Climate Change Report

[tvolsfan]

Climate change denial has little more than a conspiracy theory. The scientific consensus is in.

 

[luthervol]

You’re a scientist?

What? I'm talking about the propaganda posted by Airvol which many were quick to accept as legitimate, and the rebuttal posted by Mick proving that it wasn't.

Do you guys realize this happens constantly (usually without your knowledge) and has been increasingly so for years?

 

[Orangeslice13]

Climate change denial has little more than a conspiracy theory. The scientific consensus is in.

I don’t give 2 ***** about man made climate change. It’s not an immediate threat. Global pollution, specifically of our oceans is a legitimate and immediate threat. Nobody is aware of the problem or cares at all. There’s no money or control over people in solving that problem so as a people we pretend it doesn’t exist.

You want people to believe you about climate change ?

1) stop getting caught faking the data.
2) be right about any predictions.....at all
3) start taking the legitimate problems seriously.
4) spend any money.....because right now there’s none being spent.....on survival of the supposed coming disaster.

It’s insane to believe that a problem is coming and spend 100% of your resources on study and alarmists preaching and 0% on preparation. (Maybe that’s why anyone without an agenda doesn’t believe you)

I’m an actual environmentalists. I have done more for my planet than 100 of the hipsters crying about the climate will ever do.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I don’t give 2 ***** about man made climate change. It’s not an immediate threat. Global pollution, specifically of our oceans is a legitimate and immediate threat. Nobody is aware of the problem or cares at all. There’s no money or control over people in solving that problem so as a people we pretend it doesn’t exist.

You want people to believe you about climate change ?

1) stop getting caught faking the data.
2) be right about any predictions.....at all
3) start taking the legitimate problems seriously.
4) spend any money.....because right now there’s none being spent.....on survival of the supposed coming disaster.

It’s insane to believe that a problem is coming and spend 100% of your resources on study and alarmists preaching and 0% on preparation. (Maybe that’s why anyone without an agenda doesn’t believe you)

I’m an actual environmentalists. I have done more for my planet than 100 of the hipsters crying about the climate will ever do.

This post is 100% spot on.

 

[BartW]

Lol at that temperature model comparison. From the conclusion.

A) they basically admitted a lack of correlation to CO2 levels and temperature change.

B) I’d call the percentage variances large frankly

C) Time constant anybody?! The trend noted in all the graphs was fairly constant! And I’ll bet if you extrapolate it back in time farther that holds true!

A) No I’m afraid you’ve basically admitted a lack of reading comprehension.

B) That’s fine. You can call them whatever you want. Call them peaches. The fact is it doesn’t really matter if real climate sensitivity to CO2 is 30% higher or lower than predicted. Either way we’re still not doing enough to cut emissions. If we are so lucky that lukewarmers are correct then achieving the 2C goal just goes from impossible to very difficult.

C) I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say there. The warming trend goes back to around the start of the industrial revolution - that’s kind of the point. It did pick up as greenhouse gas emissions really started taking off post WWII.

 

[BartW]

Global-warming May Have Been Jump-started By The Tunguska Meteorite Churning Up Atmosphere

I don't know how much you know about Science Daily, but it is well respected. There are several facts in the article.

Fact: Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.

-I'll wait for your refutation

Fact: Water vapor has an affect on climate which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities.

-I'll wait for your to refutation

Fact: The Tunguska event is the largest impact event on Earth in recorded history. Studies have yielded different estimates of the meteoroid's size, on the order of 60 to 190 metres (200 to 620 feet), depending on whether the body was a comet or a denser asteroid.[4] For emphasis: (Largest EVER in recor!)

-I'll wait for your refutation.

Claim: As such, Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km). The Tunguska Event was just such an event, and coincides with the period of time during which global temperatures appear to have been rising the most steadily - the twentieth century.

Guess what? This claim could be wrong. But it doesn't really matter from my perspective. Volcanoes and events like this most certainly affect the amount of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. Whether the Tunguska event triggerd GW, I don't know. It's an interesting hypothesis.

