Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[ggies07]

Past and future global transformation of terrestrial ecosystems under climate change

Science Magazine publishes study which predicts massive changes in ecosystem.

Earth is about to transform into an unrecognizable, alien world

Have you been able to find this edition of Science in stores? I checked Barnes and Noble and they do not sell it...and I really do not want to have to pay $15 for a physical copy or $30 for a digital one.

The second article talks about the study, but doesn't go into detail.

 

[mspohr]

Have you been able to find this edition of Science in stores? I checked Barnes and Noble and they do not sell it...and I really do not want to have to pay $15 for a physical copy or $30 for a digital one.

The second article talks about the study, but doesn't go into detail.

Welcome to the world of free enterprise where even public knowledge is locked up.
I did find a pdf copy of the article thanks to the University of York:
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135148/1/EcoSIA_Revision_Final_Combined.pdf

 

[ggies07]

Welcome to the world of free enterprise where even public knowledge is locked up.
I did find a pdf copy of the article thanks to the University of York:
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135148/1/EcoSIA_Revision_Final_Combined.pdf

awesome, thanks!

 

[SageBrush]

Welcome to the world of free enterprise where even public knowledge is locked up.

I read the other day that the EU has decided that their publicly funded science may no longer be published behind a paywall.
They will have to fund the publishing and peer review mechanisms. I hope it happens since the USA is doing a fast retreat to the Dark ages courtesy of the Trumpers.

 

[jrad6515]

How is global warming impacting your hometown?

I found it curious that their database only goes back to 1960 when there is good data going back to 1895 for the continental US. Now I know why:

 

[mspohr]

I found it curious that their database only goes back to 1960 when there is good data going back to 1895 for the continental US. Now I know why:

Even The BBC is shutting down deniers
“You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
"The four-page briefing note sent by Unsworth starts with a blunt statement on the science: “Climate change IS happening.” It also covers the implications of global warming: “There is a general consensus that it could be devastating in many different ways.” It ends with “common misconceptions” used to deny manmade warming, including that “not all scientists think manmade climate change is real” and “climate change has happened before”.

BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’
BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’

 

[mspohr]

Since this thread and others are frequently sidetracked by climate change denial posts, I have started a new thread for the discussion of the existence of climate change. Hopefully we can funnel all discussion of the existence of climate change to that thread and keep this thread for a discussion of the effects of climate change and future climate change.
It would be good if we could move all posts discussing the existence of climate change to this new thread to avoid derailing productive discussion.

Climate Change Denial - Discuss

 

[rays427]

Even The BBC is shutting down deniers
“You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
"The four-page briefing note sent by Unsworth starts with a blunt statement on the science: “Climate change IS happening.” It also covers the implications of global warming: “There is a general consensus that it could be devastating in many different ways.” It ends with “common misconceptions” used to deny manmade warming, including that “not all scientists think manmade climate change is real” and “climate change has happened before”.

BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’
BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’

So, do you think the news should only consider those that agree that man made warming is going to be catastrophic? Almost everyone including those labeled deniers believe that it is getting warmer and some of it is man made. The difference is what amount is man made and what is natural. Where I live in northern California it has definitely warmed since I moved here about 20 years ago. So I looked at the records going back to the early 1900s. I was surprised that nine of the twelve record monthly highs were in 1930s and 40s. All time high was 111 degrees in 1933. The other three monthly highs were in 1951, 1972 and 2007. The measured temperature records in the US show that it was warmer in the 1930s and 40s than today. The temperatures then plummeted until about 1960. If this happened in the past I assume it could happen again. Now I understand this is only the US and the rest of the world could be different. However there have been many huge temperature swings in the past well before man was burning fossil fuels. I personally think there is some man made global warming but some is natural. I also believe global cooling would be worse for humanity than global warming.

 

[ohmman]

So, do you think the news should only consider those that agree that man made warming is going to be catastrophic? Almost everyone including those labeled deniers believe that it is getting warmer and some of it is man made. The difference is what amount is man made and what is natural. Where I live in northern California it has definitely warmed since I moved here about 20 years ago. So I looked at the records going back to the early 1900s. I was surprised that nine of the twelve record monthly highs were in 1930s and 40s. All time high was 111 degrees in 1933. The other three monthly highs were in 1951, 1972 and 2007. The measured temperature records in the US show that it was warmer in the 1930s and 40s than today. The temperatures then plummeted until about 1960. If this happened in the past I assume it could happen again. Now I understand this is only the US and the rest of the world could be different. However there have been many huge temperature swings in the past well before man was burning fossil fuels. I personally think there is some man made global warming but some is natural. I also believe global cooling would be worse for humanity than global warming.

Here is for the state of California. But of course, we're talking about global warming, not Northern California warming specifically. The important thing to note is not the single high spikes, it's the mean trend.

Here's a departure from average chart:

Visualizations are a much better way to perceive trends compared to looking at discrete data points.

