Half of last year’s extreme weather — including the triple-digit temperatures of America’s July heatwave — were due in part to climate change, new research said on Thursday. The study [PDF], edited by scientists from NOAA and the U.K. Met Office, detected the fingerprints of climate change on about half of the 12 most extreme weather events of 2012. Find out more with John Iadarola!
What do you think about this new research? Let me know in the comments!
And don’t forget guys if you like this video please Like Favorite and Share it with your friends to show your support – It really helps us out! See you next time!
*****************************************************
SUBSCRIBE for more videos throughout the week! http://tinyurl.com/d5o5tg3
ON FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/TYTUniversity
ON TWITTER: @jiadarola
Every week John Iadarola recaps some of the most interesting news stories covering politics world events entertainment tech and more!
http://youtube.com/user/johniadarola
********************************************************************************
TAGS: “global warming extreme weather” “climate change extreme weather” “extreme weather events” “hurricane” “drought” “global warming effects” “global warming consequences” “climate change effects” “Climate Change Affected HALF of Extreme Weather Events in 2013?” “climate change study” “climate science” “global warming study” “huffington post” “huffington” “political news” “media news” “politics” “news” “john iadarola” “the young turks” “tytu” “tytuniversity”
source
49 comments
The taxes collected are submitted directly by countries like Australia that till a week ago had the highest tax in the world
It was reported an insider leaked it on Monday the 9th of September included such doosies as AUS scientists questioned the IPCC report assessments & impact "Leak confirmed forecasts of imminent doom were wrong" The effect on temperatures of higher carbon emission "May have been exaggerated" Scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect "Is deeply submerged within planet Earths natural variations of temperature" I can't see any reason to falsify the report can you
Hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha…..you actually believe that!!!! Provide one piece of evidence please. Explain how this body, the UN, with no powers to interfere in domestic policy without agreement from the country imposes and collects taxes? Australia's carbon tax was a tax put in place by the Australian government and collected by the Australian government. The UN didn't enter into it.
I don't know who's "interpreting" your news for you but I'd suggest reading the report for yourself. Scientists are more convinced of man's role and have confirmed their concern over pretty much everything previously reported
Your "deeply submerged" quote is not from the IPCC and is a false statement. In the short term AGW can be hidden or enhanced by natural variation but over time the warming is there. We are closer to understanding why there is a surface slow down, it's likely ENSO
Guess why some are growing? More snow due to AGW putting more moisture in the air. However, overall the land ice is in retreat by a massive margin.
Show me where, in any IPCC Report, that it was said a Pacific Island would be completely submerged by now.
First of all you're going to need to link your source. Second of all, I have actually taken an entire year's course on climatology and AGW, so I've seen the evidence and examined it in grueling detail so I can comment on those statements assuming what you said is not fabricated. The first two statements are perfectly likely, considering there are thousands of models and some predict worse outcomes than others. The second does not fit with the evidence whatsoever, so who said that?
In fact it was Bob Brown of the Greens who explained how it worked I was already aware the UN wanted funds from it. There is a clip on you tube where he explains how it works you will have to locate it. He claimed it will be a great thing for 3rd world countries
First it was reported ion all Australian newspapers Britain's daily mail. So you are doing a course run by true believers who won't hear the word nay to any of their theories. Every time you see a so called climate scientist. Its the same thing no facts absolutely no proof & every statement. We Think possibly it may we believe our model could happen I think but not one shred of proof
So since your sources have said this was all in the IPCC report you will now be able to link us to the specific sections where they make those statements, right?
