65
   

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

 
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2019 04:04 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
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.

Your post was completely devoid of a counterpoint. What you did was call the NOAA and its U.S. Climate Reference Network "oil and coal billionaires" because you were too much of a lazy idiot to do what is necessary to make a real point.

So now with your new understanding that the NOAA is not "oil and coal billionaires," take another crack at this:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

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The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations.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
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 01:31 am
@Glennn,
  https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/temp2018_plot-640x394.jpg

You shouldn't talk about what you don't know. He's not saying nasa and noaa are fossil fuel billionaires.It's well documented that the fossil fuel execs have funded the denialist AGW groups for decades, including hiring the PR geniuses whomade their bones a couple decades ago paid by the tovbacco companies to try to convince us that smoking and lung cancer were completely undrelated.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 03:53 am
@Glennn,
Your graph is a hoax. The USCRN network was completed in 2008. The trend analysis should thus exlude data collected by an incomplete network of stations prior to 2008. And when you do so, you find a warming trend.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 04:30 am
@Olivier5,
Now don’t go cluttering up the discussion with facts and figures. How do you expect to keep confusion and ambivalence going about climate change, when you do that?
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 11:03 am
China plans new coal plants, trims support for clean energy

It's no surprise that China will do whatever it feels necessary to protect its economy.

Quote:
But as China’s economy slows to the lowest level in a quarter century — around 6% growth, according to government statistics — policymakers are doubling down on support for coal and other heavy industries, the traditional backbones of China’s energy system and economy. At the same time, the country is reducing subsidies for renewable energy.


Protecting the US economy was one of Trump's excuses for rolling back clean air regulations and attempting to promote heavier use of coal.


livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 06:06 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Protecting the US economy was one of Trump's excuses for rolling back clean air regulations and attempting to promote heavier use of coal.

Maybe, but regulations don't really help protect the resources/environment and/or achieve sustainability anyway, because as long as the public believes the regulations are sufficient, they fall for the corporate marketing scams that tell them to use more energy and buy more because it's green.

The only way the public will take responsibility for reducing their consumption is if they realize that government regulations aren't sufficient to protect them from themselves and the businesses/corporations they fund with their purchases.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 07:11 pm
@livinglava,
TRUMP had no intent on reducing anything. He was pandering to a crowd that believed he could sustain jobs iin mining and coal transport and use.nIf this wre China, maybe..
The market alone has shown us that coal as a fule is , if not dead, is on life support.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Dec, 2019 12:10 pm
@farmerman,
Climate models have accurately predicted global heating, study finds
Quote:
Findings confirm reliability of projections of temperature changes over last 50 years

Climate models have accurately predicted global heating for the past 50 years, a study has found.

The findings confirm that since as early as 1970, climate scientists have had a solid fundamental understanding of the Earth’s climate system and the ability to project how it will respond to continued increases in the greenhouse effect. Since climate models have accurately anticipated global temperature changes so far, we can expect projections of future warming to be reliable as well.

The research examines the accuracy of 17 models published over the past five decades, beginning with a 1970 study and including 1981 and 1988 models led by James Hansen, the former Nasa climatologist who testified to the US Senate in 1988 about the impacts of anthropogenic global heating. The study also includes the first four reports by the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC).

“We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” said Zeke Hausfather, of the University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper.

Based on modern climate model projections, if countries follow through with current and pledged climate policies, the world is on track for about 3C of warming above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 – a situation the IPCC and others predict would be catastrophic.

The challenge in evaluating climate model accuracy lies in the fact that due to computing power limitations, simulations are only run for a few specific future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. There are an infinite number of such possible scenarios, but real-world emissions will follow only one path, and it will never exactly match the few scenarios input into climate models. Thus, if Earth warms less than in a climate model projection, it does not necessarily mean the model was inaccurate.

Put simply, climate scientists are not in the business of predicting human fossil fuel consumption but are attempting to accurately simulate how the climate will change in response to a given rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

“Future emissions depend on human behaviour, not physical systems, and climate models should be evaluated on their physics rather than the future emission projections,” said Hausfather.

