Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,177
#5,177
Mtntrout said:
Did someone argue that climate has never changed? The whole climate change issue is built off of paleoclimatological data. Your point is a non sequitur.
Click to expand...

Do you even pay attention to what you post or did you just want to use "non sequitur?" I posted it in response to this post:

"It is very hard for me to accept that anyone would reject climate change if they had all of the facts. It is just hard to get people to distinguish between BS and fact when it is so much easier and more convenient to believe the BS."

So, I don't believe any of us here reject climate change. And, I posted the Vostok data as an example of climate change.
 
#5,183
#5,183
BartW said:
California drought goes from bad to worse as state grapples with heat wave

California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal With Drought
Click to expand...

That drought may or may not be climate change related. The last 200 years have been extremely wet according to the paleorecord, and megadroughts exist in the West going back as far as we can see. Climate change won't help, but we were going to get some "big picture" wake up calls out here (I live in CO) sooner or later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,184
#5,184
Sandvol said:
Do you even pay attention to what you post or did you just want to use "non sequitur?" I posted it in response to this post:

"It is very hard for me to accept that anyone would reject climate change if they had all of the facts. It is just hard to get people to distinguish between BS and fact when it is so much easier and more convenient to believe the BS."

So, I don't believe any of us here reject climate change. And, I posted the Vostok data as an example of climate change.
Click to expand...

The non sequitur is that you bring up paleoclimate as if the Vostok core proves anthropogenic global warming isn't a thing, when it is that paleodata that actually indicates that this is outside the normal long-term climate patterns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,188
#5,188
Mtntrout said:
The non sequitur is that you bring up paleoclimate as if the Vostok core proves anthropogenic global warming isn't a thing, when it is that paleodata that actually indicates that this is outside the normal long-term climate patterns.
Click to expand...

Again, if you can follow logic I used the Vostok data to show that yes climate has always changed and it always will. And, no Vostok data is not only paleo-climate data.
 
#5,190
#5,190
Sandvol said:
Again, if you can follow logic I used the Vostok data to show that yes climate has always changed and it always will. And, no Vostok data is not only paleo-climate data.
Click to expand...

Again, why are you stating that? Who is saying otherwise? That isn't a refutation of anything, that is a statement of the obvious.

It's like saying, "well the Sun is what drives all climate." No sh--. Or "well, CO2 is natural." Or "Water vapor is a greenhouse gas!" No. Sh--t. These little factoids may create an illusion of being well-informed and knowledgeable to those who are not, but it is as nonsensical as saying cars run off gasoline and not oil to refute the relationship between oil and fuel prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,193
#5,193
Mtntrout said:
Again, why are you stating that? Who is saying otherwise? That isn't a refutation of anything, that is a statement of the obvious.

It's like saying, "well the Sun is what drives all climate." No sh--. Or "well, CO2 is natural." Or "Water vapor is a greenhouse gas!" No. Sh--t. These little factoids may create an illusion of being well-informed and knowledgeable to those who are not, but it is as nonsensical as saying cars run off gasoline and not oil to refute the relationship between oil and fuel prices.
Click to expand...

For crying out loud. Because I wanted to let you know that none of us reject climate change.
 
#5,194
#5,194
Sandvol said:
For crying out loud. Because I wanted to let you know that none of us reject climate change.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. You're playing a game of semantics, where you hide behind "climate change" in the general sense when it is quite clear that you reject anthropogenic climate change due to global warming despite the vast majority of relevant experts finding the evidence to be overwhelming. If you don't, feel free to correct me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,196
#5,196
Here's my thing.
The science guys who I know personally say that man made climate change is insignificant. A point was made to me today that outside of the climate scientists nobody is freaking out. Why is that? Most likely because they know nothing is going to happen.

I'm all for ending pollution. I make part of my living building solar systems. I spend some of my time cleaning up trout streams. These are things that actually help. Tell me you want to stop acid rain, I can get behind that. But to ask me to buy into something nobody else believes is a problem and the industry guys have a history of faking their data......I'll pass
 
#5,197
#5,197
Like how I post a link showing results that show aerosols don't have as much cooling effect as previously suspected, which is supposedly currently offsetting the warming from co2, and no real response from Bart or mtntrout
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,198
#5,198
Mtntrout said:
That drought may or may not be climate change related. The last 200 years have been extremely wet according to the paleorecord, and megadroughts exist in the West going back as far as we can see. Climate change won't help, but we were going to get some "big picture" wake up calls out here (I live in CO) sooner or later.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. While the current drought may or may not be directly caused by climate change, they are definitely related.

Global warming and drought are turning the Golden State brown
There has been some confusion about the human contribution to California’s drought, now entering its fourth consecutive year, because some reports have said that humans have not influenced the amount of precipitation falling in the state thus far. This is a subject of debate – some studies have found evidence of a human ‘fingerprint’ in the high pressure ridge that’s diverted storms away from California over the past three years. But overall, while precipitation has been low, there have been a few years in the historical record where it was lower.

However, evidence indicates that California is in the midst of its worst drought in over 1,200 years. The new PNAS paper helps reconcile these two facts. As an accompanying commentary by Michael Mann and Peter Gleick notes,

"Part of the challenge is that the term “drought” can be defined in different ways: for example, meteorological, hydrological, agricultural, and socioeconomic drought. Drought, most simply defined, is the mismatch between the amounts of water nature provides and the amounts of water that humans and the environment demand."

California’s worst droughts have historically happened in years that are both dry and hot. While humans may or may not be influencing the amount of rain falling in the state, we are indisputably making it hotter. If we could flip coins representing precipitation and temperature each year, the first could come up wet or dry, but humans are weighting the second such that it will increasingly come up hot. This will make conditions like those that caused California’s current record-breaking drought return more often as the planet keeps warming.

The PNAS paper summarizes the significance of these findings.

"California ranks first in the United States in population, economic activity, and agricultural value. The state is currently experiencing a record-setting drought, which has led to acute water shortages, groundwater overdraft, critically low streamflow, and enhanced wildfire risk ... we find that human emissions have increased the probability that low-precipitation years are also warm, suggesting that anthropogenic warming is increasing the probability of the co-occurring warm–dry conditions that have created the current California drought."
Click to expand...
I agree though, unsustainable water practices were going to catch up with us sooner or later anyway. Water politics out west will be an entertaining issue in the coming decades.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top