67
   

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

 
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2020 12:56 pm
@oralloy,
Oh my Dog, what a complete moron. What a waste of a mediocre talent.
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 12:52 am
@Setanta,
I'll defer to you on the assessment of talent. I've no idea how to even begin to judge that. He surely can draw better than I can, but that's not saying much, since I can't draw anything at all.

But I disagree on the bit about waste. People pay more attention to political cartoons than they do to written text, so they can be a great way to convey criticism that would otherwise be ignored.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 07:26 am
https://dailytorch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Angry-Gods-DT-990.jpg
livinglava
 
  3  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 08:57 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

I'll defer to you on the assessment of talent. I've no idea how to even begin to judge that. He surely can draw better than I can, but that's not saying much, since I can't draw anything at all.

But I disagree on the bit about waste. People pay more attention to political cartoons than they do to written text, so they can be a great way to convey criticism that would otherwise be ignored.

So why doesn't he draw one of a sprawling city filled with automotive traffic and all but devoid of trees amidst the pavement and show two climate sceptics scoffing about how atmospheric CO2 levels couldn't possibly be caused by human energy- and land- use?
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 09:18 am
@livinglava,
Because he doesn't choose to I guess.

You are free to draw such a cartoon yourself if you like.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 10:27 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Because he doesn't choose to I guess.

You are free to draw such a cartoon yourself if you like.

Maybe he's doesn't want to caricature both sides of the climate debate, i.e. only climate science believers but not the deniers.

Oh well, at least we understand his bias.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 03:42 pm
@oralloy,
Another branco stupidity. He never ceases with the bullshit. Dumb failed attempt at ;parallelism. I guarantee you that 95% of climate scientists know a **** of a lot more about climate than 95% of stone age tribal elders ever did.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 03:48 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
People pay more attention to political cartoons than they do to written text, so they can be a great way to convey criticism that would otherwise be ignored.


I'm sure that's true when it comes to Trump supporters. The "criticism" to which you refer is bullsh*t. The climate is changing. Stratigraphy demonstrates through sedimentary deposition that the cycle of warming and cooling of the climate has been going on in cycles of roughly 2000 years (actually from about 1700 to 2300 years) for thousands of years. Read about Bond events and Heinrich events and leave the bone-head cartoons by third-rate artists for your political rants in political threads.

This is not a political thread. Both historians and scientists have referred to the most recent climate cooling event as the Little Ice Age. We are now just under 150 years past the Little Ice Age, and the warming trend will continue for a minimum of another 700 years. The population of the planet has increased by five orders of magnitude in the last century. That means that there are now more than five times as many humans on the planet than there were after the end of the Great War. More significantly, the human population has increased by three orders of magnitude since the end of the Second World War. It's just going to get more intense, and more deadly as time goes by.

Those who deny that the climate is changing either in the energy industry, or are shills for the energy industry, or just poor dupes of the energy industry. The energy industry doesn't want anything to change because they make a lot of money out of fossil fuels. They don't want that to change, and they don't give a rat's patoot about you or me--about anyone. Wake up. Keep the idiotic cartoon drivel for the political threads. It doesn't belong here.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 08:07 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The "criticism" to which you refer is bullsh*t.

It's certainly the case that climate journals are trying to suppress the publication of data that they find is inconvenient to the leftist narrative.


Setanta wrote:
It's just going to get more intense, and more deadly as time goes by.

If so, then the solution is to take steps to mitigate it. Move the orbits of the inner planets outwards so that they receive less sunlight. Put mirrors in space to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. Put particles in the Earth's upper atmosphere to block sunlight from reaching the surface.


Setanta wrote:
This is not a political thread.

It looks to me like the thread is all about progressives demanding that the American economy be crippled with socialist-style rolling blackouts.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 08:30 pm
@oralloy,
Your case is not journalS suppressing data. It's based on ONE article which came to a suspect conclusion which has been contradicted contradicted by ongoing research in the area in ONE journal, from which OPINION you refuse to accept the mountains oi independently researched FACT that show climate change is real.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 08:37 pm
@oralloy,
If that's what it looks like to you, I'd recommend you get a new eye doctor, because whoever you're going to now is clearly incompetent.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 08:40 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Your case is not journalS suppressing data.