In nearly half of the model projections examined in the paper, the input scenarios were significantly different from the real-world changes in greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, projected temperature changes were only consistent with observed global warming in 10 of the 17 models, with four projecting more warming and three projecting less than subsequently occurred.

However, the study authors addressed these inconsistencies by evaluating the change in temperature per change in “radiative forcing” – the global energy imbalance caused by the increased greenhouse effect and other factors – in models against what happened in the real world. This metric reveals whether the climate models are accurately producing the temperature response to a given emissions change – in essence, whether are accurately simulating the physical response of Earth’s climate system. With this factored in, 14 of the 17 models were accurate.

“The rate of warming we are experiencing today is pretty much exactly what past climate models projected it would be,” said Hausfather.

Those who oppose policies to limit the impacts of global heating have long sought to undermine the credibility of climate models. If the model projections are considered unreliable, they argue, then we do not know how urgent slowing global warming is. As a result, “climate models are unreliable” has become a popular myth propagated by climate deniers.

The latest study adds to the body of evidence supporting the accuracy of climate models, and will be welcomed by those arguing that more aggressive climate policies are needed to avoid dangerous levels of global warming. The UN climate summit in Glasgow in 2020 will be crucial, as countries will be expected to commit to scaling up the emission reductions that were pledged in the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Dec, 2019 09:15 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Spain: The two-decade long plan to save Catalonia's fruit growers
Quote:
As global temperatures rise, warm-weather crops like apples and pears are feeling the heat. While the climate shows no signs of cooling down, farmers in Spain are looking for ways to adapt — starting in the laboratory.
[...]
"We saw the problem 10, 15 years ago, and 10, 15 years ago we began to make things to correct it, and now I think we're ready to make the changes needed."


0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2019 09:52 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

TRUMP had no intent on reducing anything. He was pandering to a crowd that believed he could sustain jobs iin mining and coal transport and use.nIf this wre China, maybe..
The market alone has shown us that coal as a fule is , if not dead, is on life support.

Did you read the post you're responding to? I wasn't speaking to Trump's intent, which is irrelevant except to the tabloid cult of anti-fuhrer that's taken over the media and the Democratic party.

Please re-read the post you responded to, grasp my point, and respond to that instead of some reading of "Trump's intent," which is irrelevant to what the public and industry/business does with regard to regulations and the politics/legalism surrounding their creation and mitigation.

In short, regulations and other governmental intent does little more than make the public and business feel better about increasing energy consumption and resource use. They want to whitewash/greenwash economic activity in order to justify always growing it, and government allows them to do that by making regulations/policies that showcase the right ideas while leaving room/loopholes for everyone to do what is convenient and/or lucrative for them.

In other words, government/policy never stops people from doing anything unsustainable so long as it is lucrative and popular, such as maintaining the culture of widespread automobile ownership and unabated energy use, which is also what business and government (local/national/global) make money on.

Government could roll back every environmental protection imaginable and if the public and business would simply limit themselves to only doing what is sustainable, there would be a sustainable free market. As long as they can whitewash/greenwash their unsustainable activities by appealing to the misplaced faith in government regulations as sufficient to protect us from ourselves, they go on doing things that they shouldn't and not bothering to limit themselves and/or question government's relative impotence to actually curb activities that are lucrative and/or otherwise popular.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 04:01 am
Oceans losing oxygen at unprecedented rate, experts warn
Quote:
Sharks, tuna, marlin and other large fish at risk from spread of ‘dead zones’, say scientists

Oxygen in the oceans is being lost at an unprecedented rate, with “dead zones” proliferating and hundreds more areas showing oxygen dangerously depleted, as a result of the climate emergency and intensive farming, experts have warned.

