Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

The following article was in our local Minnesota paper:

The full article, with any associated images and links can be viewed here:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/227162331.html

Temps go off the charts around 2047, researchers find
SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press


WASHINGTON – Starting in about a decade, Kingston, Jamaica, will probably be off-the-charts hot — permanently. Other places will soon follow. Singapore in 2028. Mexico City in 2031. Cairo in 2036. Phoenix and Honolulu in 2043.
And eventually the whole world in 2047.
A new study on global warming pinpoints the probable dates for when ­cities and ecosystems around the world will regularly experience hotter environments the likes of which they have never seen before.
And for dozens of cities, mostly in the tropics, those dates are a generation or less away.
“This paper is both innovative and sobering,” said Oregon State University Prof. Jane Lubchenco, former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who was not involved in the study.
To arrive at their projections, the researchers used weather observations, computer models and other data to calculate the point at which every year from then on will be warmer than the hottest year ever recorded over the last 150 years.
For example, the world as a whole had its hottest year on record in 2005. The new study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, says that by the year 2047, every year that follows will probably be ­hotter than that record-setting scorcher.
Eventually, the coldest year in a particular city or region will be hotter than the hottest year in its past.
Study author Camilo Mora and his colleagues said they hope this new way of looking at climate change will spur governments to do something before it is too late.
“Now is the time to act,” said another study co-author, Ryan Longman.
Mora, a biological geographer at the University of Hawaii, and colleagues ran simulations from 39 different computer models and looked at hundreds of thousands of species, maps and data points to ask when places will have “an environment like we had never seen before.”
The 2047 date for the whole world is based on continually increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gases. If the world manages to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases, that would be pushed to as late as 2069, according to Mora.
But for now, Mora said, the world is rushing toward the 2047 date.
“One can think of this year as a kind of threshold into a hot new world from which one never goes back,” said Carnegie Institution climate scientist Chris Field, who was not part of the study. “This is really ­dramatic.”
Mora forecasts that the unprecedented heat starts in 2020 with Manokwa, Indonesia. Then Kingston, Jamaica. Within the next two decades, 59 cities will be living in what is essentially a new climate, including Singapore, Havana, Kuala Lumpur and Mexico City.
By 2043, 147 cities — more than half of those studied — will have shifted to a hotter temperature regime that is beyond historical records.
The first U.S. cities to feel that would be Honolulu and Phoenix, followed by San Diego and Orlando in 2046. New York and Washington will get new climates around 2047, with Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, Texas, and Dallas a bit later.
Mora calculated that the last of the 265 cities to move into their new climate will be Anchorage, Alaska — in 2071. There’s a five-year margin of error on the estimates.
Unlike previous research, the study highlights the tropics more than the polar regions. In the tropics, temperatures don’t vary much, so a small increase can have large effects on ecosystems, he said. A 3-degree change is not much to polar regions but is dramatic in the tropics, which hold most of the Earth’s biodiversity, he said.
The Mora team found that by one measurement — ocean acidity — Earth has already crossed the threshold into an entirely new regime. That happened in about 2008, with every year since then more acidic than the old record, according to study co-author Abby Frazier.

Our son emailed this to us:

I’m working with NASA GSFC NCCS and Dr. Tsendgar Lee who’s in part leading the efforts that have come up with these models. It’s the real deal. They’re telling me that we should move to the Northern US for the least amount of impact—taking into account violent storms and change in temperature.

Trent Hassett
Business Development Executive, Enterprise Solutions

Affigent
Streamlining the Business of Government
13873 Park Center Road, Suite 127 | Herndon, VA 20171
www.affigent.com c: 763.567.1757

Yeah... but no. You can't predict climate from computers. And you definitely can't do it by altering the data, cherry picking the data-sets and bullying everyone who is actually out in the field measuring stuff.

Look up Climategate. Download the file and start reading and see just who has been effing around with the data... THEN come back and tell us what you think about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

After that we can look at the real climate record and see what normally happens when the planet does what it has been doing recently.

And if you are REALLY interested, we can have a discussion about what the Sun is up to over the past decade or so.

Oh... and Hansen et al has made at least 8 predictions over the past 5 or so years and they have ALL been way off, so adding the acronym NASA doesn't actually mean much. NOAA, NASA and a variety of alphabet agencies have made a habit of changing the data to get it to show what they want it to.

Even our Bureau of Meteorology in Australia has been altering past data to make it look like it is getting warmer - including adding black to the weather maps so that 25ºC now looks bright red. Still the same temp, but the Joe in the street sees the bright red and thinks, "wow, it's getting hotter"

re: BoM data... go look at the hot days from a few years back when Victoria had the fires. We had a 44.5, 2 days above 45 and a 47. They no longer exist - they got altered a few months later so the next time we get a 45 they can say how hot it is getting.

We got told the 47.3 was the hottest day in 100 years and the 4 days were the hottest 4 days in 105 years... which means, (something most people can't reason out) that 105 years ago they had a hotter 4 days and 47.3 was beaten 100 years back.

So where is the global warming coming from? Clearly can't be from our CO2 now, can it?

Some interesting info you got there Journeyman,

I am not an alarmist, prepper, Chicken Little or anything like that. Just thought it might provide some interesting discussion, opinions, speculations......etc.

To be very honest I don't spend any time worrying about nor researching all this climate stuff. I'm too busy with other pet projects.

