. Both of which happen in shortish cycles with regularity. So then when both cycles reverse that the next five years will see a dramatic acceleration in global warming. So we will see it all very soon.

    BTW, I hope you are vegan now because anyone who isn’t vegan is personally causing the problem.


    • #28 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 11:59 am

      Hallelujah! You just contradicted the entire Republican Party. Now that you have acknowledged global warming, we can talk about what to do about it.

      • #29 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 12:18 pm

        I am not a Republican. I voted for Gary Johnson last time. I don’t know what is your obsession with trying to associate me with others who I don’t agree with. I also don’t ever listen to Hannity, Rush or anyone else you keep ascribing me to. I have never quoted them once. Ever. You on the other hand love posting uncritically what every left wing paid hack ever says.

        Are you vegan?

        • #30 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 12:29 pm

          Gary Johnson (February 2010):

          For argument’s sake, global warming is happening, it’s man-caused. That given, I think the effects of it are grossly exaggerated and I think the amount of money we’re looking to spend on it is grossly, grossly misguided.”

          Is that your position?

          • #31 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 12:45 pm

            Not exactly, no.

            Please quote me and not someone else.

          • #32 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 3:20 pm

            Tell me your position, and then I can quote you.

          • #33 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 3:47 pm

            You are lacking for quotes from me?

          • #34 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 4:37 pm

            I haven’t gotten a clear statement of your position on global warming, no. Before today, I would have said you thought it was a myth.

  9. #35 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 8:43 am

    It is also interesting to note how some kinds of pollution caused global cooling before 1970. The fine particulate pollution from coal created the opposite of the greenhouse gas effect. It was by cleaning up the air that we increased global warming. Falls into the category of unintended consequences.


    • #36 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 12:07 pm

      That would fall into the category of unintentional geo-engineering, and the same has been said for volcanic ash. But I would be very surprised if a climate scientist said we ought to keep burning coal. Fossil fuels are causing the problem.

      Now that we all agree that global warming is real, we can start talking about whether there might be some engineering solutions. The potential risks are big – therefore, most environmentalists oppose any geo-engineering that can’t be reversed quickly. Also, some people worry that politicians will latch onto geo-engineering as an alternative to reducing carbon emissions.

      On a small scale, where I work on the Wasatch Plateau, they have had some success increasing snowfall by cloud seeding. Maybe we can think globally and act locally to mitigate the effects as well as the overall severity of climate change.

  10. #37 by Dennis Ware on March 14, 2014 - 8:21 am

    Since the end of glacial maximum about 13,000 years ago the total volume of ice melted in that time span is 80 million cubic kilometers.

    Since ice can’t be if it’s too warm, and ice has been melting steady and in gushers over that time span, probably safe to say the world has been warming.

    To wit, whatever caused that volume of ice to melt well before man had any carbon based industry would be well worth investigating.

    • #38 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2014 - 9:59 am

      The problem is the time scale of the current glacier melting. Daniel Fagre, U.S. Geological Survey Global Change Research Program:

      “Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime.”

  11. #39 by Dennis Ware on March 14, 2014 - 8:39 am

    Vail has been cloud seeding using silver iodide for many years. Take the container of the stuff and cook it in a propane receiver, let it vent into the oncoming storms.

    They have had success in getting more snow, though if they miss the mark in storm timing then it was a wash. Much less of an occurrence now that meteorology and communications are so advanced.

  12. #40 by Dennis Ware on March 14, 2014 - 5:12 pm

    Are you kidding? The melt down and then destruction of Lake Agazziz would have no equivalent today even if all the ice on Earth melted, which it isn’t…due to the warmer temps snow is piling up massively in Antarctica, far more than has ever been seen in human observable history. All the old unattended structures from the olden days are buried under snow, which will turn to ice after compaction….forever. No saving them.

