66
   

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

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2019 10:01 am
@oralloy,
No matter how you cherrypick the data, you're losing.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2019 10:11 am
@MontereyJack,
It's the progressives who are cherry picking data. I'm not presenting any data at all.

As for winning and losing, take another look at how many carbon emission controls are actually being passed into law.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 09:04 am
There’s a new ‘climate denialism’ out there. Conservatives are very good at it
Quote:
Boris Johnson’s avoidance of the Channel 4 debate shows how it works: accept the science, but obstruct necessary change

Tonight, Channel 4 will host the first ever election debate on the climate crisis. All of the major party leaders have confirmed their attendance, save for Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. The Brexit party doesn’t have a climate platform, so that squares, but Johnson would be a curious absence. The Conservative government recently passed a commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050; the party’s manifesto repeats that pledge, and includes new spending for environment and climate policies. Until now, the Tories haven’t seemed afraid to talk climate.

This distinguishes them from other rightwing parties in the English-speaking world. The US and Australia especially seem doomed to forever re-fight the climate denial battles of the mid-00s – witness Donald Trump’s tweets about cold weather contradicting “global warming”, or the now Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, triumphantly brandishing a chunk of coal in parliament.

But in the UK, since they overwhelmingly supported the 2008 Climate Change Act, the Tories seem to have come around and fully accepted the science. No one in the party openly questions the link between carbon emissions and warming, or the need for action. Its once-vocal science denier fringe has been almost entirely silenced, or, like former minister Ann Widdecombe, decamped to the Brexit party.

But it should be clear to us now that it is possible for leaders to accept the scientific consensus, attend the meetings, meet the activists, nod gravely, sign the pledges and then effectively do nothing. It’s time to ask whether this approach is really a marked improvement on denying the climate crisis altogether. There is a term currently floating around activist circles, “new denialism”. This is attached to ways of thinking that acknowledge the reality of climate change, but don’t lead to what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls the “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” needed to avoid 1.5C warming.

This seems markedly less evil than the cartoon-villain propaganda of climate science deniers. And at close range it is. But any future moral accounting of the climate crisis is unlikely to distinguish bad faith from good intentions; rather it will be weighed in megatonnes of carbon, which hit another all-time high this year. As the academics Philip Mirowski, Jeremy Walker and Antoinette Abboud noted in 2013, the thinktanks behind climate denial never thought they would win the war of ideas with academic science – they simply wanted to stall for as long as they could anything that would threaten the interests of the fossil fuel industry.

Seen this way, new denialism isn’t anti-science specifically – it’s a reactionary project, which seeks to uphold or reassert the status quo. And if denialism is about stopping action, then anything that needlessly obstructs action is denial. Ultimately, then, there’s no fundamental difference between outright denialism and new denialism. New denialism is visible in the gaps between words and actions: oil companies claiming to decarbonise while approving enough fossil fuel production to shoot us well past 2C; governments promising emission reductions with no credible plan to do so. Two weeks ago the UN called the majority of existing climate policies “totally inadequate”.
... ... ...

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 09:27 am
Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

Quote:
More than half of the climate tipping points identified a decade ago are now "active", a group of leading scientists have warned.

This threatens the loss of the Amazon rainforest and the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, which are currently undergoing measurable and unprecedented changes much earlier than expected.

This "cascade" of changes sparked by global warming could threaten the existence of human civilisations.

Evidence is mounting that these events are more likely and more interconnected than was previously thought, leading to a possible domino effect.

In an article in the journal Nature, the scientists call for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent key tipping points, warning of a worst-case scenario of a "hothouse", less habitable planet.

"A decade ago we identified a suite of potential tipping points in the Earth system, now we see evidence that over half of them have been activated," said lead author Professor Tim Lenton, director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter.

"The growing threat of rapid, irreversible changes means it is no longer responsible to wait and see. The situation is urgent and we need an emergency response."

Co-author Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: "It is not only human pressures on Earth that continue rising to unprecedented levels.

"It is also that as science advances, we must admit that we have underestimated the risks of unleashing irreversible changes, where the planet self-amplifies global warming.

"This is what we now start seeing, already at 1°C global warming.

"Scientifically, this provides strong evidence for declaring a state of planetary emergency, to unleash world action that accelerates the path towards a world that can continue evolving on a stable planet."

In the commentary, the authors propose a formal way to calculate a planetary emergency as risk multiplied by urgency.

Tipping point risks are now much higher than earlier estimates, while urgency relates to how fast it takes to act to reduce risk.

