Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[mspohr]

I heard someone say the best thing to do for the environment is not to have children.

If you're going to have children that consume meat, fossil fuels and lots of plastic; might be best to skip them.
However, you and your children can live a much lower impact life.

 

[mspohr]

Palm Oil Was Supposed to Help Save the Planet. Instead It Unleashed a Catastrophe. Palm Oil Was Supposed to Help Save the Planet. Instead It Unleashed a Catastrophe.

More unintended consequences.

 

[SageBrush]

If you're going to have children that consume meat, fossil fuels and lots of plastic; might be best to skip them.
However, you and your children can live a much lower impact life.

Same goes for the parents

 

[dhrivnak]

You mean in addition to the nearly 300 papers referenced here that hypothesized incipient global cooling, imminent or otherwise back in the 70's?:

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs

I was studying life sciences in the mid 70's and there most definitely was a consensus favoring global cooling at the time. I bought it and was wrong. Even NASA and the CIA were on board. They were wrong too. I think the same thing is going on now with all the AGW hysteria. Unfortunately we won't know for another thousand years or so what the right answer is.

I read through a number of those papers and only found one to reference an ice age and the timeline was 1000 years. Most mentioned aerosols and mentioned that it appeared aerosols were overpowering CO2 which they were and those were a major contributor to acid rain. We cleaned up the aerosols and since then have more clearly seen the warming of CO2. None of the papers were calling for a near term ice age.

 

[ohmman]

For sure there are some instrumentation biases in the data that are not that big. They were also present before the big global cooling scare in the 70's. They pale in comparison to the warming biases in climate station data due to poor siting and UHI effects. Whatever the case, virtually all of the warming over the last century is man-made - i.e. scientists fiddling with the data. The govt's unmanipulated raw data, which I have posted, shows virtually no warming since the late 1800's. CO2 of course has increased significantly during this period of little/no warming.

Here is a great summary of the corrupt data tampering by NASA/NOAA in recent years:

History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

That's an opinion piece simply because it attributes these changes not to the science used, but to a conspiratorial decision by government agencies. You simply misunderstand adjustments and TOBS as they are done by scientists all over the world, government related or not.

Here is a post by Judith Curry (someone in your camp, by the way) on why adjustments are done:

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

Perhaps coming from a climate "skeptic" this will resonate a bit with you. But you must admit that the piece you posted has no science in it. It has observations about changes and then draws some conspiratorial conclusion instead of trying to understand the reasoning. I'm going to keep leaning on your claim of having three science degrees, because I'm speaking with you with that expectation. If I'm mistaken and you're untrained in science, let me know.

 

[mspohr]

Climate change 'will inflict substantial damages on US lives'
Climate change 'will inflict substantial damages on US lives'

Included in the dozens of draft report chapters:

• The summary states the “earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities. The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future.”
  

• Average sea levels along the US coast have increased by around 9in since the early 20th century as the oceans have warmed and land ice has melted. If emissions are not constrained, “many coastal communities will be transformed by the latter part of this century”.
  

• Fisheries, tourism, human health and public safety are being “transformed, degraded or lost due in part to climate change impacts, particularly sea level rise and higher numbers of extreme weather events”.
  

• Wildfires have burned at least 3.7m acres in the US in all but three years from 2000 to 2016. “More frequent and larger wildfires, combined with increasing development at the wildland-urban interface portend increasing risks to property and human life,” the report states.
  

• More than 100m people in the US live in places with poor air quality and climate change will “worsen existing air pollution levels”. Increased wildfire smoke risks heightening respiratory and cardiovascular problems, while the prevalence of asthma and hay fever is also likely to rise.
  

• Major groundwater supplies have declined over the last century, with this decrease accelerating since 2001. “Significant changes in water quantity and quality are evident across the country,” the report finds.
  

• Climate change will “disrupt many areas of life” by hurting the US economy, affecting trade and exacerbating overseas conflicts. Low-income and marginalized communities will be worst hit.
  