    The man’s assessment is inaccurate, as there were 100 yr periods of melting where the observed rise in Sea Level was over 40 inches. We have observed a 5 inch rise depending on who you talk to in our last century. No comparison to the “natural” melt down. At all.

  13. #41 by Dennis Ware on March 14, 2014 - 9:35 pm

    …and sure Putin is no nice guy, these “climate change” numbers have been cooked so many times about all they are good for is a college cafeteria.

    Suffice it to say their models are roundly failed by any scientific standard and must be questioned. The idea that now the atmosphere is now warming due to ocean warming has many explanations.

    Are you now saying that ocean CO2 is warming the oceans under the same flawed principle that the claim is made it warms the atmosphere? Even if it were and that is pretty unlikely..you do know that the Earth during the Cretaceous experienced 6, times, 1700 ppm, the CO2 in the atmosphere as we have now. So much life it made coal beds, some well over a hundred feet thick. What’s your worry?

    A better explanation could be that there are an estimated 30,000 active submerged volcanoes in the Pacific alone. More found almost constantly..any increase in their activity would warm the ocean basins for sure..30,000 already known..

  14. #42 by Dennis Ware on March 14, 2014 - 9:41 pm

    This is new Cold War, but with a much more deadly component than the old. All the WMD’s are in place and Russia is fully capable of tactically thumping us badly.

    The difference is now..our enemies have vast sums of our own money. Game over if they want to, and China sees the “obama shit sanwich” on their plate every bit as much as Russia. We have so many enemies now, and ambivalent allies we’re glued, screwed and tattooed when it comes to the ridiculous attempts to roll the world as we are now.

    Russia just hacked and took over one of our drones in Crimea. Flying a 140 mph drone over the about the most sophisticated air defense system on Earth. It’s ridiculous. The hypocrisy is utterly astounding.

  15. #43 by cav on March 15, 2014 - 11:44 am

    You write as though there weren’t a whole nuther layer of ‘shadow governors’ above the ‘National’, who don’t see Putin and Obama as their own little proxies.

    In any event, the populations are far to the rear in any sort of democratic processes that may be trotted out in justification of checking the trigger mechanisms of the latest addition to the arsenals…

  16. #44 by Dennis Ware on March 15, 2014 - 12:13 pm

    I believe what we are seeing is a nationalist, backed by the Institutions of his ancient nation, namely the Orthodox Catholic church, and Russia as historical patron of the areas now, not so much in question but actively fomented to coup by terror, and financial backing from the West.

    Putin is having none of it. TOPOL tests, full air drill, active SAM sites..yeah, Bear is out of hibernation.

    Obama has followed his CFR masters advice, their goal to encircle and isolate Russia with any type of proxy stooges, and not too particular in just what kind of scum buckets they are..from jihadis in Libya, Syria, to meddling in Ukraine..there is not place where the West under US dominance is perpetually shitting and then stepping in it..blaming those they shit on.

    To the outside world, if it were not so unbelievably violent, it would be laughable.

    I’d imagine the rest of the world is bracing itself for another outburst of violence from the USA and their on their knees henchmen.

  17. #45 by Dennis Ware on March 15, 2014 - 12:35 pm


    there is not a place where the West under US dominance isn’t perpetually shitting and then stepping in it..blaming those they shit on.

    I’d imagine the rest of the world is bracing itself for another outburst of violence from the USA and their on their knees henchmen.

  18. #46 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2014 - 1:34 pm


    Keep on commenting, it’s never dull. But you might consider using links to your sources of information.

  19. #47 by Dennis Ware on March 15, 2014 - 1:56 pm

    Is anyone responsible for looking after Richard here onsite?

    Who is he talking about?

    What will come in the near future should suffice as proof enough. We are a laughingstock.

  20. #48 by Dennis Ware on March 15, 2014 - 2:28 pm

  21. #49 by Dennis Ware on March 15, 2014 - 2:46 pm

    This is going to be some good times…


    Worth watching..we are led by evil bumblers.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: