Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Webeevdrivers]

You're getting an extremely distorted viewpoint.

Yah probably. Makes for tense happy hours though. We are socialist Canadians...its awkward...even though we keep our mouth shut. Not our country, not our business,,,but we can observe.

 

[dhrivnak]

Yah probably. Makes for tense happy hours though. We are socialist Canadians...its awkward...even though we keep our mouth shut. Not our country, not our business,,,but we can observe.

And unfortunately the Trump fan base has a huge following in TN as well. I am working to change that but it is very much an uphill battle.

 

[cpa]

Are you old enough to have driven in LosAngeles, or New York City or similar in the early 1970’s?

Ya gotta go 'way back to the '50s and '60s for LA. There were times when visibility was less than a mile at ground level. Forget about playing outside for hours on end. Breathing became painful. We loved the Santa Anas blowing westward during fall and early winter. The sky was actually blue, and there were beautiful mountains surrounding us.

 

[DragonWatch]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/climate-environment/climate-change-tasmania/

The future path is clear. The tipping point is not clear. What does extinction smell like. We see extinctions fear.

All the money in the world will NOT put “Humpty Dumpty, back together again.” Not even “war chests” of 111 billion dollars.

I suffer from hypothermia, so I enjoy a warmer climate ~ it’s just not all about me unfortunately.

 

[DragonWatch]

Ya gotta go 'way back to the '50s and '60s for LA. There were times when visibility was less than a mile at ground level. Forget about playing outside for hours on end. Breathing became painful. We loved the Santa Anas blowing westward during fall and early winter. The sky was actually blue, and there were beautiful mountains surrounding us.

Back in late ‘80s my detachment (ROTC - Cal State Long Beach) Master Sergeant and I flew a chopper recon from Long Beach down to the destination hill top at Camp Pendleton, California. Besides loving the breeze on my face, I observed from the air, there were NO children out playing anywhere. Not in the streets, not on school grounds and certainly not in the few parks. I did have the pilot circle back around to watch a pod of Bottle Nose Dolphins, at a different location along the coastline though. Two days later we landed in the dark (no lights & pilot missed the power lines) at 2300 hours without weapons for our ranger training road march, when we arrived on the beach at sunrise the Marines met us for the zodiac training and breakfast (MREs). Anyway, I was amazed that there were no children out playing ~ anywhere.

FYI ~ I was born in Upland, CA in ‘49. Ran track and cross country for Hawthorne High (yep, same SpaceX headquarters area). Sucking in that sorry excuse for god made air; well I am lucky I do not have asthma or some ugly lung cancer.

While I did not see our otter yesterday, he/she nosed the water as he left the area. The otter does not appreciate our rescued dog Sadie.

 

[mspohr]

Climate crisis linked to at least 15 $1bn-plus disasters in 2019

Climate crisis linked to at least 15 $1bn-plus disasters in 2019

Climate breakdown played a key role in at least 15 events in 2019 that cost more than $1bn (£760m) in damage, with more than half of those costing more than $10bn each.

 

[rays427]

Climate crisis linked to at least 15 $1bn-plus disasters in 2019

Climate crisis linked to at least 15 $1bn-plus disasters in 2019

Climate breakdown played a key role in at least 15 events in 2019 that cost more than $1bn (£760m) in damage, with more than half of those costing more than $10bn each.

Wow, climate change played a key role in all major climate events. I wonder what caused all the the climate disasters in the past before industrialization. Using dollars is not a good indicator because of two things. One is the number of people affected and two is inflation. If you look at statistics there are no more major climate events now than in the past.

 

[mspohr]

Opinion | The Party That Ruined the Planet

But why have Republicans become the party of climate doom? Money is an important part of the answer: In the current cycle Republicans have received 97 percent of political contributions from the coal industry, 88 percent from oil and gas. And this doesn’t even count the wing nut welfare offered by institutions supported by the Koch brothers and other fossil-fuel moguls

However, I don’t believe that it’s just about the money. My sense is that right-wingers believe, probably correctly, that there’s a sort of halo effect surrounding any form of public action. Once you accept that we need policies to protect the environment, you’re more likely to accept the idea that we should have policies to ensure access to health care, child care, and more. So the government must be prevented from doing anything good, lest it legitimize a broader progressive agenda.