Climate has changed, it will get worse. Perhaps it's better to start making changes rather than arguing the minutia of arcane studies.

 

[S'toon]

You mean in addition to the nearly 300 papers referenced here that hypothesized incipient global cooling, imminent or otherwise back in the 70's?:

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs

I was studying life sciences in the mid 70's and there most definitely was a consensus favoring global cooling at the time. I bought it and was wrong. Even NASA and the CIA were on board. They were wrong too. I think the same thing is going on now with all the AGW hysteria. Unfortunately we won't know for another thousand years or so what the right answer is.

Incorrect. Most of the papers in the 1970s predicted global warming. The global ice age papers got the press because they were the ones that stood out from the rest, and that's what sells.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

 

[rays427]

Climate change 'will inflict substantial damages on US lives'
Climate change 'will inflict substantial damages on US lives'

Included in the dozens of draft report chapters:

• The summary states the “earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities. The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future.”

• Average sea levels along the US coast have increased by around 9in since the early 20th century as the oceans have warmed and land ice has melted. If emissions are not constrained, “many coastal communities will be transformed by the latter part of this century”.

• Fisheries, tourism, human health and public safety are being “transformed, degraded or lost due in part to climate change impacts, particularly sea level rise and higher numbers of extreme weather events”.

• Wildfires have burned at least 3.7m acres in the US in all but three years from 2000 to 2016. “More frequent and larger wildfires, combined with increasing development at the wildland-urban interface portend increasing risks to property and human life,” the report states.

• More than 100m people in the US live in places with poor air quality and climate change will “worsen existing air pollution levels”. Increased wildfire smoke risks heightening respiratory and cardiovascular problems, while the prevalence of asthma and hay fever is also likely to rise.

• Major groundwater supplies have declined over the last century, with this decrease accelerating since 2001. “Significant changes in water quantity and quality are evident across the country,” the report finds.

• Climate change will “disrupt many areas of life” by hurting the US economy, affecting trade and exacerbating overseas conflicts. Low-income and marginalized communities will be worst hit.

Climate has changed, it will get worse. Perhaps it's better to start making changes rather than arguing the minutia of arcane studies.

I don't think using wildfires as a recent problem is very credible. From 2000-2017 3.7 million to 10.1 million acres per year have burned. However from 1926 to 1950 the lowest was 15.4 million with a high of over 50 million acres. The 1930's averaged 38 million acres per year. The drastic drop in acres burned starting in the 40's was due to aggressive fire suppression efforts. This has greatly increased the fuel load which is allows the fires to spread much faster and much more difficult to put out. More trees per acre also make the trees more susceptible to drought and disease. So smoke risk is much less than in the past.

 

[jrad6515]

That's an opinion piece simply because it attributes these changes not to the science used, but to a conspiratorial decision by government agencies. You simply misunderstand adjustments and TOBS as they are done by scientists all over the world, government related or not.

Here is a post by Judith Curry (someone in your camp, by the way) on why adjustments are done:

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

Perhaps coming from a climate "skeptic" this will resonate a bit with you. But you must admit that the piece you posted has no science in it. It has observations about changes and then draws some conspiratorial conclusion instead of trying to understand the reasoning. I'm going to keep leaning on your claim of having three science degrees, because I'm speaking with you with that expectation. If I'm mistaken and you're untrained in science, let me know.

Thanks for the condescending reply, particularly the last paragraph. I notice that you claim no science is in the article yet you can't refute any of it. BTW, you are wrong about TOBS. It is a theoretical problem but not an issue in practice using empirical data. Once again, Tony Heller to the rescue, with real empiric data (not theoretical models) to back it up:

The Wildly Fraudulent TOBS Temperature Adjustment | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

 

[mspohr]

Health effects of diesel 'cost European taxpayers billions'
Health effects of diesel 'cost European taxpayers billions'

 

[mspohr]

To do list for climate change (mandatory or die)

Five Big Ways the United States Will Need to Adapt to Climate Change Five Big Ways the United States Will Need to Adapt to Climate Change

 

[mspohr]

The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial Opinion | The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial
---- From the article...
The assessment basically confirms, with a great deal of additional detail, what anyone following climate science already knew: Climate change poses a major threat to the nation, and some of its adverse effects are already being felt. For example, the report, written before the latest California disaster, highlights the growing risks of wildfire in the Southwest; global warming, not failure to rake the leaves, is why the fires are getting ever bigger and more dangerous.

