Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Swampgator]

Quote IPCC here -- or are you just playing a game since under 100% certainty is 'maybe' ?

A little hostile Sir. Note their language specifically. "extremely likely that more than half." That is not the language of science. That is political language.

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

 

[mspohr]

Shell is not a green saviour. It’s a planetary death machine

Shell is not a green saviour. It’s a planetary death machine | George Monbiot

It is hard to believe it needs stating, but it does. The oil industry is not your friend. Whatever it might say about its ethical credentials, while it continues to invest in fossil fuels, it accelerates climate breakdown and the death of the habitable planet. You would think this point was obvious to everyone

Shell is a company committed for the long term to fossil fuel production – which is another way of saying ecocide.

But the IPCC also makes it clear that natural climate solutions do not compensate for the continued release of greenhouse gases. We also need immediate and drastic cuts in fossil fuel production. To sustain a habitable planet, we must leave fossil fuels in the ground and protect and rewild living systems. The age of offsets is over

 

[mspohr]

Action on air pollution works but far more is needed, study shows

Action on air pollution works but far more is needed, study shows

Government action can cut air pollution, a long-term study has shown, with early deaths linked to dirty air in the UK falling by half between 1970 and 2010.

But toxic air remains the number one environmental health hazard, with one in 20 deaths still attributable to small particle pollution alone. The researchers said urgent action was needed to deal with a public health emergency that caused harm comparable to alcohol.

 

[winfield100]

Please check your sources. That website is run by climate alarmists. Should I quote to you excepts from Watts up with that? That would be the equivalent and you would reject it.

@Swampgator
rather than the last 67 million years of temps, which are important, you, and I, should be concerned about the last 100 and next 100 years, including sea level rise.
Heat waves of 40 degrees C in south of france,
Heat wave in India "The highest temperatures occurred in Churu, Rajasthan, reaching up to 50.8 °C (123.4 °F)"
Heat wave in the Arctic (87 degrees F) (ice melty)
There are going to a lot of "wet feet" refugees fleeing to higher ground, if they survive
look at a map of the _country_ of bangladesh, ~200 miles inland it's 20 ft above sea level, a single hurricane/typhoon would/could wipe out the entire country
Since you are in Florida
Remember hurricane Andrew, 1992, devestated S Florida
it was a tiny hurricane compared to Irma, 4-5 times larger
tiny hurricane compared to Maria, Michael
(how much of Puerto Rico still lacks electricity close to a year afterwards)(much less the abaondoned, ignored Florida panhandle, poor folks, ignored)
I cannot convince you about the facts of AGW, which __IS__ occurring and will devastate humanity
I would suggest you make plans to move to higher ground, perhaps, visit Tilghman island in the Chesapeak bay, a place where everyone marries their cousins and shows intriguing examples of genetic drift, and is about 1 ft above sea level

 

[Swampgator]

The issue with this chart is the timescale and that CO2 is not the only factor in earth's temperature. It's way too coarse for what happened over the past 150 years.

The validity of science is in repeatability. When there are many independent studies--particularly from independent governments and political organizations (WHO for example) that don't get along with each other all that well--and they all get the same results, it's not bullying by consensus, it's validation.

I was responding specifically to his comments on CO2. The chart shows that there is NOT a direct correlation between CO2 and Temperature in the Earth's history. Even during the past 150 years. For example: CO2 increased 25 ppm between 1940 and 1980. But the global mean temperature DECREASED during that time period. Then , from 1980 to present CO2 levels increased by something like 50 ppm, and GMT increased. You would say, ahh, see, that is proof that the temperature increase was caused by CO2. And I would say then what happened in the 40 years prior. What you see here is a correlation. Repeat after me kids: Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Swampgator]

