Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[winfield100]

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?

@wjax
Did you read the conclusions on page 31 of the paper?
Climate science is “budding science” just starting
They agreed climate was changing, but were unsure how.
They made educated guesses on little data
Make a guess ( thesis) test, modify or discard or accept thesis
Retest
Guess what, a lot did and settled based upon data for AGW

 

[mspohr]

'Mother Nature recovers amazingly fast': reviving Ukraine's rich wetlands

'Mother Nature recovers amazingly fast': reviving Ukraine's rich wetlands

Ornithologist Maxim Yakovlev remembers that prior to the construction of the dams, the local rivers slowly meandered through a rich wetland ecosystem which would store, hold back and slowly release water after heavy rains. “Back then, before the dams, when the ecosystem was functioning properly, we had healthier soil and vegetation,” says Yakovlev, as he skirts the edge of a reeking swamp near the tiny, ancient town of Tatarbunary on the northern fringe of the reserve, a 100-mile (160km) drive south-west of Odessa.

According to Wetlands International, about 64% of the world’s wetlands have disappeared since 1900 and nearly 90% since the start of the industrial revolution.

“Without the dams,” Yakovlev explains, “former polders are being reflooded and the shallow waters and reedbeds will become new spawning grounds and nesting sites for many endangered fish and birds. Upstream in Moldova, work is beginning to improve the river flow there too, so these are exciting times for us.”

 

[wjax]

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.

1. IIRC they thought that solar cycles were the most likely culprit.
2. Apparently because their models were flawed, just like the ones that have been wrong about global warming for the last 30-40 years.
3. We have warmed since the 70's. So what is your point?
4. First, there is no consensus. That is a myth perpetuated by alarmists. Besides, science is not done by consensus. No one has shown that our current temperature pattern is outside of the historical norm. It has been a lot warmer than it is now and CO2 levels have been much higher than current levels for most of earth's history and the earth didn't burn up.

 

[Not Sure]

I'm not sure.
And I think that's a good thing

 

[JRP3]

It has been a lot warmer than it is now and CO2 levels have been much higher than current levels for most of earth's history and the earth didn't burn up.

No one is saying the earth will burn up or that it wasn't warmer in the past. The issue is the rate of change and the impact on the ability of the environment to adapt to that change. Simply put, in the past when it was much hotter there weren't 7+billion humans trying to survive.

 

[SageBrush]

1. IIRC they thought that solar cycles were the most likely culprit.
2. Apparently because their models were flawed, just like the ones that have been wrong about global warming for the last 30-40 years.
3. We have warmed since the 70's. So what is your point?
4. First, there is no consensus. That is a myth perpetuated by alarmists. Besides, science is not done by consensus. No one has shown that our current temperature pattern is outside of the historical norm. It has been a lot warmer than it is now and CO2 levels have been much higher than current levels for most of earth's history and the earth didn't burn up.

Your are completely wrong on every point.

Congrats

 

[nwdiver]

1. IIRC they thought that solar cycles were the most likely culprit.
2. Apparently because their models were flawed, just like the ones that have been wrong about global warming for the last 30-40 years.
3. We have warmed since the 70's. So what is your point?
4. First, there is no consensus. That is a myth perpetuated by alarmists. Besides, science is not done by consensus. No one has shown that our current temperature pattern is outside of the historical norm. It has been a lot warmer than it is now and CO2 levels have been much higher than current levels for most of earth's history and the earth didn't burn up.

1. Incorrect; The increase in SO2 due primarily to burning coal was causing an imbalance in radiative forcing which DOES cause cooling. See: The year without a summer. It was a change in radiative balance.
2. Incorrect; The increase in SO2 was halted in large part due to the Clean Air Act; To be clear only a very small percentage of climate researchers thought SO2 would win over CO2. Here's a paper published in 1979 a prediction of warming is unequivocal. Here's another published in 1896... also predicts warming IF CO2 levels keep rising. So in a sense they weren't 'wrong'; the minority said that IF SO2 keeps rising the Earth will cool (which is 100% True). SO2 stopped rising and the Earth didn't cool. Today they are saying if CO2 levels keep rising the Earth will continue to warm... also.... also 100% True because physics.
3. ???? No.... the fact we've warmed IS NOT why the consensus is that warming will continue.
4. Incorrect; ~97% scientists and ~99.9% of published research agree CO2 is driving a warming climate and science is 100% a consensus from INFORMED opinions. That's what the peer review process is. How else would science be determined? Further... there is no competing hypotheses. Kinda the definition of 'consensus'.... the vast majority agree... the very small minority can't pin point any flaws and don't have an alternative explanation.