Reality is your sources are crap and you're listening to one of journalism's biggest liars. And these days, that's saying something. You've got to stop listening to the ABC crowd (Anything But Carbon) they just make stuff up
Right……that's because the Greens are the government and secretly run the government, eh?. (sarcasm)
Yes, some people like the idea. In reality, depending on the details, I don't have a problem with the concept. However how and if that would be done is up to national governments own policies. But I'll settle for something that just addresses my own nations carbon addiction first. Whichever political or economic theory it's based on doesn't matter. It just needs to work
We were told this by Australia's Guru Tim Flannery the usual crap the guy who gave us such beauts as Australia will run out of water in 3 years, the islands of the pacific will be under water within 10 years. He just got sacked about bloody time
Time to catch on its a scam billions at stake you still sit there & think they won't tell a bold faced lie
Oh please. The scam claim is ludicrous. There's simply far too many people involved in the science and far too many lines of evidence supporting AGW. Governments have dithered and only occasionally tried substantive action. It's obvious they aren't cheer leaders. In fact as we see in Australia political parties use anti-science to win elections
Does government lie? Sure, but lots of evidence they aren't this time. OTOH the guys who support and fund climate denial are lying (Murdoch, Kochs, etc)
Oh please there are far too many people who have no climate Qualifications purporting to be Climate Scientists "Established Fact" Why would an insider expose the truth simple they were no doubt aware a scam was about to be pulled The evidence is all against CC the "Official report" claiming CC is 98% confirmed is pure BS there are Hundred's of billions in funds for the UN involved perhaps Trillions people are murdered daily for the contents of their wallet.
When they are finally exposed it will be "We acted on best evidence" sorry we spent the money!
Sorry bud, but there is almost no chance that they're wrong. There will be refinements and maybe if we are extremely lucky it will warm a little slower than we think and we'll have more time to act. But I doubt it will be significant enough. The evidence is simply too strong
I've noticed you avoid science like the plague.
LOL, what amazes me about you conspiracy nuts is exactly what you project at me. I'll follow the evidence where ever it goes but all you present is unsubstantiated claims and ad hominem attacks.
My previous comment is simply based on historical precedent. Once a theory becomes so well supported by evidence it never gets overturned it gets improved upon. Newton was not as right as Einstein but he was right enough to get a space craft to the moon and back. You are following the false prophets
Find a new God
I don't have one but I'd suggest you find a new one.Your claims to be an atheist don't seem to preclude you from accepting ideas on blind faith
A little-known US-based climate sceptic called Alec Rawls, who had been accepted by the IPCC to be one of the report's 800 expert reviewers, admitted to leaking the document. In a statement posted online, he sought to justify the leak: "The addition of one single sentence [discussing the influence of cosmic rays on the earth's climate] demands the release of the whole.
That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole."
add the usual start & finish
stopgreensuicide
Searching
Leaked UN IPCC Climate Report will bring up numerous hits
A) Anyone can be a reviewer of the IPCC report. All you have to do is sign a confidentiality agreement. Rawls is not a climate scientist.
B) His claim one sentence justified breaking that oath evaporates when you read the sentence: "Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system…The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations,…"
….implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link"
So what it's saying is of the small effect the sun may be having on a warming climate there is a possible small role for GCRs. Of course later on they say, "…there is medium evidence and high agreement that the [GCR] mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of [cloud condensation nuclei] or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way"
Meanwhile the leak also says, ""There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI [total solar irradiance] and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2."
Bottom line, those who took Rawls at his word display their gullibility.
Gee seeking sources that use such politically biased phrasing will give me so many unbiased assessments. Have you looked at the alternative interpretations to these reports?
Its also odd how we have volcanoes that according to real scientists spew out more pollution than the entire human race somehow the planet cleans it up . Nature has its own mechanisms for dealing with this kind of thing
I've already read enough of your idiot box citations. Delusional conspiracy quacks who are simply useful idiots for the denialosphere.
Until you can actually show there is a problem with the science your ravings about conspiracies simply show how deluded and easily led you are
Which scientists say that? The USGS (and I can cite more specific study if you like) humans emit 100x the CO2 every year as volcanoes. bit*ly/15aRFNu
Remember that Icelandic volcano a few years back? It grounded airplanes and thus kept more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it put in.
"That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty.."