Exiting the fossil fuel economy is unlikely before 2050, but with temperature already at 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperature, it is likely Earth will cross the 1.5°C guardrail by 2040. The authors conclude this alone defines an emergency.

Nine active tipping points:

Arctic sea ice
Greenland ice sheet
Boreal forests
Permafrost
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
Amazon rainforest
Warm-water corals
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Parts of East Antarctica

The collapse of major ice sheets on Greenland, West Antarctica and part of East Antarctica would commit the world to around 10 metres of irreversible sea-level rise.

Reducing emissions could slow this process, allowing more time for low-lying populations to move.

The rainforests, permafrost and boreal forests are examples of biosphere tipping points that if crossed result in the release of additional greenhouse gases amplifying warming.

Despite most countries having signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to keep global warming well below 2°C, current national emissions pledges—even if they are met—would lead to 3°C of warming.

Although future tipping points and the interplay between them is difficult to predict, the scientists argue: "If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization.

"No amount of economic cost-benefit analysis is going to help us. We need to change our approach to the climate problem."

Professor Lenton added: "We might already have crossed the threshold for a cascade of inter-related tipping points.

"However, the rate at which they progress, and therefore the risk they pose, can be reduced by cutting our emissions."

Though global temperatures have fluctuated over millions of years, the authors say humans are now "forcing the system", with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature increasing at rates that are an order of magnitude higher than at the end of the last ice age.

phys.org
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 11:32 am
@hightor,
Our children are fucked, our grand children are fucked, our grand grand children are fucked, our grand-grand-grand children are too, so we might as well get fucked too, I guess.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 11:34 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
I'm not presenting any data at all.

Afraid to say anything?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 11:54 am
@Olivier5,
1895-Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again
– New York Times, February 1895

•1902 -“Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.”
– Los Angeles Times

•1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age
–New York Times, October 1912

•1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, –
Chicago Tribune

•1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” –Washington Post

•1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age–
New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

•1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” –
Los Angeles Times

•1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” –
The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

•1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise
– New York Times, March 27th, 1933

•1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?”
– Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

•1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

•1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades”
– Chicago Tribune

•1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer”
-Washington Post

•1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century”
– New York Times, August 10th, 1962

•1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing”
– U.S. News and World Report

•1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off
– Fortune Magazine

•1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures”
– New York Times

•1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two”
– New York Times, February 20th, 1969

•1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight”
– Washington Post

•1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years
– Time Magazine

•1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age”
– Washington Post

•1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed”
– Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

•1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence”
– New York Times

•1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
– New York Times, May 21st, 1975

•1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor,
New Scientist magazine, in an article in International
_______________________________________________________

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980.
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
2019: Olivier5 says Our children are fucked, our grand children are fucked, our grand grand children are fucked, our grand-grand-grand children are too, so we might as well get fucked too, I guess.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 11:59 am
@Glennn,
Centuries of civilization, and we end up with this: as idiots led by greedy cretins to the abyss.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 12:11 pm
Climate awareness nothing new

Quote:
In March 3, 1912 Popular Mechanics had a five-page article titled “Remarkable Weather of 1911” by Francis Molena.

The subject The effects of coal combustion and what scientists predict for our future.

“While the heat that warms the earth comes from the sun, the climate is fundamentally dependent on earth’s atmosphere and it’s circulation.”

The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year, adding about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly . . . a more effective blanket for the earth, and raising its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.

Readers might be surprised such awareness existed over a century ago.

In the early 1800s Frenchman Jean-Baptist Joseph Fourier knew from the earth’s distance from the sun that it should be considerably colder and there must be some factor other than solar radiation warming the planet.

In 1816 he produced 650 pages on terrestrial temperatures, unequal heating of the globe and the principles governing the temperature of a greenhouse. He followed that up with a more comprehensive report in 1824 explaining how carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gasses in Earth’s atmosphere prevented much of the solar heat escaping back into space.

Other very important contributing scientists of that century grabbed the baton. John Tyndall, T.C. Chamberlin and Swedish scientist Svante August Arrhenius. Arrhenius published his famous paper on global warming in 1896. The following year Chamberlin produced a model for global carbon exchange and feedback. The ground work had been done and the Arrhenius equation still operates today.

Great science continued into the new century. The contribution of Guy Stewart Callendar, a relatively unknown amateur scientist, is fundamental to climate science today. His great works gathered from worldwide data produced reliable graphs of global and CO2 temperature rise from 1880 to the mid-1930s (see: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Guy Callendar temperature chart).

Other dedicated climate scientists of the 20 century David Keeling 1950s J. Murray Mitchell, Jr. 1950s — 60s James Hansen — Michael Mann.