 

[winfield100]

Wow, climate change played a key role in all major climate events. I wonder what caused all the the climate disasters in the past before industrialization. Using dollars is not a good indicator because of two things. One is the number of people affected and two is inflation. If you look at statistics there are no more major climate events now than in the past.

@rays427
Ok, that is certainly a bold statement made with no backing citations.
Please amplify with actual examples, perhaps include some bona fides from your CV to bolster your arguments
Thank you

 

[ggies07]

This is a great mini doc from my hometown of Dallas that takes a conservative skeptic and shows him how the climate is changing. You get to see over time how his views change and how he finally understands what is going on.

 

[rays427]

@rays427
Ok, that is certainly a bold statement made with no backing citations.
Please amplify with actual examples, perhaps include some bona fides from your CV to bolster your arguments
Thank you

OK, here it is directly from the 2018 IPCC Report:
Climate Extremes and ImpactsThere is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. Confidence inobserved changes in extremes depends on the quality and quantity of data and the availability of studiesanalyzing these data, which vary across regions and for different extremes. Assigning ‘low confidence’ inobserved changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes thepossibility of changes in this extreme. Extreme events are rare, which means there are few data available to makeassessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity. The more rare the event the more difficult it is to identifylong-term changes. Global-scale trends in a specific extreme may be either more reliable (e.g., for temperatureextremes) or less reliable (e.g., for droughts) than some regional-scale trends, depending on the geographical uniformityof the trends in the specific extreme. The following paragraphs provide further details for specific climate extremesfrom observations since 1950. [3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.2.1]It is very likelythat there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3and an overall increasein the number of warm days and nights,3at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likelythat these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is mediumconfidencein a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in dailytemperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from lowto mediumdepending on the region. Inmany (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidencethat the length or numberof warm spells or heat waves3has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likelythat more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional andsubregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]There is low confidencein any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likelythat there has beena poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidenceinobserved trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities andinadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]There is medium confidencethat some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, inparticular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]There is limitedto medium evidenceavailable to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude andfrequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations arelimited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,there is low agreementin this evidence, and thus overall low confidenceat the global scale regarding even the sign ofthese changes. [3.5.2]____________3See SREX Glossary for definition of these terms: cold days / cold nights, warm days / warm nights, and warm spell – heat wave.9Summary for PolicymakersIt is likelythat there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in mean sea level.[3.5.3]There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, includingincreases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likelythat anthropogenic influences have ledto warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidencethat anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It islikely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase inmean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physicalmechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provideonly low confidencefor the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenicinfluences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2,3.4.4, 3.5.3, Table 3-1]Disaster LossesEconomic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters have increased, but with large spatial andinterannual variability (high confidence, based on high agreement, medium evidence).Global weather- andclimate-related disaster losses reported over the last few decades reflect mainly monetized direct damages to assets,and are unequally distributed. Estimates of annual losses have ranged since 1980 from a few US$ billion to above200 billion (in 2010 dollars), with the highest value for 2005 (the year of Hurricane Katrina). Loss estimates are lower-bound estimates because many impacts, such as loss of human lives, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services, aredifficult to value and monetize, and thus they are poorly reflected in estimates of losses. Impacts on the informal orundocumented economy as well as indirect economic effects can be very important in some areas and sectors, but aregenerally not counted in reported estimates of losses. [4.5.1, 4.5.3, 4.5.4]Economic, including insured, disaster losses associated with weather, climate, and geophysical events4arehigher in developed countries. Fatality rates and economic losses expressed as a proportion of grossdomestic product (GDP) are higher in developing countries (high confidence). During the period from 1970 to2008, over 95% of deaths from natural disasters occurred in developing countries. Middle-income countries with rapidlyexpanding asset bases have borne the largest burden. During the period from 2001 to 2006, losses amounted to about1% of GDP for middle-income countries, while this ratio has been about 0.3% of GDP for low-income countries andless than 0.1% of GDP for high-income countries, based on limited evidence. In small exposed countries, particularlysmall island developing states, losses expressed as a percentage of GDP have been particularly high, exceeding 1% inmany cases and 8% in the most extreme cases, averaged over both disaster and non-disaster years for the period from1970 to 2010. [4.5.2, 4.5.4]Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases ineconomic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economicdisaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change,but a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence). These conclusionsare subject to a number of limitations in studies to date. Vulnerability is a key factor in disaster losses, yet it is not wellaccounted for. Other limitations are: (i) data availability, as most data are available for standard economic sectors indeveloped countries; and (ii) type of hazards studied, as most studies focus on cyclones, where confidence in observedtrends and attribution of changes to human influence is low. The second conclusion is subject to additional limitationsiii) the processes used to adjust loss data over time, and (iv) record le

