Future heat waves are gonna get much, much worse:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Purdue University climatologist Matthew Huber gets plenty of death threats, but that hasn't stopped him from exploring the outer limits of just how much global warming human beings can tolerate. Whatever our recent Great American Heat Wave (update: make that heat waves) may or may not portend, most credible climate scientists agree that human-caused global warming is real—oh, yes they do!—and most of the research out there, Huber says, predicts dire consequences for people (and other mammals) if average global temperatures rise by 6° Celsius or more.

That could well happen this century: By 2100, Huber points out, the mid-range estimates predict a rise of 3°C to 4°C in average global temperatures based on current economic activities, but those studies ignore accelerating factors like the release of vast quantities of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—now trapped beneath permafrost and sea ice that's becoming less and less permanent. Other models foresee rises in the 10°C range this century; at the outer fringe, predictions range as high as 20°C. Truth is, we simply don't know exactly when we'll reach these milestones or what they will cost us. And thanks to the uncertainty, it's been hard to get nations to agree on limits.

All of this got Huber and Steven Sherwood, his colleague at Australia's University of New South Wales, to thinking: Economic considerations aside, they asked, how much warming can we physiologically tolerate? At what point does it get so bad that our bodies can no longer keep cool, so bad that we can no longer work or play sports or even survive for long out of doors? Will we flee for colder climes? Live underground like hobbits, surviving on warm fungus? Okay, I'm projecting—they didn't actually ponder that last bit that I'm aware of.

more...

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/heat-wave-climate-change-future-matthew-huber-interview

[^_^ 5,021]

get a bigger a/c.

can't afford it?

get a frickin job, hippie!!!!

[rocks 494]

get a bigger a/c.

can't afford it?

get a frickin job, hippie!!!!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161379/This-meaningless-green-drivel-environment-guru-Scientists-U-turn-doomsday-claim.html

[rocks 494]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161379/This-meaningless-green-drivel-environment-guru-Scientists-U-turn-doomsday-claim.html

The Daily Mail, well known for publishing facts and not being conservative. Do you have some Fox News links to back it up?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

more...

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/heat-wave-climate-change-future-matthew-huber-interview

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The Daily Mail, well known for publishing facts and not being conservative. Do you have some Fox News links to back it up?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/04/26/environmentalist_icon_says_he_overstated_climate_change_278467.html

Sure, attack the messenger when you can't dispute the story. Typical leftist tactics when cornered. Are you saying the story is false?

[rocks 494]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/04/26/environmentalist_icon_says_he_overstated_climate_change_278467.html

Sure, attack the messenger when you can't dispute the story. Typical leftist tactics when cornered. Are you saying the story is false?

It's pretty clear what I said. Why are you posting conservative links only? Post something unbiased.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It's pretty clear what I said. Why are you posting conservative links only? Post something unbiased.

Hard to do when any source you would accept ignores anything that violates the mantra. I ask again, are you saying this story is made up? Thought not. Attack the source when you can't dispute the facts.

[rocks 494]

Hard to do when any source you would accept ignores anything that violates the mantra. I ask again, are you saying this story is made up? Thought not. Attack the source when you can't dispute the facts.

I'm saying that conservative media isn't trustworthy. It's pretty simple. I made this clear in my first post. I actually found an article from a credible source on this, shame you were too busy being biased to bother to do that.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I'm saying that conservative media isn't trustworthy. It's pretty simple. I made this clear in my first post. I actually found an article from a credible source on this, shame you were too busy being biased to bother to do that.

So what's your beef then? You seem obsessed with the source rather than dealing with the facts. I already knew the story was factual and I really have no regard for your opinion on the source. In fact I really don't care about anything you think.

[rocks 494]

So what's your beef then? You seem obsessed with the source rather than dealing with the facts. I already knew the story was factual and I really have no regard for your opinion on the source. In fact I really don't care about anything you think.

The facts can only be extracted from a credible source. If you choose to believe biased media, that is your choice. I cannot get the facts from a biased, conservative website.

Edited June 28, 2012 by rocks

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The facts can only be extracted from a credible source. If you choose to believe biased media, that is your choice. I cannot get the facts from a biased, conservative website.

Only from a biased liberal website eh?

Face it. There are NO unbiased news sources any more.I try to look at a range of sources from Huffpo to Fox and draw my own conclusions. Just because I didn't post if from your "approved list" is your problem. But don't kid yourself, unless you go and do the reporting yourself every source is going to be biased in some form or another.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

However, getting back to the OT. Isn't it interesting that the inventor of the concept of the earth as a living being suddenly states that MMGW is a religion and the hysterical greenies are going too far and hurting their cause? I have no objection to honest scientific study but I strongly object to science by hysteria. Stories like the ones Fancypance continuously posts is hysteria in the highest degree. He and his ilk have zero credibility and are rightfully targets of derision and contempt.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from NASA:

Climate change: How do we know?

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

• The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.² Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

• Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.³

References

¹ IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

² In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

³ National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

⁴ Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded

from the CSIRO website.

⁵http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ anomalies/index.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

⁶ T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

⁷ I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

⁸ Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

⁹ L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

¹⁰ National Snow and Ice Data Center

World Glacier Monitoring Service

¹¹ http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html

¹² http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F (Note: The pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.)

¹³ http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

¹⁴ C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

¹⁵ Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/