It is interesting, I guess, but WS already pointed out some of the obvious problems with this hypothesis. I just want to chime in and point out that ScienceDaily itself is not a journal; it’s a news website. And at the time that article was posted, in 2006(!), the website was run by two people and just reprinted press releases. I don’t know why the University of Leicester thought that preprint was worthy of a press release. It obviously hadn’t been through peer review, and never even made it into the Russian pop science magazine where the writers were attempting to get it published.

Climate misinformers will run with pretty ridiculous hypotheses and misrepresentations in an effort to blame global warming on anything but greenhouse gas emissions, so it’s telling that the Tunguska idea never gained any traction even in the climate denial blogosphere.

Also, volcanoes release orders of magnitude less CO2 than humans. We can measure this directly and can tell by its isotope ratio that the increased CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion. Large volcanic eruptions generally have a short-term cooling influence due to the sulfate aerosol emissions.

 

[Roustabout]

A) No I’m afraid you’ve basically admitted a lack of reading comprehension.

B) That’s fine. You can call them whatever you want. Call them peaches. The fact is it doesn’t really matter if real climate sensitivity to CO2 is 30% higher or lower than predicted. Either way we’re still not doing enough to cut emissions. If we are so lucky that lukewarmers are correct then achieving the 2C goal just goes from impossible to very difficult.

C) I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say there. The warming trend goes back to around the start of the industrial revolution - that’s kind of the point. It did pick up as greenhouse gas emissions really started taking off post WWII.

What do you mean? Every major auto maker has hybrid and fully electric vehicles coming to market. Coal power was basically given the death knell by Obama. The ridiculous fuel standards have not been rolled back. Just what the **** more should we be doing other than crippling the entire economy?

 

[0nelilreb]

What do you mean? Every major auto maker has hybrid and fully electric vehicles coming to market. Coal power was basically given the death knell by Obama. The ridiculous fuel standards have not been rolled back. Just what the **** more should we be doing other than crippling the entire economy?

Farting cows ? Anybody measured them lately to see how that’s hurting the climate ? Not pigs , goats , horses , sheep , dogs , cats or rats ... just the cows

 

[BartW]

He mocked global warming, not climate change. Many real scientists think we are heading to a cooling phase, not warming.

Lol

The scientists that haven't been blacklisted. Only scientists that follow the talking points get paid.

That’s nonsense. What leads to more funding and a higher salary is groundbreaking research, not confirming the consensus. Anyone that could overturn the consensus on global warming would win a Nobel prize.

Working for an oil company is far more lucrative than working at a university. And even oil companies’ internal research confirms the consensus on climate change.

 

[Roustabout]

It is interesting, I guess, but WS already pointed out some of the obvious problems with this hypothesis. I just want to chime in and point out that ScienceDaily itself is not a journal; it’s a news website. And at the time that article was posted, in 2006(!), the website was run by two people and just reprinted press releases. I don’t know why the University of Leicester thought that preprint was worthy of a press release. It obviously hadn’t been through peer review, and never even made it into the Russian pop science magazine where the writers were attempting to get it published.

Climate misinformers will run with pretty ridiculous hypotheses and misrepresentations in an effort to blame global warming on anything but greenhouse gas emissions, so it’s telling that the Tunguska idea never gained any traction even in the climate denial blogosphere.

Also, volcanoes release orders of magnitude less CO2 than humans. We can measure this directly and can tell by its isotope ratio that the increased CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion. Large volcanic eruptions generally have a short-term cooling influence due to the sulfate aerosol emissions.

I’m very skeptical of these numbers.
Tell me how it’s measured directly. The majority of the earths surface is covered In water and there are likely hundreds if not thousands of gassing vents around the globe.

It’s not just erupting volcanoes that emit CO2.

 

[BartW]

Here you go climatards..

While the conclusions of the paper (and especially the social impact) are overstated by the quoted coauthor and are presented stupidly by CNN, the underlying physical science makes sense. Land use changes do contribute to climate change a tiny bit and have been researched and included in models for years.