 

[winfield100]

OK, here it is directly from the 2018 IPCC Report:
Climate Extremes and ImpactsThere is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. Confidence inobserved changes in extremes depends on the quality and quantity of data and the availability of studiesanalyzing these data, which vary across regions and for different extremes. Assigning ‘low confidence’ inobserved changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes thepossibility of changes in this extreme. Extreme events are rare, which means there are few data available to makeassessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity. The more rare the event the more difficult it is to identifylong-term changes. Global-scale trends in a specific extreme may be either more reliable (e.g., for temperatureextremes) or less reliable (e.g., for droughts) than some regional-scale trends, depending on the geographical uniformityof the trends in the specific extreme. The following paragraphs provide further details for specific climate extremesfrom observations since 1950. [3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.2.1]It is very likelythat there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3and an overall increasein the number of warm days and nights,3at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likelythat these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is mediumconfidencein a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in dailytemperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from lowto mediumdepending on the region. Inmany (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidencethat the length or numberof warm spells or heat waves3has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likelythat more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional andsubregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]There is low confidencein any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likelythat there has beena poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidenceinobserved trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities andinadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]There is medium confidencethat some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, inparticular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]There is limitedto medium evidenceavailable to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude andfrequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations arelimited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,there is low agreementin this evidence, and thus overall low confidenceat the global scale regarding even the sign ofthese changes. [3.5.2]____________3See SREX Glossary for definition of these terms: cold days / cold nights, warm days / warm nights, and warm spell – heat wave.9Summary for PolicymakersIt is likelythat there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in mean sea level.[3.5.3]There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, includingincreases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likelythat anthropogenic influences have ledto warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidencethat anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It islikely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase inmean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physicalmechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provideonly low confidencefor the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenicinfluences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2,3.4.4, 3.5.3, Table 3-1]Disaster LossesEconomic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters have increased, but with large spatial andinterannual variability (high confidence, based on high agreement, medium evidence).Global weather- andclimate-related disaster losses reported over the last few decades reflect mainly monetized direct damages to assets,and are unequally distributed. Estimates of annual losses have ranged since 1980 from a few US$ billion to above200 billion (in 2010 dollars), with the highest value for 2005 (the year of Hurricane Katrina). Loss estimates are lower-bound estimates because many impacts, such as loss of human lives, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services, aredifficult to value and monetize, and thus they are poorly reflected in estimates of losses. Impacts on the informal orundocumented economy as well as indirect economic effects can be very important in some areas and sectors, but aregenerally not counted in reported estimates of losses. [4.5.1, 4.5.3, 4.5.4]Economic, including insured, disaster losses associated with weather, climate, and geophysical events4arehigher in developed countries. Fatality rates and economic losses expressed as a proportion of grossdomestic product (GDP) are higher in developing countries (high confidence). During the period from 1970 to2008, over 95% of deaths from natural disasters occurred in developing countries. Middle-income countries with rapidlyexpanding asset bases have borne the largest burden. During the period from 2001 to 2006, losses amounted to about1% of GDP for middle-income countries, while this ratio has been about 0.3% of GDP for low-income countries andless than 0.1% of GDP for high-income countries, based on limited evidence. In small exposed countries, particularlysmall island developing states, losses expressed as a percentage of GDP have been particularly high, exceeding 1% inmany cases and 8% in the most extreme cases, averaged over both disaster and non-disaster years for the period from1970 to 2010. [4.5.2, 4.5.4]Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases ineconomic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economicdisaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change,but a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence). These conclusionsare subject to a number of limitations in studies to date. Vulnerability is a key factor in disaster losses, yet it is not wellaccounted for. Other limitations are: (i) data availability, as most data are available for standard economic sectors indeveloped countries; and (ii) type of hazards studied, as most studies focus on cyclones, where confidence in observedtrends and attribution of changes to human influence is low. The second conclusion is subject to additional limitationsiii) the processes used to adjust loss data over time, and (iv) record le

