Official Global Warming thread (merged)

I can't tell this time McDad -- are you joking or serious? SandVol thinks it's alarming, and he too has suggested we just embrace sea level rise and deal with the consequences.

Do you understand you're talking about abandoning entire cities and displacing millions in America alone?

This is simply not true, Bart. Is Venice Italy not a city which is flooded? Are the Venicians displaced? Is their city abandoned?

Again, the article quoted is being rejected by others for no peer review (something you're quick to trumpet on the denial side). Do you denounce this article?

The worst, alarmist "what if" scenario is a rise of 2.5 inches per year over 50 years. Even if we accept that propaganda, surely the brilliant people can figure out solutions to minimize the negative impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
This is simply not true, Bart. Is Venice Italy not a city which is flooded? Are the Venicians displaced? Is their city abandoned?

Again, the article quoted is being rejected by others for no peer review (something you're quick to trumpet on the denial side). Do you denounce this article?

The worst, alarmist "what if" scenario is a rise of 2.5 inches per year over 50 years. Even if we accept that propaganda, surely the brilliant people can figure out solutions to minimize the negative impact.

The solution is easy, move further inland.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Why have you never ever mentioned Japan's analyses before? Ever?
JMA = Japan Metereorological Agency

OP
Because it's not massaged to death and they have integrity.
Lol. The UAH data have undergone numerous “corrections” over the years that have even significantly increased its warming trend and reduced its difference from expectations and other satellite analyses. Heck, all satellite data must be massaged one way or another (they don’t directly measure temperature, you know?). At least Spencer and Christy do have the integrity to admit as much.
But then you link an article referencing a NOAA climate scientist. Then you ask me what NOAA and NASA have to do with each other. They use the exact same data set don't they? Oh, I know they both have independent free thinking unbiased analysts. Right. Now answer my question about JMA.
They don’t use the exact same data or analysis. They do share some data though.

So what does Karl have to do with NASA’s or Japan’s results? What does he have to do with anything, really? Are you picking a new villain at random?

Look around. The general expectation is that this El Nino will fuel more record temperatures. It’s not just one guy at NOAA
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
This is simply not true, Bart. Is Venice Italy not a city which is flooded? Are the Venicians displaced? Is their city abandoned?

Again, the article quoted is being rejected by others for no peer review (something you're quick to trumpet on the denial side). Do you denounce this article?

The worst, alarmist "what if" scenario is a rise of 2.5 inches per year over 50 years. Even if we accept that propaganda, surely the brilliant people can figure out solutions to minimize the negative impact.
Surely? Minimize? That sounds like an awfully expensive gamble…

Again, I’m not sure if you’re serious about the Venice bit. On the Hansen article, I already stated that the open-access format is controversial. But as with any research, publication is still just the beginning. It will be (is being) scrutinized by the experts.

Sea level rise is no joke though. What happens when entire cities and even entire nations are washed off the map? And like I’ve said, our response is not a question of mitigation or adaptation. We must do both. We’re already locked in for some amount of warming (and sea level rise) even if we quit using fossil fuels today, but that’s no reason to give up and become complacent about cutting emissions. It’s futile to address the symptoms without addressing the underlying problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
When humans go extinct, it will not be because of man's contributions to global warming. I am betting on one of three scenarios: One large Asteroid, several medium sized asteroids, or Yellowstone volcano eruption. Statistically, we're due for a massive Yellowstone eruption. It averages one massive eruption every 600,000 years, and it has been 630,000 years since the last one.
Recurrence intervals can be misleading…

Nuclear war/winter is probably more likely, but rapid climate change from greenhouse gas emissions would be a fitting end too.

I think that humans would survive any of these “extinction” events though
Man is contributing. The percentage contribution is very much a point of contention.
Just how much global warming are humans causing?

attribution.jpg


This is the scientific consensus from AR5. It doesn’t really matter if we’re contributing 75% or 100% or more of the observed warming. If we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it’s going to keep getting hotter. Physics is physics. The ice doesn’t care about our petty politics. It just melts
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Hillary Clinton rolls out climate agenda

Hillary Clinton unveiled her most detailed proposals on climate change since becoming a presidential candidate, calling for moving the economy on “a path towards deep decarbonization by 2050” and “enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America” by 2027.