Sharks, tuna, marlin and other large fish species were at particular risk, scientists said, with many vital ecosystems in danger of collapse. Dead zones – where oxygen is effectively absent – have quadrupled in extent in the last half-century, and there are also at least 700 areas where oxygen is at dangerously low levels, up from 45 when research was undertaken in the 1960s.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature presented the findings on Saturday at the UN climate conference in Madrid, where governments are halfway through tense negotiations aimed at tackling the climate crisis.
[...]
Some ocean areas are naturally lower in oxygen than others, but these are even more susceptible to damage when their oxygen levels are depleted further, the report’s authors said. Species that can more easily tolerate low oxygen levels, such as jellyfish, some squid and marine microbes, can flourish at the expense of fish, upsetting the balance of ecosystems. The natural oceanic cycles of phosphorus and nitrogen are also at risk.
[...]
The problem of dead zones has been known about for decades, but little has been done to tackle it. Farmers rarely bear the brunt of the damage, which mainly affects fishing fleets and coastal areas. Two years ago, the meat industry in the US was found to be responsible for a massive dead zone measuring more than 8,000 sq miles in the Gulf of Mexico.
[...]
“A healthy ocean with abundant wildlife is capable of slowing the rate of climate breakdown substantially,” said Dr Monica Verbeek, the executive director of the group Seas at Risk. “To date, the most profound impact on the marine environment has come from fishing. Ending overfishing is a quick, deliverable action which will restore fish populations, create more resilient ocean ecosystems, decrease CO2 pollution and increase carbon capture, and deliver more profitable fisheries and thriving coastal communities.”

“Ending overfishing would strengthen the ocean, making it more capable of withstanding climate change and restoring marine ecosystems – and it can be done now,” explained Rashid Sumaila, professor and director of the fisheries economics research unit at the University of British Columbia. “The crisis in our fisheries and in our oceans and climate are not mutually exclusive problems to be addressed separately – it is imperative that we move forward with comprehensive solutions to address them.”

A study published at COP25 by Greenpeace International showed that restoring marine ecosystems could play a major role in tackling climate chaos.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 11:31 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Oceans losing oxygen at unprecedented rate, experts warn
Quote:
Sharks, tuna, marlin and other large fish at risk from spread of ‘dead zones’, say scientists

Oxygen in the oceans is being lost at an unprecedented rate, with “dead zones” proliferating and hundreds more areas showing oxygen dangerously depleted, as a result of the climate emergency and intensive farming, experts have warned.

Sharks, tuna, marlin and other large fish species were at particular risk, scientists said, with many vital ecosystems in danger of collapse. Dead zones – where oxygen is effectively absent – have quadrupled in extent in the last half-century, and there are also at least 700 areas where oxygen is at dangerously low levels, up from 45 when research was undertaken in the 1960s.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature presented the findings on Saturday at the UN climate conference in Madrid, where governments are halfway through tense negotiations aimed at tackling the climate crisis.
[...]
Some ocean areas are naturally lower in oxygen than others, but these are even more susceptible to damage when their oxygen levels are depleted further, the report’s authors said. Species that can more easily tolerate low oxygen levels, such as jellyfish, some squid and marine microbes, can flourish at the expense of fish, upsetting the balance of ecosystems. The natural oceanic cycles of phosphorus and nitrogen are also at risk.
[...]
The problem of dead zones has been known about for decades, but little has been done to tackle it. Farmers rarely bear the brunt of the damage, which mainly affects fishing fleets and coastal areas. Two years ago, the meat industry in the US was found to be responsible for a massive dead zone measuring more than 8,000 sq miles in the Gulf of Mexico.
[...]
“A healthy ocean with abundant wildlife is capable of slowing the rate of climate breakdown substantially,” said Dr Monica Verbeek, the executive director of the group Seas at Risk. “To date, the most profound impact on the marine environment has come from fishing. Ending overfishing is a quick, deliverable action which will restore fish populations, create more resilient ocean ecosystems, decrease CO2 pollution and increase carbon capture, and deliver more profitable fisheries and thriving coastal communities.”

“Ending overfishing would strengthen the ocean, making it more capable of withstanding climate change and restoring marine ecosystems – and it can be done now,” explained Rashid Sumaila, professor and director of the fisheries economics research unit at the University of British Columbia. “The crisis in our fisheries and in our oceans and climate are not mutually exclusive problems to be addressed separately – it is imperative that we move forward with comprehensive solutions to address them.”