Actually that is what I am saying.


MontereyJack wrote:
It's based on ONE article which came to a suspect conclusion which has been contradicted contradicted by ongoing research in the area in ONE journal,

In other words, it is accepted practice for climate journals to suppress data that is inconvenient to the leftist narrative.


MontereyJack wrote:
from which OPINION you refuse to accept the mountains oi independently researched FACT that show climate change is real.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that cherry-picked data represents facts.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 09:16 pm
@oralloy,
You take a single example--which would not have come to your attention if the integrity of scientists did not assure that such things are condemned--and from that extrapolate that all climate publications are suspect. You're the one that does the "cherry-picking." You don't have nearly enough information to judge this, and you are attempting to politicize something because of lick-spittle admiration for the fat boy in the White House. When you use terms such as "socialist," and tropes such as "rolling blackouts," you show that you not only know nothing about the topic, but that you are either a shill for the energy industry, of dupe of the energy industry. Do you have shares of energy industry securities? Is that why you puke up reactionary propaganda, rather than adding anything intelligent and informed to the discussion?
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 10:16 pm
@Setanta,
precisely
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2020 10:20 pm
I won't engage with that member any longer--he's just trashing the thread because of his addiction to reactionary polemic. I suggest that others ignore him as well.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2020 08:02 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/HaIaJDEl.jpg




Arctic Sea Ice in CMIP6
Quote:

Abstract
We examine CMIP6 simulations of Arctic sea‐ice area and volume. We find that CMIP6 models produce a wide spread of mean Arctic sea‐ice area, capturing the observational estimate within the multi‐model ensemble spread. The CMIP6 multi‐model ensemble mean provides a more realistic estimate of the sensitivity of September Arctic sea‐ice area to a given amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and to a given amount of global warming, compared with earlier CMIP experiments. Still, most CMIP6 models fail to simulate at the same time a plausible evolution of sea‐ice area and of global mean surface temperature. In the vast majority of the available CMIP6 simulations, the Arctic Ocean becomes practically sea‐ice free (sea‐ice area < 1 million km2) in September for the first time before the year 2050 in each of the four emission scenarios SSP1‐1.9, SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5 and SSP5‐8.5 examined here.

Plain Language Summary
We examine simulations of Arctic sea ice from the latest generation of global climate models. We find that the observed evolution of Arctic sea‐ice area lies within the spread of model simulations. In particular, the latest generation of models performs better than models from previous generations at simulating the sea‐ice loss for a given amount of CO2 emissions and for a given amount of global warming. In most simulations, the Arctic Ocean becomes practically sea‐ice free (sea‐ice area < 1 million km2) in September for the first time before the year 2050.
Walter Hinteler
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2020 08:11 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
2019 was Europe's warmest year on record new data has confirmed, with periods of exceptional heat last February, June and July, and one of the wettest Novembers on record.

Previous records were broken by only a small margin, but the findings confirmed that 11 out of the 12 warmest years in Europe have occurred in the past two decades, according to the European State of the Climate 2019 report, published on Wednesday.

There was drought in central Europe over the summer, but at the end of 2019 four times the normal amount of rain fell in western and southern Europe.

A heatwave in Greenland last year brought record levels of surface melting, the report found, though the European Arctic was slightly colder across the year than in some other recent years, with the lowest average since 2010. Europe’s glaciers have lost an average of 16 tonnes of fresh water per square metre since 1997.

Summer temperatures in parts of Europe were as much as 3C to 4C higher than normal in 2019, the report said, with heatwaves in June and July breaking records in France and Germany.

The data confirms other findings that show a clearly warming trend globally. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) also produced its final report for 2019, confirming that last year was globally the second hottest on record, with the oceans reaching the highest temperatures ever recorded.
The Guardian

https://i.imgur.com/l1dCme9.jpg

EU's Copernicus Climate Service: European State of the Climate 2019
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2020 01:20 pm
Overlooked No More: Eunice Foote, Climate Scientist Lost to History

Foote’s ingenious experiment more than 150 years ago yielded a remarkable discovery that could have helped shape modern climate science had she not been overshadowed.