Progressives have been badgering Clinton to take a strong stance on climate change. Earlier this month in New Hampshire a group of activists disrupted her first town hall in the state, demanding she pledge to end extraction of fossil fuels on public lands.

The plan is the most specific that Clinton’s made yet as a candidate on how she would combat climate change, though she has often been outflanked on the left by her Democratic challengers, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

Bold but still lacking in specifics. I hope Bernie and O'Malley grill her
 
So they want us to quit getting oil from our land and pay $6/gal at the pump. That will boost the economy

The enviro-whackos don't care about the economy. They want everyone to live in 800 sq foot homes made out of cow dung using candles to light their homes.
 
800 sq feet? More like 80. Have you seen the tiny homes people are building? Perhaps they're the best argument for raising minimum wage.
 
JMA = Japan Metereorological Agency

OP

Lol. The UAH data have undergone numerous “corrections” over the years that have even significantly increased its warming trend and reduced its difference from expectations and other satellite analyses. Heck, all satellite data must be massaged one way or another (they don’t directly measure temperature, you know?). At least Spencer and Christy do have the integrity to admit as much.

They don’t use the exact same data or analysis. They do share some data though.

So what does Karl have to do with NASA’s or Japan’s results? What does he have to do with anything, really? Are you picking a new villain at random?

Look around. The general expectation is that this El Nino will fuel more record temperatures. It’s not just one guy at NOAA

They use the exact same data. NOAA shares their ocean data and they both use the exact same land data. Also, you are the one that brought up NOAA and how they agree with NASA and how we will continue breaking records. I said as long as Karl et. al. continue massaging the data we will. You are the one who made the connection with NOAA and NASA on how they agree. I don't think they are independent acting agencies. Not difficult to comprehend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
JMA = Japan Metereorological Agency

I know what JMA stands for. I asked why if their concurrence is so important you have never ever mentioned them before?

OP
Lol. The UAH data have undergone numerous “corrections” over the years that have even significantly increased its warming trend and reduced its difference from expectations and other satellite analyses. Heck, all satellite data must be massaged one way or another (they don’t directly measure temperature, you know?). At least Spencer and Christy do have the integrity to admit as much.

You mean because your precious wiki editors do their best to minimize the importance of the satellite data. Wiki is a joke.

They don’t use the exact same data or analysis. They do share some data though.

>95% the same both data and analyses

So what does Karl have to do with NASA’s or Japan’s results? What does he have to do with anything, really? Are you picking a new villain at random?

His analyses are biased.

Look around. The general expectation is that this El Nino will fuel more record temperatures. It’s not just one guy at NOAA

Are these the same people who had general expectations about the Pope's Encyclical or the NYC AGW Summit?
 
Sea level rise is no joke though. What happens when entire cities and even entire nations are washed off the map?.

1. Venice, Italy.
2. Did you know in the mid 1800s Chicago was raised around 6 feet?

You know, Bart, you mostly present yourself as someone who is only interested in documented science. Your last sentence exposes a crack in the facade, though.

I assume you're around 30 years old. I hope you have a very long, fulfilling, and happy life. And when your clock is punched (around 110 years of age :)), i assume you will reflect back on this current age and realize you got worked up over stuff that never happened.

Until then, continue to fight the good fight. I'll join you in the crusade against litter, wasted resources, and good stewardship of our environment, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
They use the exact same data. NOAA shares their ocean data and they both use the exact same land data. Also, you are the one that brought up NOAA and how they agree with NASA and how we will continue breaking records. I said as long as Karl et. al. continue massaging the data we will. You are the one who made the connection with NOAA and NASA on how they agree. I don't think they are independent acting agencies. Not difficult to comprehend.
I know what JMA stands for. I asked why if their concurrence is so important you have never ever mentioned them before?

You mean because your precious wiki editors do their best to minimize the importance of the satellite data. Wiki is a joke.

