65
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2019 10:55 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

Thanks so much.

Do you assume I don’t know or thoroughly enough understand these things, and so must be instructed?

Based on the post I quoted and responded to, yes.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2019 11:20 am
@livinglava,
All due respect, but your ideas are not so uniquely profound or revelatory as you seem to assume they would be to me.

Obtaining my graduate degree necessitated that I become somewhat versed in the roots and modes of human behavior - I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it, since you seem to be saying my posts don’t belie my experience.

Maybe you can find a more willing poster here to illuminate with your obviously evolved and comprehensive expertise. You can begin your lesson with that particularly valuable pearl of wisdom that “deception and manipulation fall within the spectrum of human abilities”.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2019 11:25 am
@snood,
Quote:
I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it, since you seem to be saying my posts don’t belie my experience.


No, he's suggesting that they, perhaps, do.

Your postgraduate degree wasn't in English, was it?

Sociology? Psychology?
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2019 11:48 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Oh, you know what I meant, you light-hearted kidder you.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2019 12:27 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

All due respect, but your ideas are not so uniquely profound or revelatory as you seem to assume they would be to me.

Obtaining my graduate degree necessitated that I become somewhat versed in the roots and modes of human behavior - I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it, since you seem to be saying my posts don’t belie my experience.

Maybe you can find a more willing poster here to illuminate with your obviously evolved and comprehensive expertise. You can begin your lesson with that particularly valuable pearl of wisdom that “deception and manipulation fall within the spectrum of human abilities”.

If you're as educated as you say you are, I would think you would appreciate the depth of thought I put into my posts, but to each his or her own, I guess.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Nov, 2019 11:20 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

Oh, you know what I meant, you light-hearted kidder you.


If you are going to preen about the state of your education you should at least take pains to appear so.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2019 06:00 am
El Nino swings more violently in the industrial age, compelling hard evidence says
Quote:
El Ninos have become more intense in the industrial age, which stands to worsen storms, drought, and coral bleaching in El Nino years. A new study has found compelling evidence in the Pacific Ocean that the stronger El Ninos are part of a climate pattern that is new and strange.

It is the first known time that enough physical evidence spanning millennia has come together to allow researchers to say definitively that: El Ninos, La Ninas, and the climate phenomenon that drives them have become more extreme in the times of human-induced climate change.

"What we're seeing in the last 50 years is outside any natural variability. It leaps off the baseline. Actually, we even see this for the entire period of the industrial age," said Kim Cobb, the study's principal investigator and professor in the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. "There were three extremely strong El Nino-La Nina events in the 50-year period, but it wasn't just these events. The entire pattern stuck out."

(...)

phys.org
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2019 05:48 am
@hightor,
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases once again reached new highs in 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.

WMO: Greenhouse gas concentrations in atmosphere reach yet another high
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2019 12:58 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Superfund sites are locations in the United State polluted by hazardous contaminated material. There are 40,000 federal Superfund sites across the whole USA. Currently over 1,300 of those Superfund sites are on the National Priorities List. This list includes sites which are so contaminated that they require significant cleanup.

A couple of days ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced that many Superfund sites are at threat from climate change and that the EPA needs to take additional action to manage the risks associated with global heating. The GAO report is accompanied by an interactive map, Superfund Sites and Climate Change, which shows the locations of Superfund sites which could be exposed to significant risk from wildfires and/or flooding. These are sites where wildfire or flooding could lead to the release of hazardous contaminated material into the environment.

Interactive map: Superfund Sites and Climate Change

Full report into the threat of climate change to Superfund sites: GAO:
EPA Should Take Additional Actions to Manage Risks from Climate Change


Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2019 07:02 am
@Walter Hinteler,
The consequences of climate change are already becoming increasingly noticeable in todays Germany: this is the conclusion of the second Climate Monitoring Report of the Federal Government.

Press release(German) Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety: Monitoring Report 2019 on the German Adaptation Strategy to Climate Change

Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/SSSAs1S.jpg
The report revealed, among other things, more health risks due to heat stress, an increase in the mean surface temperature of the North Sea and greater fluctuations in agricultural yields.