When trees grow they suck up CO2. Following large declines in human population such as the bubonic plague and then the spread of disease with European colonialism, reforestation took place in many agricultural areas, leading to a decrease in atmospheric CO2. This probably did contribute to the ~10 ppm drop in CO2 during the LIA. However, that would cause no more than 0.1C cooling, and the small dip in atmospheric CO2 was not the only or even primary cooling influence during the LIA. It was also driven by lower solar output and increased volcanic aerosol emissions. And while the 10 ppm dip is statistically significant, it’s still relatively tiny when you consider we’re increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration by 3 ppm/year.

So to say that European colonialism caused the Little Ice Age etc. is a reach, but the headline that ‘sharp drop in human population *influenced* global climate’ really is not. The real takeaway IMO is that planting trees won’t do much to curb climate change. The study shows that replanting a forest the size of France only offsets about 3 years of CO2 emissions.

 

[BartW]

I guess the new thing is Ice Age deniers.

Seriously though, the earth has been through radical temperature change.

“Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle, while much of the continental United States had a sub-tropical environment.”

This is followed by multiple ice ages. All of these changes occurred when mankind either didn’t exist or had no impact on greenhouse gasses. Even if mankind could affect global temperature, there is likely a number of factors that could easily swing it the other way.

It probably didn’t get a response because it’s not an original thought. This thought boils down to the ‘climate has changed before’ talking point, which is probably the single most common point raised by armchair scientists. It’s also a logical fallacy – non sequitur

The point is not just that climate is changing. The point is that it is changing at a rate 20-50x higher than the highest rates in the geologic record (and in the opposite direction that ‘natural forces’ would dictate). For example, when we came out of the last ice age it took about 10,000 years for the planet to warm 4C. We’ve already warmed 1C over the past 100 years, and could easily add another 3C over the next 100 years under a business-as-usual scenario. Ecosystems cannot keep up with this rate of change. Not to sound alarmist, but we are already in the midst of a significant extinction event, and our rate of greenhouse gas emissions is comparable to that which caused the end-Permian mass extinction, which killed over 90% of marine life. It’s sobering to see these numbers and consider that the greatest mass extinction events are generally characterized by (geologically) rapid warming of about 6-7C.

On a side note, I find it ironic when climate skeptics cite earth history yet crap on paleoclimatology. How do you think those geologists and paleontologists know the conditions during the Paleocene and Eocene? They know by using the same tools that climate scientists use to show that the current warming is unprecedented. These geologists and paleontologists you cite are, in fact, climate scientists themselves.

 

[tumscalcium]

@BartW; Hey man, where are you spending most your time these days?

 

[BartW]

I don’t give 2 ***** about man made climate change. It’s not an immediate threat. Global pollution, specifically of our oceans is a legitimate and immediate threat. Nobody is aware of the problem or cares at all. There’s no money or control over people in solving that problem so as a people we pretend it doesn’t exist.

You want people to believe you about climate change ?

1) stop getting caught faking the data.
2) be right about any predictions.....at all
3) start taking the legitimate problems seriously.
4) spend any money.....because right now there’s none being spent.....on survival of the supposed coming disaster.

It’s insane to believe that a problem is coming and spend 100% of your resources on study and alarmists preaching and 0% on preparation. (Maybe that’s why anyone without an agenda doesn’t believe you)

I’m an actual environmentalists. I have done more for my planet than 100 of the hipsters crying about the climate will ever do.

1) Stop falling for fake news.

2) Follow the discussion with NorthDallas40 back a few pages. Climate models have been impressively accurate in projecting temperatures. Aside from warming atmospheric temperatures, climate scientists also accurately predicted the stratosphere would cool. This is a direct indication of the greenhouse gas mechanism at work. We can also observe this directly, and scientists accurately predicted that we would see an increase in incoming IR radiation and a decrease in outgoing IR radiation. They also predicted that the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere (aka the tropopause) would rise. They correctly predicted decreasing diurnal temperature range, arctic amplification, increasing ocean heat content, increasing atmospheric water vapor, and many such phenomena. In many cases the predictions have actually turned out to be conservative; for example, sea level rise and arctic sea ice loss have progressed faster than IPCC projections. It turns out physics is internally consistent.
So what predictions have climate deniers been right about?