>95% the same both data and analyses

His analyses are biased.

Are these the same people who had general expectations about the Pope's Encyclical or the NYC AGW Summit?
What on Earth, SandVol? What does Wikipedia or the Pope’s encyclical or any of this have to do with the current discussion?

I’ve mentioned JMA before. I brought up other temperature records to counter your accusation that Karl (your new Michael Mann?) is "massaging the data" to make 2015 the hottest year.

Why do global temperature records differ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
What on Earth, SandVol? What does Wikipedia or the Pope’s encyclical or any of this have to do with the current discussion?

I’ve mentioned JMA before. I brought up other temperature records to counter your accusation that Karl (your new Michael Mann?) is "massaging the data" to make 2015 the hottest year.

Why do global temperature records differ?

You don't follow anything anymore. You're like an AGW sound bite.
 
I do not believe in conspiracies. I do not believe in conspiracies. I do not believe in conspiracies. I do not believe in conspiracies. I do not believe in conspiracies.
 
1. Venice, Italy.
2. Did you know in the mid 1800s Chicago was raised around 6 feet?
1. Lovely place, I’ve been there.

You know, Venice didn’t sink and then become an island city. It was built that way. It has been and still is sinking, and Venetians today are spending billions to delay the inevitable.

2. Raising 1850s Chicago’s little wooden structures is a bit easier than lifting present day NYC skyscrapers.

Here is a present day example of American climate refugees:

Alaskan villages imperiled by global warming need resources to relocate
The Arctic is warming at a rate almost twice the global average, making climate change’s effects there far more intense and rapid than any other ecosystem in the world. While nature photographs of polar bears and melting ice dominate media narratives, the top of the world is home to 4m people who face an uncertain future.

Coastal erosion, forest fires and storm surges are threatening the physical and economic safety of settlements across the Arctic Ocean shoreline. Further inland, thawing permafrost is compromising the stability of transportation, sanitation and public service infrastructure built upon once-sturdy foundations. In Alaska alone, 31 villages face imminent threat of destruction from erosion and flooding. Many of these villages have 10 to 20 years of livability before their streets, schools and homes become uninhabitable. At least 12 have decided to relocate – in part or entirely – to safer ground to avoid total collapse.

In early 2015, President Obama proposed $50.4m in federal spending to help Native American communities adapt public infrastructure to the effects of climate change. That is less than half of what the US Army Corps of Engineers estimates to be needed to relocate just one Alaskan town. Moving an entire community to a safer location mere miles away can cost anywhere from $80m to upwards of $250m.

That's a small Alaskan town. Now consider scaling those costs to a single city like Norfolk, Annapolis, Miami, New Orleans, etc.

You have a lot of faith that *insert magical future solution* will be easier and cheaper than just cutting fossil fuel emissions.
You know, Bart, you mostly present yourself as someone who is only interested in documented science. Your last sentence exposes a crack in the facade, though.
Sea level rise threatens entire nations. I am a national of the Netherlands and about half of our country is below sea level. Bangladesh and other low-lying countries are truly threatened. Then there are a number of island nations like Kiribati or the Marshall Islands (for which US taxpayers are responsible, btw) for which rising seas are literally an existential threat. What happens when the sea swallows a country? What happens when a group of nationals no longer have a physical home? There is no precedent. It’s going to be messy.
I assume you're around 30 years old. I hope you have a very long, fulfilling, and happy life. And when your clock is punched (around 110 years of age :)), i assume you will reflect back on this current age and realize you got worked up over stuff that never happened.
Unfortunately I expect this will be a big sociopolitical issue for the rest of our lives. I assume you’re an aging baby-boomer. For your sake, I sincerely hope you won’t have to look back with shame upon a generation whose greed, arrogance, and selfishness wrecked the home of their children and future generations. I hope that our granddaughters won’t have to ask us, “How could you have been so irresponsible?”