Can you summarize the "Climategate" and "Anthropogenic Global Warming" stuff?

I started looking at AP over at the Backyard Liberty site. I don't buy into the doom and gloom portion there, coming food riots, global warming and that sort of stuff but I do believe that with things going the way that are that food is going to get more and more expensive and the quality of produce available may get to be more of a problem. Besides the survival aspect of the site it did have some good info on AP and got me started. That's why I decided to start trying to grow some of my own. We'll see what works out to be true, but whatever it is having SOME control over our food supply sounds to me like a good idea.

More C02, Earth gets warmer, more humidity, rain and plant growth, as well as more cloud and Ozone generating thunderstorms... More oxygen produced by extra plant growth, Ozone and clouds reflect suns radiation, temps cool, less rain... Gaia says "I've got this!"… once again the cycle starts... as it has time and time again... we've just got to STOP, even reverse population growth, or Gaia will do it!

Is this what you are talking about ?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

(moved this to General Banter instead of General System Discussions)

Thanks Dave! I'll have to be more careful where I post stuff.

These conspiracies are coming in thick and fast now...

Climategate......
Nature described the further release as a "poor sequel", and claimed that "it is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context".

True or not, it never hurts to investigate the possibility and take into consideration what to do or how to act in case it is true. Be prepared for the worst, hope for the best. Or does that belong to the thread of interesting quotes?

I spent a few years as it was unfolding...

AGW is the idea that man-made CO2 emissions are triggering global warming. The list of things wrong with the idea is long. But political will (& funding) is behind the idea to the point where a film got a Nobel Prize... and the film is so wrong a UK court ruled it should not be shown as Science in UK schools.

Among the list are:

CO2 absorption of heat is falsely claimed - CO2 absorbs in 3 spectra, (has to do with shape and components of the molecule) 2 of those are minor effects at best, the 3rd is WAY overmatched by water vapour - i.e. the water swamps out any possible CO2 effect.

CO2 absorption is also a logarithmic effect - each doubling of CO2 in the air has half the effect of the previous doubling - we are at the stage now where if we doubled the amount right now, there would be about a 1% change in effect.

Human CO2 is a tiny %age of all living things, all living things are a tiny %age of all CO2 being produced. CO2 in the air is a tiny %age of the gasses in atmosphere.

The ice core and other core samples (lake beds etc) show VERY clearly that, historically, first temps go up THEN CO2 rises - it is consistently between 600 and 1000 years lag. This is the exact opposite of Gore's alarmist movie.

The infamous 'hockey stick' graph used to scare people is not only very poor statistics work (you simply don't add two different data sets and expect it to mean anything - the hockey stick (all the versions) is tree ring proxy data with thermometer temps tacked on for the 20th century) but the data were cherry picked to show what they wanted, contradictory data was removed and the basis for using tree ring data is flawed from the outset. (tree rings indicate good or poor seasons, NOT temp)

To make the case (and here we are getting into Climategate) the main protagonists arbitraily decided people back 60 - 80 years were not able to read thermometers correctly so they altered the data to be cooler than it was recorded as - otherwise they would have to show that 1935 was the warmest year on record and that (in Australia, the years around 1900 were hotter than the past decade or so.

Where the Argo probes and satellites data contradicted their warming dogma, the data was changed to fit their models. Anyone who went and measured stuff was attacked and threatened with funding withdrawal. Peer review was manipulated to deny contradictory findings any air time. People were pressured into changing statements or lose funding. Data sources were withheld from anyone with even an inkling of looking like they wanted to investigate the conclusions of Mann and the other main players.

All this and more is detailed int the Climategate emails. Those emails are a dump from a server or 3 at East Anglia University in Sussex, UK. They show connivance, threats, collusion in cover-up, threats and misuse of public money as well as the alteration of data and conspiracy to commit fraud on grand scale. They SHOULD have resulted in gaol time and fines for a whole lot of 'climatologists' but instead it got swept under the rug - the political types were hot on the trail of being able to tax CO2 and they didn't want to let that go even if the Science was wrong.

The data alterations are ongoing. The raw data shows the last 8 - 10 years has been noticeably cooler than the previous 10. The Sun is playing up - the last time solar activity looked like it does no we had the Maunder Minimum where half of Europe froze and hundreds of thousands died of hunger and disease.

There is a definite correlation between solar activity and Earth temps and because of the AGW dogma, it is being ignored. There are a few still doing real Science and they are mapping just how solar activity affects our climate, but you will not see their papers in the usual journals because politics rules now and 'consensus' decides what truth is.

Nature's comments can be pretty much ignored. The journal is one of yheoffenders in corrputing the peer review system. They are not a disintered party nor even approximately unbiased.

When I am home again I will post a link to the climategate info so people can see just how 'out of context' us 'conpiracy' types are.

Have another read of Nature's comment above & ask yourself, is that really the kind of comment one might expect from a major science journal?

Acolyte's luvverly phone on Tapatalk [url='http://tapatalk.com/m?id=10']now Free[/url]

JM, please don't turn this into another one of those threads....

Gees can everyone around here just chill. It seems that lately everyone wants to shout loudly and defensively about their beliefs, their businesses or their latest blog or informational product. With all this angst it makes reading through the forum not such a pleasant experience...

Hey so JM, with all this pro-pollution stuff you are going on about, you could please list the benefits that the planet, the animals and we humans get from putting these chemicals into the air and water?