The report found there was increase in the number of days that are 30 degrees or above, rising from three to 10 between 1951 and 2018. It also said there were up to 7,500 deaths in some years due the heatwaves.

In the past 10 years, groundwater levels have receded, leading to problems with drinking water supplies in some communities, according to the findings. Increasing drought and increasingly frequent low water levels in rivers has impaired ecosystems, lead to restricted shipping and endangered the supply of cooling water to power plants and industry.

In the past 50 years, according to the report, heat and drought caused €700 million ($771 million) in agricultural losses. Growing seasons had expanded from 222 days in 1951-1981 to 232 days in 1988-2017. Animal and plant species from warmer regions of the world also spread into the country, including sardines and anchovies in the North Sea and the Asian tiger mosquito on land, increasing the change of disease.

Damage to infrastructure from extreme weather events affected the economy, with insurance losses of about €3.1 billion incurred on houses, motor vehicles, household goods, commerce, industry and agriculture in 2018.

DW report

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2019 12:13 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
where did the 40000 site number come from. A site is on the proritis list or not. Many of the "not on the list" sites are just ramblings of NIMBY homeowners who dont want a strip mall built. Im just curious where the number came from??
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2019 01:20 pm
@farmerman,
This number was already mentioned in 1995 (plus several other sources):
Nature, extent, and impact of Superfund hazardous waste sites.

Quote:
Since its enactment into law in 1980, approximately 40,000 uncontrolled waste sites have been identified in the United States. Approximately 1,300 of these sites constitute the current national Superfund priority list of sites for remediation.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2019 04:07 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
The PubMed site has identified the listed and "initially nominated as potential" sites. The 40000 number grew a bit since my company had a role in identifying those sites that were engaged to nuke wastes and mining.

The nuke waste sites were mostly all National Labs, power plants and med disposal , and bomb plants and were delisted and put under DOE's control(Dept of Energy) .
The other sites all 39 K sites were investigated by states, EPA, BuMines (my clients) and all were weighed by a stat system via humans and computers. Many sites were immediately de listed because they were "spite sites" , where one party was trying to make it hard on anothr, others were immediately dropped because they presented no real threat to waters of air or surroundings and public health.
The remaining 1300 + sites were those that were actually listed. Many of those are already cleaned up and in long term monitoring (several mining ites have been delisted after we did an initial invstigation and drew up contract documents for others to bid. (DOE's program was like the USAF where earlier tier contractors were not allowed to bid on subsequent work. Kept everyone honest .


Quote:
approximately 40,000 uncontrolled waste sites have been identified in the United States. Approximately 1,300 of these sites constitute the current national Superfund priority list of sites for remediation. Results from analyses are described that characterize the priority hazardous substances released from Superfund sites and the extent of hazard posed to residential communities. Findings from the United States' experience in responding to uncontrolled waste sites are relevant to other countries as they address similar environmental and public health concerns.
"Delisting is a difficult and almost interminable length of time is involved. The process involves future problems and the Global Warming components have been added in the last 20 years (I think it was in the early 2000's) but I could be wrong.

1300 action sites is quite a big lit nd ever since the EPA has been "denutted" by Clinton through Trump, they are hardly even a bunch of good scientists and engineers. Mostly administrators reside in the HAZMAT and CWA arenas now.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2019 07:17 pm
Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news...

‘Bleak’ U.N. Report on a Planet in Peril Looms Over New Climate Talks

Quote:
With world leaders gathering in Madrid next week for their annual bargaining session over how to avert a climate catastrophe, the latest assessment issued by the United Nations said Tuesday that greenhouse gas emissions are still rising dangerously.

“The summary findings are bleak,” said the annual assessment, which is produced by the United Nations Environment Program and is formally known as the Emissions Gap Report. Countries have failed to halt the rise of greenhouse gas emissions despite repeated warnings from scientists, with China and the United States, the two biggest polluters, further increasing their emissions last year.

The result, the authors added, is that “deeper and faster cuts are now required.”

(...)

nyt


oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2019 08:35 pm
@hightor,
Don't expect America to fall for this scam.