 

[mspohr]

So, do you think the news should only consider those that agree that man made warming is going to be catastrophic? Almost everyone including those labeled deniers believe that it is getting warmer and some of it is man made. The difference is what amount is man made and what is natural. Where I live in northern California it has definitely warmed since I moved here about 20 years ago. So I looked at the records going back to the early 1900s. I was surprised that nine of the twelve record monthly highs were in 1930s and 40s. All time high was 111 degrees in 1933. The other three monthly highs were in 1951, 1972 and 2007. The measured temperature records in the US show that it was warmer in the 1930s and 40s than today. The temperatures then plummeted until about 1960. If this happened in the past I assume it could happen again. Now I understand this is only the US and the rest of the world could be different. However there have been many huge temperature swings in the past well before man was burning fossil fuels. I personally think there is some man made global warming but some is natural. I also believe global cooling would be worse for humanity than global warming.

When you have a scientist making any statement (The earth is round, The sky is blue, etc.) you don't need to have a rebuttal to that statement in the same article. Let the flat earth and red sky people do their own science.
I'd like to keep this thread about the EFFECTS of climate change, not about the EXISTENCE of climate change. I started another thread for that discussion.
Climate Change Denial - Discuss

 

[nwdiver]

So, do you think the news should only consider those that agree that man made warming is going to be catastrophic? Almost everyone including those labeled deniers believe that it is getting warmer and some of it is man made. The difference is what amount is man made and what is natural. Where I live in northern California it has definitely warmed since I moved here about 20 years ago. So I looked at the records going back to the early 1900s. I was surprised that nine of the twelve record monthly highs were in 1930s and 40s. All time high was 111 degrees in 1933. The other three monthly highs were in 1951, 1972 and 2007. The measured temperature records in the US show that it was warmer in the 1930s and 40s than today. The temperatures then plummeted until about 1960. If this happened in the past I assume it could happen again. Now I understand this is only the US and the rest of the world could be different. However there have been many huge temperature swings in the past well before man was burning fossil fuels. I personally think there is some man made global warming but some is natural. I also believe global cooling would be worse for humanity than global warming.

.... in your own words describe what the GLOBAL part of GLOBAL warming means.......

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

So, do you think the news should only consider those that agree that man made warming is going to be catastrophic? Almost everyone including those labeled deniers believe that it is getting warmer and some of it is man made. The difference is what amount is man made and what is natural. Where I live in northern California it has definitely warmed since I moved here about 20 years ago. So I looked at the records going back to the early 1900s. I was surprised that nine of the twelve record monthly highs were in 1930s and 40s. All time high was 111 degrees in 1933. The other three monthly highs were in 1951, 1972 and 2007. The measured temperature records in the US show that it was warmer in the 1930s and 40s than today. The temperatures then plummeted until about 1960. If this happened in the past I assume it could happen again. Now I understand this is only the US and the rest of the world could be different. However there have been many huge temperature swings in the past well before man was burning fossil fuels. I personally think there is some man made global warming but some is natural. I also believe global cooling would be worse for humanity than global warming.

Ohmman explained it well above.

So what can I add?

More than 97% of the climate scientists on this planet say that humanity is behind the current global warming! And the rest have never had a credible alternate explanation.

For decades now it's been kind of weird reading stuff like what you are posting...

Mobile phones work because of science.
Airplanes fly because of science.
Heart surgery on infants is possible because of science.
You and me posting here is possible because of science.

But for some surreal reason you just can't listen to the 97% consensus among climate scientists…

 

[nwdiver]

More than 97% of the climate scientists on this planet say that humanity is behind the current global warming! And the rest have never had a credible alternate explanation.

97%: AGW is real because of the physical properties of CO2

3%: AGW isn't real because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The reason some people find the 3% more persuasive is called cognitive dissonance...

 

[ohmman]

I think denialism is based in a similar psychology to conspiracy theorism. The idea that you know more than the masses, that there’s a secret and you’re “in” on it. Also that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes but you’re too smart to allow it to happen. These psychological motivations are strong, so I understand the drive. The question is how to combat it.

 

[nwdiver]

I think denialism is based in a similar psychology to conspiracy theorism. The idea that you know more than the masses, that there’s a secret and you’re “in” on it. Also that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes but you’re too smart to allow it to happen. These psychological motivations are strong, so I understand the drive. The question is how to combat it.

I subscribe to the idea that most deniers reject the problem because they don't like the moral imperative accepting it creates.

 

[ohmman]

I subscribe to the idea that most deniers reject the problem because they don't like the moral imperative accepting it creates.

I certainly think that’s a piece as well.

By the way, apologies to @mspohr who created a specific thread for this discussion.

 

[SageBrush]

Almost everyone including those labeled deniers believe that it is getting warmer and some of it is man made

I've noticed this cute side-step.

"It's getting warmer (but that is natural !)"
""Some of it is man-made (but we don't know how much ... and it is probably negligible, so we can ignore it)"

Yes, you should definitely be shunted off to a quiet corner with a dunce cap.
The sad thing is, I already know the future denialists position: "Who was correct does not matter. Mitigation now!!"
You won't even have the courage to accept responsibility for your stupidity and short-sightedness.

 

[SageBrush]

I subscribe to the idea that most deniers reject the problem because they don't like the moral imperative accepting it creates.

Nah. Too complicated.

Denialism is rooted in petty greed. Small minded, ignorant people who are afraid that something they want or have will be restricted.

 

[rays427]

97% of scientists agree there is global warming but they do not agree that it is all man made nor will it be catastrophic. If you think all the current warming is caused by man then what caused the warming and cooling in the past?

 

[SDRick]

Is the video (above) Climate Change Fraud at the NY Times actually based on fraudulent data or is the data correct but the conclusion misrepresented?