No one is saying 'the Earth will burn up'; What the consensus IS saying is that CO2 is altering the radiative balance of the planet causes a whole host of problem that are going to be orders of magnitude more expensive to cope with than simply using alternatives to fools fuel.

So.... WHAT has caused the warming since the 70s? WHY has the Earth warmed since the 70s?

 

[mspohr]

Why Conservatives Who Know Climate Science Is Real Won’t Speak Up

The Republican Party is the only major right-of-center party in the world that refuses to acknowledge the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and rising global temperatures. The major cause of this is one liberals are well aware of: The party’s climate stance is controlled by a combination of fossil-fuel interests and active cranks dissembling about the science. But there is a secondary cause of the GOP’s inability to confront reality that is less understood. Many leading conservatives do understand climate science, yet refuse to frontally challenge their party’s denialism.

But in his next sentence, Williamson pivots to his true concern: Rich people are still using air travel, and some rich people are liberals, and some of the rich liberals are famous. Therefore, somehow none of them can actually believe climate change is a serious problem. Therefore, Williamson gives himself permission to turn the bulk of his attention on the matter away from the procession of massive policy errors driven by the GOP’s lunatic pseudoscience and transparent regulatory capture and focus on the priority: Emma Thompson.

 

[Not Sure]

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong[/URL]
If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?


One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.


Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”


This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case.

 

[nwdiver]

@Not Sure

So what's causing the warming if not the increase in CO2?

The radiative imbalance caused by the increase of CO2 from ~280 to ~400 is ~1.5w/m²;

Annually that's (24)(365)(1.5) = 13.14kWh or 4.7E7 Joules

The Earth is ~510M km² or 510E12 m² so the total annual energy added due to CO2 is

(4.7E7)(510E12) = 2.4E22J/yr

Here is the measured heat anomaly of the ocean which is absorbing ~93% of that energy.

Either global warming is real or that's one hell of a coincidence.....

'Fun Fact' The bomb dropped in Hiroshima was <7.5E16J... so CO2 is adding more energy every second of everyday. Math... sometimes it's terrifying.

 

[Not Sure]

Not "denying" that CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases and may be a factor in climate change.
What I am saying is that there are other factors and that the hysteria against "carbon Pollution" is a distraction from a myriad of other problems that we face. Plastic in the oceans, endocrine disruptors, Nuclear weapons, terrorism, war, natural disasters, disease, religious extremism (including climate extremism) communism, fascism, racism but.....no let's ignore all of that and get into a frenzy about climate change.
Of course climate change is a reality.The last age ended just 12,000 years ago.
I don't think it was car exhausts that caused the ice age to end.

 

[nwdiver]

Not "denying" that CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases and may be a factor in climate change.
What I am saying is that there are other factors and that the hysteria against "carbon Pollution" is a distraction from a myriad of other problems that we face. Plastic in the oceans, endocrine disruptors, Nuclear weapons, terrorism, war, natural disasters, disease, religious extremism (including climate extremism) communism, fascism, racism but.....no let's ignore all of that and get into a frenzy about climate change.
Of course climate change is a reality.The last age ended just 12,000 years ago.
I don't think it was car exhausts that caused the ice age to end.

Yeah... there's a lot of problems. The only one presently capable of causing a mass extinction event is the 40B tons of CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere every year. Maybe nuclear weapons... should we stop focusing on fools fuel reduction until all the nukes are gone? That's seems more than mildly idiotic.

No... it wasn't car exhaust. It was CO2 slowly outgassing from the oceans and increasing in concentration from ~180ppm to ~280ppm over ~1,000 years. That resulted in a ~4C increase in average global temperatures and a rise in sea levels of >200'. We've gone from 280 to 400 in <100 years because of our pathetic addiction to fools fuel. Physics doesn't care where the CO2 comes from. CO2 is CO2.

Think about that..... If a 100ppm rise over ~1,000 years means a 200' rise in sea levels what's the world going to look like when the new equilibrium is reached? We've added more CO2 to the atmosphere artificially due to our pathetic addiction to fools fuel than normally occurs over 10x as much time.