@Swampgator
rather than the last 67 million years of temps, which are important, you, and I, should be concerned about the last 100 and next 100 years, including sea level rise.
Heat waves of 40 degrees C in south of france,
Heat wave in India "The highest temperatures occurred in Churu, Rajasthan, reaching up to 50.8 °C (123.4 °F)"
Heat wave in the Arctic (87 degrees F) (ice melty)
There are going to a lot of "wet feet" refugees fleeing to higher ground
Since you are in Florida
Remember hurricane Andrew, 1992, devestated S Florida
it was a tiny hurricane compared to Irma, 4-5 times larger
tiny hurricane compared to Maria, Michael
(how much of Puerto Rico still lacks electricity close to a year afterwards)
I cannot convince you about the facts of AGW, which __IS__ occurring and will devastate humanity
I would suggest you make plans to move to higher ground, perhaps, visit Tilghman island in the Chesapeak bay, a place where everyone marries their cousins and shows intriguing examples of genetic drift, and is about 1 ft above sea level

There is no evidence that the current warming has led to an increase in extreme weather events. Period. This is a direct quote from your IPCC Gods: "Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy"

I like how you finish with ad hominum with the inbreeding comments. Classy my friend.

 

[winfield100]

There is no evidence that the current warming has led to an increase in extreme weather events. Period. This is a direct quote from your IPCC Gods: "Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy"

I like how you finish with ad hominum with the inbreeding comments. Classy my friend.

Do not accuse me of "ad hominum" arguments when you say
"This is a direct quote from your IPCC Gods: " you are bullying and flailing

Actually, there are.
Atlantic hurricanes and tending further north over the last quarter century, averaging about 100 - 125 miles
the actual number of higher class (stronger) hurricanes is _increasing_, not decreasing.
look at the satellite picture of the eye of typhoon Hyune that devestated to Phillipines
look at satellite pictures of Sandy, Gilbert, Maria, Irma, Matthew, Florence, Maria, etc.
You are doing a "baghdad Bob" denying the increase in power, etc.
AGW is here, is real, is happening, human activity is exacerbating it. period

 

[Swampgator]

There is no evidence that the current warming has led to an increase in extreme weather events. Period. This is a direct quote from your IPCC Gods: "Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy"

I like how you finish with ad hominum with the inbreeding comments. Classy my friend.

Here is a fun question for you: What is the hottest temperature ever recorded in the US, and what year?

Spoiler: Spoiler

134.1 F in 1913, Death Valley

 

[JRP3]

Here is a fun question for you: What is the hottest temperature ever recorded in the US, and what year?

Spoiler: Spoiler

134.1 F in 1913, Death Valley

Here's a fun question for you, what does a single data point mean?

 

[Swampgator]

Actually, there are.
Atlantic hurricanes and tending further north over the last quarter century, averaging about 100 - 125 miles
the actual number of higher class (stronger) hurricanes is _increasing_, not decreasing.
look at the satellite picture of the eye of typhoon Hyune that devestated to Phillipines
look at satellite pictures of Gilbert, Maria, Irma, Matthew, Florence, Maria, etc.
You are doing a "baghdad Bob" denying the increase in power, etc.
AGW is here, is real, is happening, human activity is exacerbating it. period

You bring no evidence to this discussion. You can call me names like Baghdad Bob all you want.
You do realize that when Irma hit in 2017 that broke a 12 year record of no landfalling major US hurricanes? That is the longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane hitting the US. .

 

[SageBrush]

Even IPCC is not 100% sure. They are 51% sure.

It is far past time that you actually read the IPCC. You are grossly misinformed.

 

[Merrill]

I find this thread is missing a major point about the environment, we can argue all we want to about weather we have Global Warming or Climate Change. It seems to me that no matter what you believe would it not be a good thing to help the environment in any way you can. Let’s put all the efforts that we spend arguing into doing something good.

 

[Dr. J]

A little hostile Sir. Note their language specifically. "extremely likely that more than half." That is not the language of science. That is political language.

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

That is the language of statistics.

 

[Swampgator]

It is far past time that you actually read the IPCC. You are grossly misinformed.

I quoted the direct language from the IPCC 5th assessment up thread. Maybe you missed it?