@rays427
Thank you for the citations, formatting and all.
Basically, they seem to be saying climate change “has not been excluded” things are worse
What exactly are _you_ saying?
I’m saying humans are exacerbating climate change, for the worse, as we pump more Carbon CO2 and CH4 compounds into the atmosphere.

 

[rays427]

@rays427
Thank you for the citations, formatting and all.
Basically, they seem to be saying climate change “has not been excluded” things are worse
What exactly are _you_ saying?
I’m saying humans are exacerbating climate change, for the worse, as we pump more Carbon CO2 and CH4 compounds into the atmosphere.

I just copied it from the PDF so sorry about the formatting. From what I read it says they can't see that as yet is it causing increases in major catastrophic weather events.

 

[winfield100]

I just copied it from the PDF so sorry about the formatting. From what I read it says they can't see that as yet is it causing increases in major catastrophic weather events.

@rays427
Take a look at various satellite photos of hurricanes over the last 40 years
Gilbert filled the entire Caribbean
Andrew in1982 was a Catagory 5
Irma in 2017 was a catagory 5, yet about 4 times diameter
Typhoon Hyune that hit the Philippines was a monster
The trillions of gallons that fell upon Texas from 1 hurricane
You would drown if you tried to ice skate where we did regularly 60 years ago
I think you fail to understand the caveats scientists put in papers vs what they say more in private.
If you would be so kind as to elaborate upon your scientific knowledge post secondary school

A lot of climate change is exacerbated by humans and made far worse

 

[nwdiver]

@wjax The other thread was closed before you could 'enlighten' us. You claimed the 70s cooling 'consensus' was no different that todays warming consensus.

Can you explain to the forum why a few people thought there was going to be cooling in the 70s, why they were wrong, why we think there will be warming going forward and why you think the 'Alarmists' are wrong? Simple questions... can you answer them?

 

[winfield100]

@rays427
Take a look at various satellite photos of hurricanes over the last 40 years
Gilbert filled the entire Caribbean
Andrew in1982 was a Catagory 5
Irma in 2017 was a catagory 5, yet about 4 times diameter
Typhoon Hyune that hit the Philippines was a monster
The trillions of gallons that fell upon Texas from 1 hurricane
You would drown if you tried to ice skate where we did regularly 60 years ago
I think you fail to understand the caveats scientists put in papers vs what they say more in private.
If you would be so kind as to elaborate upon your scientific knowledge post secondary school

A lot of climate change is exacerbated by humans and made far worse

@wjax
Please elaborate upon your disagree.
Is there anything I said that was incorrect?
You might read some articles from the scientifically refereed journals, such as
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Specifically, “the journal of the Holocene” and perhaps Dr Mann’s article
“”The Holocene is a high impact, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to fundamental scientific research at the interface between the long Quaternary record and the natural and human-induced environmental processes operating at the Earth's surface today. The Holocene emphasizes environmental change over the last ca 11 700 years.”