CO2 causes climate change. A pathetic addiction to fools fuel isn't the only source... but it IS a source.

 

[DragonWatch]

2019 could not have been worse on 31 Dec 19. We gratefully had our grand kids (only two) over night the 30th, our anniversary. Before my wife and granddaughter were to head out for yoga, our grandson began spilling the beans.

2019 was a poo storm of a year ~ bottom line. My/our grandson said, “you should never drive by your Oly house ever again.” The new home owners of what was our home for twenty years; cut down the hundred year old cedar tree. It only took six months. There are two hundred year old Doug firs on the other side of the property that are wondering if they are next.

For us, 2020 has no where to go but up.

 

[mspohr]

Australia is becoming a nation of dread – and the world looks on with pity and scorn

Australia is becoming a nation of dread – and the world looks on with pity and scorn | David Marr

As that news sank in this summer an unfamiliar emotion took hold in Australia: not fear so much as dread. These fires are not going out.

We’re used to seeing the bush growing back quickly, green shoots appearing within days on burnt trunks. Eucalypt forests have amazing regenerative powers. But these fires are tearing through ancient forests that have never burnt before. They are done for. And the burnt gums are waiting for rain.

Watch and act, Prime Minister. Watch and act.

If Morrison could face the truth, he might speak not only to his country but the world. If Australia were taking effective action against climate change, this catastrophe would give us the right to demand better of the great rogue states on climate, China and the USA.

We’re doing our bit, he says as the country burns and the world looks on with a mix of pity and scorn.

 

[mspohr]

Why the Fires in Australia Are So Bad Why the Fires in Australia Are So Bad

Record-breaking temperatures, extended drought and strong winds have converged to create disastrous fire conditions.

The devastating start to the fire season confirmed what scientists have been predicting: that Australia’s bush fires will become more frequent and more intense as climate change worsens.

The catastrophic fire conditions have put an intense focus on the Australian government’s failure to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which traps heat when released into the atmosphere.

 

[mspohr]

It matters that we’re in touch with reality. All of which is to say that a cheerful life lived in ignorance of important facts about your situation is worse than a less agreeable one lived with the truth. In a sense, what you don’t know can hurt you.

 

[Chopr147]

Important facts: In 1990, The Washington Post reported in a front page story: "Carbon dioxide is the gas most responsible for predictions that Earth will warm on average by about 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2020."
The outlet further warned: "The United States, because it occupies a large continent in higher latitudes, could warm by as much as 6 degrees Fahrenheit."

Now predictions are 2-5 degree warming by 2100. Luckily for me, I have not been fooled so, not a worry of mine.

 

[Chopr147]

"It's now estimated that by the year 2020, there will be no glaciers of Mt. Kilimanjaro," Christian Lambrechts, an officer at the U.N. Environment Program, told CNN in 2003.

But today, Kilimanjaro's glaciers are still there, according to a 2019 paper in the Journal Ecology and Evolution that includes photos and a new timetable:

Reuters newswire ran this headline in 1997: "'Millions will die' unless climate policies change."

The report said 8 million people would die by 2020, citing a prediction in the Lancet medical journal.

 

[Chopr147]

For me this is a really good question:

None of these predictions came true, and aren't even close to coming true,” said Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It's amazing that the public can continue to believe apocalyptic predictions despite a 95 percent decline in weather-related deaths in the last 100 years.”


“They say climate change causes everything. Some people try to pin the war on Syria on climate change, and then say when all those people die, that's because of climate change. They have a secondary agenda,” Tupy said.


“When people ask you when was the best time to be alive – the answer is, tomorrow,” he added.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!! I sincerely wish everyone a healthy and happy new year.

 

[ladysbff]

2019 could not have been worse on 31 Dec 19. We gratefully had our grand kids (only two) over night the 30th, our anniversary. Before my wife and granddaughter were to head out for yoga, our grandson began spilling the beans.

2019 was a poo storm of a year ~ bottom line. My/our grandson said, “you should never drive by your Oly house ever again.” The new home owners of what was our home for twenty years; cut down the hundred year old cedar tree. It only took six months. There are two hundred year old Doug firs on the other side of the property that are wondering if they are next.

For us, 2020 has no where to go but up.

Sorry to hear that, I'm a bit heartbroken on your behalf! Happy 2020, hope it's filled with pristine second growth Washington forests