If you want to pursue renewables and efficiency as much as possible, fine.

If you want to switch from coal to nuclear or fracked natural gas, fine.

If you want to impose socialist-style rolling blackouts on America, nope.

The rest of the world can do that to themselves if they want to, but we won't be doing it here in America.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2019 07:43 am
@oralloy,
Renewable energy overtook coal in the EU two years ago. It's not a hoax or a scam. Your faulty claim of unreliable biased data is falling on deaf ears. The public rejects trump's and the fossil fuel profiteers propaganda against the clear fact of AGW. <ore reasons the US electorate will dump trump on 20.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2019 08:02 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Your faulty claim of unreliable biased data

Facts are always inconvenient to progressives, but that doesn't mean that facts are faulty.

http://patcrosscartoons.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/the-facts1.jpg


MontereyJack wrote:
is falling on deaf ears. The public rejects trump's and the fossil fuel profiteers propaganda against the clear fact of AGW.

That is incorrect. American voters have no intention of putting up with socialist-style rolling blackouts.

Democratic politicians realize this even if you do not. This is why there is no big push among elected Democratic politicians to pass controls on carbon emissions.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2019 08:19 am
Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

Quote:
We can date the beginning of consensus-building on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to Manabe and Wetherald (1967). Their pioneering computer modeling showed that doubling atmospheric CO2 would raise global temperature by about 2°C, lower than the present best estimate but not by much. Their finding convinced the late Wallace Broecker that what he named “global warming” was “a thing to worry about” (Broecker, 1975; Weart, 2009).

As computer modeling steadily improved and global temperatures began their erratic but inexorable climb in the 1970s, a consensus grew first among climate scientists and then more broadly that AGW was true and indeed worrisome. Governments became concerned about the damaging potential of AGW, as reflected in the objective of the first United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Rio in June 1992: “To achieve . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (United Nations, 1992, p. 4).

Because the use of fossil fuels has become so embedded in the world economy, it was clear that “stabilizing” greenhouse gases might require large-scale government intervention and regulation, anathema to some, including some scientists. This recognition gave rise to the repeated claim of global warming denialists: “There’s no consensus.”

Consider as examples two statements 20 years apart from Richard Lindzen of MIT. In 1992, he published an article titled, “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus” (Lindzen, 1992). It appeared in Regulation, a non–peer-reviewed periodical from the Cato Institute, a libertarian “think-tank.” The article began, “Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community [and] fears of massive sea level increases have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude” (p. 87). In 2012, Lindzen and 15 coauthors published a letter to the Wall Street Journal titled, “No Need to Panic about Global Warming” (Lindzen, 2012). It opened with this paragraph:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

The signatories included not only Lindzen but also a former astronaut and senator, the co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the President of the World Federation of Scientists, and a member of both the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Sciences. This impressive list seemed to show not only that there was no consensus on AGW, but that distinguished scientists thought it might well be false. However, Lindzen was the only one of the 16 who had done climate research.

Scholars responded to the controversy by surveying the opinion of scientists. The results of eight such studies conducted between 2009 and 2015 showed a consensus on AGW ranging from 83.5% to 97% (Cook et al., 2016). But given the ingrained caution of scientists and their reluctance to affirm findings outside their own field, opinion surveys are likely to underestimate the consensus. Moreover, as shown by the controversy over continental drift, even a near-unanimous consensus among scientists can turn out to be wrong. If we look back at the early decades of continental drift, however, we find that there was little peer-reviewed evidence for or against the theory. As a result, early articles on continental drift contained much more opinion than evidence. Thus, we could say that although scientists turned out to be wrong about continental drift, the peer-reviewed literature was not wrong, only thin and inconclusive. This affirms that the most reliable way to gauge a consensus among scientists is to turn to the peer-reviewed literature and the evidence therein. This method also has the advantage of directly showing how likely a theory is to be true.