Actually considering what the draft actually said it was an astounding bit of dishonesty. But then coming from a regular guest poster on Watts up With That and a right wing libertarian that isn't to surprising that he tried to start a few false memes a few weeks before the actual release. He knew the weak minded would just take up the call without checking to see if it was true
As I said that's one link there are dozens more to check he posted the whole thing
You said he felt one line justified breaking his confidentiality agreement. I've shown he was completely wrong. Then you made the completely mythical volcanoes claim. Have you actually read the draft, I did….makes even more sense to read the actual AR5 report. I've done that too. Every pseudo-skeptical claim is baseless, but you won't be told that if you only read people who mistake science as environmentalism
He is an accredited reviewer its more than just one sentence try reading more than the pro view view.
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought – and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007 Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated . I have ben browsing while downloading the report the language used is fantastic to say the least
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower. The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
In fact what you have is a select group all True believers with no anti views allowed to influence the decision. Its like the Pope saying to priests the Bible is the word of god & they agree
"They admit large parts of the world…"
Large parts? There were parts. Have you seen the PAGES2K paleoclimate reconstruction? Global. The most extensive yet. The MWP is dead. It was a period of regional warming and yes in some places similar or warmer to the globe today. But it wasn't global. Neither was the LIA.
"computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice…"
Uh,……no. The models show little change for decades bit*ly/15RHL0j
If you'd like to here Judith Curry, famous critic of the IPCC explain why you're wrong see this interview here: bit*ly/1780S6L Two other studies that agree with her (Zhang 2007, Bintanga et al. 2013).
If you'd like to see the influence of the ozone hole on winds which breaks up sea ice and creates more area to freeze read: (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).
"Scientists…computers may have exaggerated"
You really don't understand climate models do you? Yes it has warmed less than projected in AR4 but that's not surprising as models don't predict short term. The long term the warming trend has barely budged
Models didn't get the 15-year time span covering the years 1992 through 2006 either. During that period the rate of warming was 0.28 deg.C/decade. And if you are looking at the IPCC report you'll see the models are still well within the range
"IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated… – and not taken enough notice of natural variability"
As well noted in the other IPCC reports short term trends can overwhelm CO2 forcing. But then the trend reverses and it exaggerates it just like 1992 through 2006. The long term trend underlies it all. They can't predict short term things like ENSO and said so long ago. It's simply deniers taking an honest report and twisting language
"with no anti views allowed to influence the decision"
And the next post you'll be telling me about more IPCC scientists who are skeptics. Would you like me to list all the contrarian scientists who have participated? Or the contrarian papers cited? All you're doing is bitching that because the vast majority of scientist find the AGW evidence compelling they must be blindly following. Meanwhile you continue to cite non-scientists like Rose of the Daily Mail.
You have the locations to check do it. The IPCC will not hire anyone who's opinion differs from what is expected
You apparently don't know much about the IPCC. They don't hire people. Scientists are put forward by national governments. They volunteer to do the job
John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Jr., Roy Spencer are among the people who disagree with the IPCC who have been lead author or contributors to the IPCC Report.
You are repeating myths. You should do your own research.
I am well aware of how the incompetents are selected. No qualifications no experience, falsify, lie, deceive to get the answer that gets the next grant or pay check. Climate change is a con & a lie wake up
So rather than be able to actually defend your allegations you simply slink off into ad hominems and conspiracy theory. The IPCC scientists are highly qualified, there is not a single substantiated example of lying, nor any evidence grants are made based upon presumed outcome.
You've been conned by the deniers. You should wake up and free yourself from the echochamber
There is plenty of proof that climate change is a farce unfortunately as a zealot you only want to hear its all true. Call me back when reality hits 7 they finally admit they had it all wrong. if you remember 10 years ago it was confirmed as all linked to sun spot activity. Natural variations that have never been recorded before are being presented as some kind of calamity
If there's plenty of proof you should be able to provide it quite easily. I notice you avoid doing this
While there will be improvements in understanding there is no chance they are entirely wrong. If we fail to act the best we can hope for is a currently unknown force saving us.
"10 years ago it was confirmed as all linked to sun spot activity"
When? Where? Just hearing one outlier make a claim does not mean it is accepted science. We've known it is most likely man's CO2 for several decades now
There's been years of tons of extreme weather before humans even existed, no basis just propaganda.
Comments are closed.