Discuss the hockey stick paper from 2012
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

“The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
Michael E Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front LinesNew York: Columbia University Press, 2012, 384 pp. hardback. ISBN 978-0-231-15254-9

With the global temperatures continuing to rise, the scientists who bring data to light find themselves under increasing public scrutiny and sometimes have to endure personal attacks. In his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University chronicles the climate change fight by using his personal story, starting with his first forays into the waters as a PhD candidate at Yale University when he and his colleagues developed the hockey stick, a graph that depicts the recent rise in global temperatures.

The prologue provides a nice introduction to the book and what Mann calls the ‘Serengeti Strategy’ that contrarians and deniers of climate change have adopted as a way to try to invalidate climate science by discrediting the leading scientists. The first four chapters of the book focus on the history of climate science, the science behind climate change, and the development of the now-famous hockey stick graph. The chapter on the making of the hockey stick graph provides more detail on his research and how the data were used and analyzed. The tests used to verify the palaeoclimate reconstruction showed that it was not statistically ‘skillful’ prior to ad 1400. It was not, as climate deniers like to argue, to hide the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (or ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’).””


citing _salient_ parts in your refutations, if any


Happy winter solstice, axial tilt is the reason for the season

 

[wjax]

@wjax The other thread was closed before you could 'enlighten' us. You claimed the 70s cooling 'consensus' was no different that todays warming consensus.

Can you explain to the forum why a few people thought there was going to be cooling in the 70s, why they were wrong, why we think there will be warming going forward and why you think the 'Alarmists' are wrong? Simple questions... can you answer them?

Oh that's easy. It wasn't just a "few people" sucked into the global cooling scare it was leading climatologist at universities, NASA, and even the CIA who was concerned enough to write a paper on the subject:

The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600- 1850) – an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

So they were wrong then but you don't think they can be wrong again?

 

[SageBrush]

So they were wrong then but you don't think they can be wrong again?

Who is "they" ?

One published paper ? Sure

Thousands of published papers, and consensus by every scientific body of repute the world over ? No

---
Incidentally, The UW paper you are latching on to was the fruit of one academic, Bryson. His opinions were not shared by his colleagues who wrote

we want to make it absolutely clear that his opinions on global warming are not shared by other scientists at the UW-Madison's Center for Climatic Research and Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.

It is interesting to note the basis of Bryson's conclusions. He thought that air pollution would be a stronger negative forcing than GHG. The spectre of Bryson lives on in people who are considering 'climate engineering', a PC term for dumping enough pollution into the air to prevent sunlight from reaching land.

 

[nwdiver]

Oh that's easy.

Cleary not... 4 simple questions.

1. Why did they think the world was cooling? (What mechanism was supposedly causing it?)
2. Why were they wrong?
3. Why is the consensus that we're warming?
4. Why do YOU think the consensus is wrong?

Not a link. Please answer those 4 questions in YOUR own words.

 

[mspohr]

Convert half of UK farmland to nature, urges top scientist

Convert half of UK farmland to nature, urges top scientist

Boyd said the public were subsidising the livestock industry to produce huge environmental damage. The professor spent seven years at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs before stepping down in August. Half of farmland, mostly uplands and pasture, produces just 20% of the UK’s food and would be better for used other public goods, he said.

Prof Sir Ian Boyd said such a change could mean the amount of cattle and sheep would fall by 90%, with farmers instead being paid for storing carbon dioxide, helping prevent floods and providing beautiful landscapes where people could boost their health and wellbeing.

Farmers argue that uplands and pasture where livestock are reared cannot be used to grow crops. But Boyd said: “It would be much better to store carbon and water, grow trees and make the land available for people to improve their health and welfare.”

“If anybody asked me: ‘If there is one thing I can do to help save the planet, what would it be?’ I would say just eat a lot less meat. It’s the easiest thing to do. I’ve done it.”