By 1988 the science was so compelling that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) formed The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC’s role is to examine all available scientific information and assessments with a view of formulating realistic response strategies on all aspects of climate change and its impacts.

Yet strangely the messages and signs go unheard and unseen by many.

Worse, climate scientists themselves are under constant attack.

In the USA, The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund fights constant frivolous lawsuits funded by fossil fuel companies (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent).

There was Climategate: 10,000 emails were hacked in an attempt to discredit climate science. All scientists were exonerated.

We had a New Zealand Climategate. Climate Conversation Group joined with New Zealand Climate Science Coalition to challenge NIWA anomalies in their global warming data.

Our High Court declined all claims and ruled that the coalition pay all NIWA’s costs.

Last year Neil Henderson took your Herald to court when you decided not to run his letter.

He was calling an official US report that July 2015 was the hottest month on record propaganda.

His complaint was not upheld.

Two hundred years of accumulated recordings, steadily-rising GHG (greenhouse gas) temperatures, and sea levels are sound science.

The “more effective blanket for the earth . . . raising its temperature.” Francis Molena predicted 104 years back what is happening now.

At last year’s summit in Paris, no world government doubted the science. All promised to reduce their country’s impacts to some extent.

The science findings are that humanity must reduce GHG emissions sufficiently now.

It is getting late.

gisborneherald
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 01:17 pm
In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online.

Graph can be seen at this link:

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 01:37 pm
@Glennn,
Even if the US experienced a flat temperature change for 14 years this would not prove that climate change or just a global warming isn't occurring ... ... although you might have a different (world) view, the US only covers a small portion of this planet.

But cherry-picking data from a limited time period and a limited geographical area is very scientific to prove that nothing bad happened to the world's climate, isn't it, Glenn?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 01:47 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Oh, well then by all means bring us the data from pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced uniformly at selected locations around the world that are far away from urban and land development impacts that might artificially taint the temperature readings.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 01:52 pm
@Glennn,
Why should I try to convince you that there is world outside the USA?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 01:58 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I didn't ask you to convince me that there is a world outside the U.S. I asked you to provide the data from pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced uniformly at selected locations around the world that are far away from urban and land development impacts that might artificially taint the temperature readings.

Can you do that, or not?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 02:28 pm
@Glennn,
Those data are easily to find.

The meteorologist Johann Jakob Hemmer (1733-1790) introduced the worldwide collection of meteorological data in measuring networks at fixed times of day and with standardised measuring instruments at specified locations in order to obtain comparable results for different locations and years.

In 1970, when tailing a Soviet spy ship north of Island, our boat acted for a couple of days as a (limited) weather ship until the original ship came back from repairs.
So I measured (and encoded) the data at the "Mannheim hours" ... you certainly know how all that works (resp. worked).


You certainly know as well that 24 of those mentioned stations are in National Parks.
We don't have such huge parks here, but a permanent German Weather Service weather station is situated on the Kahler Asten
, the /second) highest mountain in our state, in a mountain heath situated in a natural park. The other one next to where I live, is situated close to Bad Lippspringe.
The data can be got online for free, like from most stations elsewhere.
Just such for and look at them in the datasets of the various Climate Data Centres.

To answer your question: I can do that. And if you get advance copying/pasting from just certain blogs and websites, you perhaps could do it as well.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 04:41 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
The data can be got online for free, like from most stations elsewhere.

Yeah, you're supposed to provide the data that shows the yearly surface temperatures obtained by this Johann Hemmer before and after his death. Your move.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 07:36 pm
@Glennn,
You looked up, cherry picked, the data you posted. Very well, you've convinced yourself that weather isn't changing. Now post something to convince us. The 80% who believe in weather change.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 08:16 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
You looked up, cherry picked, the data you posted.

Well actually, you're right about me looking it up. If you believe it was cherry picked, then produce the other cherry that negates the FACT below.
______________________________________________________________________________________

In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online.

Graph can be seen at this link:

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2019 01:57 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Trump for Climate: Trump is an environmentalist!
Everyone must protect the climate - even a Trump!





https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrumpForClimate?src=hashtag_click

Sven Trump is like Donald's ancestors from Kallstadt. He supports the charitable foundation myclimate Deutschland as a climate protection ambassador and has launched an online campaign with it: tips, recipes and videos are shared on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and the foundation's website.

0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2019 06:25 pm
@Glennn,
I subscribe to science magazines that have proved to me climate change is real. I dont care if you are idiot enough to believe the oil and coal billionaires who fill your head with their b s because you are too lazy to do you own investigating.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/28/2020 at 11:22:54