In an article titled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Naomi Oreskes was the first to use the literature in this way (Oreskes, 2004). As a scholar of the history of science, she recognized that in spite of the widespread agreement on AGW from scientific associations, national academies, and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), their reports “might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions” from individual scientists. Oreskes tested that hypothesis by reading the abstracts of the 928 articles published between 1993 and 2003 that answered to the keyword phrase, “global climate change.” She found, “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” (Oreskes, 2004, p. 1686).

Cook et al. (2013) reviewed 11,944 peer-reviewed articles from 1991 to 2011, using the search terms “global climate change” and “global warming.” They required that to be counted as part of the consensus, an article had to “endorse” AGW by “explicitly stat[ing] that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” (p. 3). This led them to reject 7,930 articles, after which they calculated a consensus of 97.1%. Had they used rejections of AGW, as Oreskes did, Cook et al. (2013) would have reported a consensus of 99.8%, compared to her 100% (see Cook et al., 2016). Powell (2016) reported that, using rejection as the criterion, literature surveys to date showed an average consensus of 99.94%.

In this study, I used the Web of Science core database to search for peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” or “global warming” published from January 1, 2019, through early August (see Research Data, available online as Supplemental Material). I found 11,602 articles, more than 10 times the number in Oreskes’s database. To read even the abstracts would be a daunting and time-consuming task subject to fatigue and error. Instead, I read the titles, and when it appeared that an article might question AGW, I read the abstract and in some cases the article itself. I found only a handful of articles whose titles left open the possibility that its authors might reject AGW, and on closer inspection none did. One example is, “Has Global Warming Already Arrived?” by Varotsos and Efstathiou (2019). They reported that the temperature of the troposphere as measured indirectly from satellites did not match that predicted by AGW theory. They noted that “the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions” (p. 36) and did not use the discrepancy as a basis to reject AGW.

Oreskes’s largely unheeded warning from 15 years ago tolls sadly true today: “There is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen” (Oreskes, 2004, p. 1686).

Denialists have long run out of excuses for inaction and humanity has almost run out of time.

sagepub
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2019 08:22 am
@hightor,
A consensus based on biased and unreliable data? No thank you. I'll pass.

Let me know if they ever stop suppressing results that are inconvenient to the leftist narrative.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2019 08:57 am
@hightor,
Quote:
In an article titled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Naomi Oreskes was the first to use the literature in this way (Oreskes, 2004). As a scholar of the history of science, she recognized that in spite of the widespread agreement on AGW from scientific associations, national academies, and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), their reports “might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions” from individual scientists. Oreskes tested that hypothesis by reading the abstracts of the 928 articles published between 1993 and 2003 that answered to the keyword phrase, “global climate change.” She found, “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” (Oreskes, 2004, p. 1686).

One study cited is “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by historian Naomi Oreskes. In 2004, Oreskes took 928 papers published in scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 and searched them for evidence of support for global warming. She did not search the whole paper, but rather those papers “abstracts,” which is the summary written at the very beginning of the paper that summarizes its main points. She claimed that 75% of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported the IPCC’s view that humanity is responsible for most of the global increase in temperature for the past fifty years.

Oreskes’s conclusions are flawed for several reasons. First, many of the articles she cites mention global warming only in passing, or assume some human impact on climate. A much smaller number explicitly endorses the IPCC view. Oreskes did not make any distinction and lumped them all together as supporting the IPCC. She also did not make any distinction between authors who believe global warming is dangerous and those who believe it is benign.

Second, she reviewed only the abstracts of the 928 scientific papers for evidence of support for global warming, and not the papers themselves. Abstracts routinely misrepresent the content and conclusions of the papers and are often chock full of keywords for search engine purposes. This is no different than reading the blurb on the back cover of a book and drawing conclusions about the author’s positions on topics other than what he wrote about.

Third, most of the scientific papers are not about climate change, and most of their authors are not specialists in any of the climate sciences. Oreskes also ignores the many hundreds of articles published by prominent climate skeptics that raise serious doubts about man-made global warming.

Fourth, in 2008, medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte published a scientific study of the Oreskes report and found that only 7 percent explicitly endorsed the IPCC view on global warming.

https://www.tfp.org/the-cynical-myth-of-a-global-warming-consensus/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/05/2019 at 09:35:32