 

[Swampgator]

I find this thread is missing a major point about the environment, we can argue all we want to about weather we have Global Warming or Climate Change. It seems to me that no matter what you believe would it not be a good thing to help the environment in any way you can. Let’s put all the efforts that we spend arguing into doing something good.

I totally agree with you on this point. I drive a Tesla and hate seeing these diesel trucks spewing out black pollution.
I also know that unsubsidized solar is cheaper than coal and gas, as of today. The battery storage costs still need to come down, but they will/are.
When the electricity market shifts completely to solar with battery storage we will all be better off.

 

[Merrill]

I totally agree with you on this point. I drive a Tesla and hate seeing these diesel trucks spewing out black pollution.
Especially when they pull in front of me and spew diesel smoke to show me how stupid they are.

 

[Dr. J]

450 million years ago?? The Ordovician Period
I don't think we know IF there were any land based plants or animals yet.

I was responding to: "Ice ages in the past when CO2 levels were 5X higher than today" Hard to tell what time period he's talking about. He wasn't interested in learning anyway.

 

[SageBrush]

A little hostile Sir. Note their language specifically. "extremely likely that more than half." That is not the language of science. That is political language.

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

you wrote

Has it been proven to be man made? Even IPCC is not 100% sure. They are 51% sure. Sounds like a coin toss.

IPCC is telling you that it is extremely likely that over half of the observed warming is anthropogenic. It is you who does not understand the language of science. IPCC has defined 'extremely likely' as 95 -100% probability.

As the years have passed, the uncertainty has decreased. The latest IPCC summary statement says [my bold]

Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade (high confidence). Global warming is defined in this report as an increase in combined surface air and sea surface temperatures averaged over the globe and over a 30-year period. Unless otherwise specified, warming is expressed relative to the period 1850–1900, used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in AR5. For periods shorter than 30 years, warming refers to the estimated average temperature over the 30 years centred on that shorter period, accounting for the impact of any temperature fluctuations or trend within those 30 years. Accordingly, warming from preindustrial levels to the decade 2006–2015 is assessed to be 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C). Since 2000, the estimated level of human-induced warming has been equal to the level of observed warming with a likely range of ±20% accounting for uncertainty due to contributions from solar and volcanic activity over the historical period (high confidence). {1.2.1}

From a news article,
Since 2001, the IPCC has continuously raised its level of confidence that climate change is man-made to 95 per cent this year, from 90 per cent in 2007 and 66 per cent in 2001.

The IPCC's likelihood scale:

• Virtually certain: 99 to 100 per cent probability
• Extremely likely: Over 95 per cent. According to the IPCC, it is now “extremely likely” that human activity is to blame for climate change
• Very likely: Above 90 per cent
• Likely: Above 66 per cent
• More likely than not: 50 per cent and above
• About as likely as not: Between 33 and 66 per cent
• Unlikely: Zero to 33 per cent
• Very unlikely: Zero to 10 per cent
• Extremely unlikely: Zero to five per cent

 

[Swampgator]

you wrote
IPCC is telling you that it is extremely likely that over half of the observed warming is anthropogenic. It is you who does not understand the language of science. IPCC has defined 'extremely likely' as 95 -100% probability.

As the years have passed, the uncertainty has decreased. The latest IPCC summary statement says [my bold]

You do realize IPCC is a political body? It was formed for the express purpose of forming consensus as to anthropogenic attribution to climate change.
IPCC invented that term "extremely likely"when they couldn't sound alarmist enough with the terms THEY had defined prior to writing the AR5 (see below). Even so, why are they not 100% certain? And "over half" implies 51%. Why not 100%? The IPCC is not science.

 

[Dr. J]

IPCC invented that term "extremely likely"

Not likely. I'm pretty sure other people have used that term in the past.

why are they not 100% certain?

Because there is uncertainty in climate science. As in many areas of human understanding.

And "over half" implies 51%. Why not 100%?

Because it is likely there are other, natural, contributors to warming.

I really don't get why you're hung up on this rather simple statement from the IPCC.