Denying climate change, no matter what the evidence, has become a core Republican principle. And it’s worth trying to understand both how that happened and the sheer depravity involved in being a denialist at this point.

But there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers. And denying science for profit, political advantage or ego satisfaction is not O.K.; when failure to act on the science may have terrible consequences, denial is, as I said, depraved.

Indeed, it’s depravity, on a scale that makes cancer denial seem trivial. Smoking kills people, and tobacco companies that tried to confuse the public about that reality were being evil. But climate change isn’t just killing people; it may well kill civilization. Trying to confuse the public about that is evil on a whole different level. Don’t some of these people have children?

 

[Unpilot]

Thanks for the condescending reply, particularly the last paragraph. I notice that you claim no science is in the article yet you can't refute any of it. BTW, you are wrong about TOBS. It is a theoretical problem but not an issue in practice using empirical data. Once again, Tony Heller to the rescue, with real empiric data (not theoretical models) to back it up:

The Wildly Fraudulent TOBS Temperature Adjustment | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

This Tony Heller?

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/

 

[ohmman]

Thanks for the condescending reply, particularly the last paragraph. I notice that you claim no science is in the article yet you can't refute any of it. BTW, you are wrong about TOBS. It is a theoretical problem but not an issue in practice using empirical data.

There's nothing to refute. There are no scientific claims. Tell me what they are, and I'll address them. Also, tell me why TOBS bias so closely matches pairwise homogenization. Hint: because it's a good model.

Don't hide behind the "condescending" term. I've been nothing but open. You want to accept my invite to a public science debate? I'm happy to be schooled, as I love to learn. And your posts indicate that you have fact and science on your side, so I'm sure to learn a lot. One off posts in this thread that don't address data science aren't getting your point across.

 

[mspohr]

We need to do better, folks:

CO2 Emissions Rose for the First Time in 4 Years

The UN released a report in October that said that we would have to fundamentally restructure our systems of production and political power in order to take the action necessary to meet the goals set in the climate accord. Even that report was too optimistic.

 

[nwdiver]

Thanks for the condescending reply, particularly the last paragraph. I notice that you claim no science is in the article yet you can't refute any of it. BTW, you are wrong about TOBS. It is a theoretical problem but not an issue in practice using empirical data. Once again, Tony Heller to the rescue, with real empiric data (not theoretical models) to back it up:

The Wildly Fraudulent TOBS Temperature Adjustment | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

LOL... love the anomaly hunting... odd how they never address the FACTS. Probably because they don't fit their narrative. Pathetic.

Which fact do you think is not true?

1) CO2 levels have risen >40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted more than twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise
3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in global average temperature of >3C​

The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

 

[mspohr]

It's official! No facts, please.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS SAYS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S ‘RADICAL’ CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT IS ‘NOT BASED ON FACTS’

Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the Trump administration’s own climate change report “radical” and “not based on facts”

 

[Zaxxon]

The best thing you can do to stop climate change is to vote against Republicans

 

[ggies07]

It's official! No facts, please.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS SAYS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S ‘RADICAL’ CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT IS ‘NOT BASED ON FACTS’

Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the Trump administration’s own climate change report “radical” and “not based on facts”

We need a mad button. Holy *sugar*. ****ing stupid people are running this country. Its extremely hard to be happy and enjoy the holidays when our species is destroying our world....

 

[ggies07]

Good job CNN!

CNN Aired A Live ‘Facts First’ Graphic To Contradict Sarah Huckabee Sanders On Climate Change

CNN Airs Live Facts First Graphic To Contradict Sarah Huckabee Sanders