Anyone who witnesses 110 years of human history is bound to experience some ****ed up ****, though.
Until then, continue to fight the good fight. I'll join you in the crusade against litter, wasted resources, and good stewardship of our environment, too.
Thanks McDad, you’re always welcome in my crusade. Even if it's just for the lulz
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
U.S. companies pledge financial, political support for U.N. climate deal
Thirteen big name American companies on Monday were to announce $140 billion in low-carbon investments to lend support to a global climate change deal in Paris in December, the White House said.

Companies including General Motors (GM.N), Bank of America (BAC.N), Microsoft (MSFT.O) and Coca Cola (KO.N), were to join U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at the White House to launch the American Business Act on Climate Pledge to support the administration as it tries to secure a climate agreement.

Under the pledge, the companies announced measures they would take internally to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions and deploy more clean energy.

In addition to announcing a collective $140 billion in new low-carbon investments, the companies announced they would bring at least 1,600 megawatts of new renewable energy on line, reduce water use intensity by 15 percent, purchase 100 percent renewable energy, and target zero net deforestation in their supply chains.

United Nations climate change negotiators have called on the private sector to bolster public sector finance to aid efforts globally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially in developing countries.


The White House said it will announce additional company pledges later this year
 
What on Earth, SandVol? What does Wikipedia or the Pope’s encyclical or any of this have to do with the current discussion?

I’ve mentioned JMA before. I brought up other temperature records to counter your accusation that Karl (your new Michael Mann?) is "massaging the data" to make 2015 the hottest year.

Why do global temperature records differ?

This is BS too. You brought up JMA in post #6000 and I didn't bring up Karl until #6009.
 
1. Lovely place, I’ve been there.

You know, Venice didn’t sink and then become an island city. It was built that way. It has been and still is sinking, and Venetians today are spending billions to delay the inevitable.

2. Raising 1850s Chicago’s little wooden structures is a bit easier than lifting present day NYC skyscrapers.

Come on, Bart. I do expect so much more from you. This was very poorly researched on your part.

The fact that Venetians are fighting the sinking of their city is proof that a 10 foot rise in sea levels wouldn't wipe cities off the map. Nor does it make them inhabitable. You conceded my point in your rebuttal. Very unlike you.

Additionally, your quip about Chicago shows absolutely no understanding of the magnitude of the buildings they lifted. Think of the weight of a multiple story building without a steel skeleton. Stone or brick walls increase in thickness as they support more weight above. You should read about what they did in Chicago almost 150 years ago. It's fascinating in a science-engineering way. Right up your alley. By the way, did you know the international airport in Kansai Japan is continually lifted because it sinks a little each year? Cool, huh?

Lastly, why would someone need to lift a modern day skyscraper in NYC? It cannot sink; it is anchored into the granite bedrock. It cannot float away. The plumbing and electrical is already below ground and contends with moisture. The biggest concern (imo) is salt water leeching into the concrete and weakening the integrity of the steel frame.

ETA: parts of new Orleans are below sea level already. They do pretty well except for the occasional hurricane. But they're all drunk by the time it hits anyway.
 
Last edited:
Come on, Bart. I do expect so much more from you. This was very poorly researched on your part.

The fact that Venetians are fighting the sinking of their city is proof that a 10 foot rise in sea levels wouldn't wipe cities off the map. Nor does it make them inhabitable. You conceded my point in your rebuttal. Very unlike you.

Additionally, your quip about Chicago shows absolutely no understanding of the magnitude of the buildings they lifted. Think of the weight of a multiple story building without a steel skeleton. Stone or brick walls increase in thickness as they support more weight above. You should read about what they did in Chicago almost 150 years ago. It's fascinating in a science-engineering way. Right up your alley. By the way, did you know the international airport in Kobe Japan is continually lifted because it sinks a little each year? Cool, huh?

Lastly, why would someone need to lift a modern day skyscraper in NYC? It cannot sink; it is anchored into the granite bedrock. It cannot float away. The plumbing and electrical is already below ground and contends with moisture. The biggest concern (imo) is salt water leeching into the concrete and weakening the integrity of the steel frame.

They could also probably build levees like New Orleans.
 

Advertisement



Back
Top