3) That’s painfully ironic. But on the topic of ocean cleanup, have you seen The Ocean Cleanup’s device (that broke down during its first full scale test recently)? Try telling Boyan Slat there’s no money in ocean cleanup…

4) We are already spending buttloads on adaptation. Miami is spending hundreds of millions to constantly upgrade their pumps and raise the streets in a losing effort against the rising tides. This is the case up and down the coast, whether it’s civilian infrastructure, military bases, oil refineries, or beach renourishment. We blaze through the wildfire budgets faster each year. We’re even already spending hundreds of millions relocating entire communities that are being swallowed by the seas in Louisiana and Alaska. Again that’s just a small sample. There’s tons of money already being spent on adaptation: some of it planned and some of it forced. The whole premise that those fake hipster climate environmentalists are somehow opposed to adaptation is silly. Everyone knows that responding to climate change involves both mitigation and adaptation.

Your whole angle is strange IMO. How is the pacific garbage patch a greater threat to humanity than climate change? If you care about the oceans, do you care about the increasing ocean heat content and ocean acidification, and the recent historic coral bleaching?

You know we can work on multiple environmental problems simultaneously, right?

 

[LouderVol]

A) No I’m afraid you’ve basically admitted a lack of reading comprehension.

B) That’s fine. You can call them whatever you want. Call them peaches. The fact is it doesn’t really matter if real climate sensitivity to CO2 is 30% higher or lower than predicted. Either way we’re still not doing enough to cut emissions. If we are so lucky that lukewarmers are correct then achieving the 2C goal just goes from impossible to very difficult.

C) I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say there. The warming trend goes back to around the start of the industrial revolution - that’s kind of the point. It did pick up as greenhouse gas emissions really started taking off post WWII.

Just curious, what preindustrial world wide temperature trend study did we have?

 

[C-south]

@BartW; Hey man, where are you spending most your time these days?

Blowing hot air.

 

[LouderVol]

Hey @BartW the increased CO2 works as an insulation right? Like it just traps in heat? Doesnt do any of the warming itself right?

 

[BartW]

@BartW; Hey man, where are you spending most your time these days?

I'm still in the Seattle area. I've been taking on a lot of work and then spend what little free time I have with my wife (just married 2 years ago) helping with her career and playing a lot of ball/trying to get back into shape from a back injury.

I post occasionally but usually just browse on mobile here and there. I split my VN time mostly between the basketball and recruiting forums. I took a rare trip to the Lady Vols forum after running into one of our softball recruits yesterday.

I’ve cut down on screen time a bunch and it feels good. I like y’all fine I just don’t care to get into these longwinded discussions nowadays, especially when on mobile.


I’ll get back to y’all in a little while though. I gotta run – wifey is working today and left something important at home, as usual.

 

[tumscalcium]

I'm still in the Seattle area. I've been taking on a lot of work and then spend what little free time I have with my wife (just married 2 years ago) helping with her career and playing a lot of ball/trying to get back into shape from a back injury.

I post occasionally but usually just browse on mobile here and there. I split my VN time mostly between the basketball and recruiting forums. I took a rare trip to the Lady Vols forum after running into one of our softball recruits yesterday.

I’ve cut down on screen time a bunch and it feels good. I like y’all fine I just don’t care to get into these longwinded discussions nowadays, especially when on mobile.


I’ll get back to y’all in a little while though. I gotta run – wifey is working today and left something important at home, as usual.

Sounds all good man. I wish I was still in Washington, despite all of the snow

 

[NorthDallas40]

A) No I’m afraid you’ve basically admitted a lack of reading comprehension.

B) That’s fine. You can call them whatever you want. Call them peaches. The fact is it doesn’t really matter if real climate sensitivity to CO2 is 30% higher or lower than predicted. Either way we’re still not doing enough to cut emissions. If we are so lucky that lukewarmers are correct then achieving the 2C goal just goes from impossible to very difficult.

C) I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say there. The warming trend goes back to around the start of the industrial revolution - that’s kind of the point. It did pick up as greenhouse gas emissions really started taking off post WWII.

A) yeah I comprehended it just fine.