A study published at COP25 by Greenpeace International showed that restoring marine ecosystems could play a major role in tackling climate chaos.


Ever since Bloomberg shifted attention to the oceans from the land, I've been thinking he/they are doing so as a diversion from reforestation, transportation reform, energy reform, etc. which threaten (global) economic growth.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 05:22 pm
@livinglava,
funny, I think that you dont seem to understand the concept of discussion. My response was perfectly in line between hightor and yours.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 06:43 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

funny, I think that you dont seem to understand the concept of discussion. My response was perfectly in line between hightor and yours.

Except that my post just said that regulation was not conducive to reform but rather it is conducive to greenwashing and thus greenlighting of unrestrained energy and resource use by misleading the public to believe that the government can prevent them from harming themselves with their own consumption and other economic behaviors.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2019 11:57 pm
@livinglava,
you've said it, but so far no one agrees with you. It's government that's got to make the chsnge haopoen.There's no way we can drive green cars unless car companies actuslly make them and the public can't make them. It's government pressure on things like CAFE standards that make it happen. Same with alternative enetgy sources with tax incentives. You have a nice theory, but it won't happen tht way.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2019 12:23 am
@MontereyJack,
Global Warming!!!! Have you folks missed what Trump laid on us today? He wants to improve the shameful state of toilets......its urgent.....he has to flush 10 0r 15 times....think about that the next time you are feeling sorry for yourself....Thank God he has Mulvaney who jumps in if 15 flushes are not quite enough. I hope he can write off those rubber gloves as a business expense.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2019 01:34 am
@glitterbag,
Hey, he's a big guy.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2019 03:09 am
@roger,
Well true, he's an obese fat head who eats a ton of Big Mac's everyday. And he has a chef, who is forced to order from the local slop houses.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2019 06:06 am
11,000 Scientists Declare a Climate Emergency
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2019 09:09 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

you've said it, but so far no one agrees with you. It's government that's got to make the chsnge haopoen.There's no way we can drive green cars unless car companies actuslly make them and the public can't make them.

The idea that everyone can drive EVs and solve climate is a marketing ploy to continue to whitewash/greenwash the auto/infrastructure sector because of how lucrative it is. In reality, most people should use public transit and there should be much less pavement, and paved corridors and developments should be narrower so that trees can root in healthy soil.

Roof gardens were a possible solution for the ground getting covered by pavement and development, but organic sediments can't build up year after year on top of roofs. The ground has to be alive for it to absorb and sequester carbon from the atmosphere year after year, decade after decade, century after century, and millennium after millennium.

When humans keep clearing, developing, and paving land without designing infrastructure so that living soils are preserved, they are preventing the long-term eco-restoration of the land and thus their own permanent sustainability as a species that needs to maintain its own long-term resource-base, which includes all the other natural species and the processes that sediment organic droppings into fossil fuels over time.

Quote:
It's government pressure on things like CAFE standards that make it happen. Same with alternative enetgy sources with tax incentives. You have a nice theory, but it won't happen tht way.

Those regulations are always set at levels that fail to obstruct business from maximizing sales. To resolve climate change, industrialism/consumerism can't be boosted for the sake of maximizing profits, growth, jobs, etc.

Socialism/communism aren't solutions, because those just collectivize the industrial economy. The solution is for all economic activities to restrict themselves to the minimum footprint in addition to developing technological innovations that support the effort to reduce per-capita resource usage.

This doesn't mean going back in time or something like that. It means identifying the causes of resource waste/overutilization and developing and implementing technologies/techniques that will allow humans to sustain themselves with a smaller resource footprint.

As long as business and government are cooperating to regulate the economy in a way that is geared toward boosting economic growth, job-creation, profits, tax revenues, sales, etc.; the regulations will only greenwash unsustainability.

In order to effectively regulate the kinds of behaviors that need to change, such as widespread driving instead of transit use and walking, people must self-regulate; because otherwise what happens is that business and the public keep cooperating to avert/block/thwart regulations that would actually require people to shift from driving to transit; or to change the way they live to reduce the use of energy and other resources.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 05:50:36