B) large variances don’t support a correlation in the models predictions

C) in a linear system the time constant describes the temporal response of the system. You’re talking decades of observation for a process that has occurred over millennia. Apples to cinder blocks.

Edit: you’re bio says you’re a geologist so you know what a time constant is I’m guessing. I think you’re assuming the only correlation being the industrial revolution. However we’ve got core samples that showing warming and cooling over millennia. I’d submit youre needlessly excluding other natural phenomena.

 

[Orangeslice13]

1) Stop falling for fake news.

Anyone stupid enough to start like this isn’t worthy of serious conversation and is clearly part of the problem.

Beyond 1).......

 

[Roustabout]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

 

[NorthDallas40]

Here’s a paper from 2012 pointing to the data showing atmospheric CO2 levels lag, not lead, changes in temperature. Read the comments. This assertion was made as far back as 1990 also.

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

 

[BartW]

Just curious, what preindustrial world wide temperature trend study did we have?

There is a whole field of science called paleoclimatology that studies this. There are numerous such studies using different proxies that work over different timescales. The most recent and comprehensive global synthesis of proxy data over the past 2000 years, as far as I know, is the PAGES-2k report from 2013.

Hey @BartW the increased CO2 works as an insulation right? Like it just traps in heat? Doesnt do any of the warming itself right?

Yes that’s right. It absorbs outgoing IR radiation and reradiates it back toward the surface. CO2 doesn’t 'create' that energy.

 

[BartW]

What do you mean? Every major auto maker has hybrid and fully electric vehicles coming to market. Coal power was basically given the death knell by Obama. The ridiculous fuel standards have not been rolled back. Just what the **** more should we be doing other than crippling the entire economy?

Oh stop being so alarmist.

Coal can’t compete, even with Trump’s support. Obama’s fuel standards are tied up in court.

What should we be doing? Well the first thing is we need to stop acting out this fake debate over whether global warming is even real, and actually have an honest discussion about what to do about it. In my opinion, replacing our current piecemeal C&C regulations with a carbon pricing system, IMO specifically a revenue-neutral carbon tax, would be the fairest and most efficient solution. It would also be a huge boost to our nuclear energy industry, which we should be expanding aggressively.

I’m very skeptical of these numbers.

Tell me how it’s measured directly. The majority of the earths surface is covered In water and there are likely hundreds if not thousands of gassing vents around the globe.

It’s not just erupting volcanoes that emit CO2.

They’re measured via direct sampling and remote sensing. I believe there was even a discussion about it somewhat recently ITT (not even the old CC thread). Here are two of the first links that pop up on Google:

How Much CO2 Does A Single Volcano Emit?

Measuring Volcanic Gases

And sure, we don’t have 100% coverage even with satellites, but the current best estimate for volcanic CO2 emissions is 645 million tons/year while humans currently emit 29 billion tons/year. It’s not close.

We also know the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion because the atmosphere’s C13/C12 ratio has been declining since the industrial revolution. Plants have a preference for absorbing lighter isotopes, so when we burn fossil fuels (old plants) the CO2 that is emitted has a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere. We also see the atmospheric O2 decline resulting from combustion of fossil fuels.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

Christy’s data has had a history of revisions that keep moving the warming trend closer and closer to all the other datasets. Until 2000, they used to claim the troposphere is cooling.

Without even getting into the nitty gritty it’s easy to see that Christy has, as usual, cherrypicked datasets that show the lowest warming trends. These are specifically of the lower troposphere: not at the surface or any other portion of the atmosphere. So for one he’s comparing apples to oranges when he’s comparing his result to IPCC estimates of surface temperature sensitivity to CO2. And if you cherrypick the lowest warming trends to do this analysis it’s no surprise that you calculate a lower climate sensitivity. Still, with all that said, the result is still within the range (though at the extreme low end) given for TCS in the latest IPCC report.

Christy is not even arguing that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming (as he has before Congress). Here Christy is merely arguing that the temperature response to CO2 will be on the low end of mainstream estimates. If that were to be true that’d be great. Then we might have a shot at meeting the Paris targets.

I wouldn’t count on it though.