Quote:
In the 1850s, Eunice Foote, an amateur scientist and activist for women’s rights, made a remarkable discovery about greenhouse gases that could have helped form the foundation of modern climate science.

But the scientific paper she published that might have added her name to the pantheon of early climate scientists was quickly forgotten, and she faded into obscurity. There isn’t even a known photograph of her today.

The idea that greenhouse gases warm the planet is anything but new, and anything but unsettled.

Foote’s ingenious and elegant experiment involved two glass cylinders filled with various substances, including moist air and carbon dioxide. She placed a thermometer in each container, then left them in sunlight.

In her 1856 paper about the experiment, “Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun’s Rays,” she wrote that a cylinder with moist air became warmer than one with dry air. A cylinder filled with carbon dioxide warmed even more, and, once removed from the light, “it was many times as long in cooling.”

She then reached a sweeping conclusion: “An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature.”

She noted that “if, as some suppose, at one period of its history the air had mixed with it a larger proportion” of carbon dioxide, then an increased temperature “must necessarily have resulted.”

Her paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science — but by a male scientist, John Henry, not by Foote. (It is unclear why she did not present the paper herself; she would present another one of her papers on a different topic the next year.)

Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, has referred to Foote and her early climate-change work as “remarkably prescient.” She is now working with other historians, writers and scientists to bring Foote’s work to prominence.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/09/25/us/00overlooked-foote/00ambriefing-eunice-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp
Foote’s 1856 paper describing her greenhouse gas experiment. The paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science by a male scientist, John Henry.

“She was really an amazing woman,” said Hayhoe, who is an author of the most recent edition of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, the leading federal report on climate change in the United States. “The fact that she turned glass jars into an experiment on heat-trapping gases is phenomenal.”

It would be three years before John Tyndall, a scientist in England, published his famous paper identifying the gases responsible for the greenhouse effect.

His paper, “Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat Through Gaseous Bodies,” published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, did not cite Foote’s work.

Tyndall more accurately captured how carbon dioxide and water vapor could warm the planet. Because Foote was using the sun’s energy, her experiment focused on the visible spectrum; Tyndall used spectroscopy and was able to focus on the infrared spectrum, which is the form of heat radiated from the planet toward space.

His method “gave him a sensitive and accurate means of determining very small amounts of absorption, and of measuring accurately the differences in absorption between different gases and of gases at different densities,” Roland Jackson, a scientist, historian and biographer of Tyndall, wrote in a paper, “Eunice Foote, John Tyndall and a Question of Priority,” published last year by the Royal Society.

Jackson concluded that Tyndall and other major “critical physicists of the period” probably did not know of Foote’s work. “On the face of it, the significance of the paper passed everyone by who could have had a particular interest in it,” he wrote.

Why did Foote’s work disappear for so long? Was this a case of historical erasure, or even intellectual theft? The truth is more subtle and interconnected, Jackson wrote.

For starters, Foote was regarded as an amateur scientist. She was also an American working at a time when the most important work in the field was being performed in Europe. And the world at that time did not exactly welcome the contributions of a woman.

“Eunice Foote was disadvantaged not only by this lack of an academic community in America and poor communication with Europe, but by two further factors: her gender and her amateur status,” Jackson wrote.

Jackson acknowledged that “Foote does seem to have been the first person to notice the ability of carbon dioxide and water vapor to absorb heat, and to make the direct link between the variability of these atmospheric constituents and climate change.” He added, “For that she deserves proper recognition, even if she was not able to explore, and perhaps did not recognize, the distinction between solar radiation and radiated heat from the earth.”

Hayhoe of Texas Tech put it this way: “The conclusion she came to is correct, but the conclusion was not actually supported by her experiment,” because she didn’t distinguish between visible and infrared radiation “and the greenhouse effect is primarily due to the latter, not the former.”

But Foote, she said, “was the first person to say in print that if carbon dioxide levels were higher, the planet would be warmer.” That alone, she said, was “an amazing accomplishment, and she should be absolutely celebrated for that.”

Marveling at how much Foote was able to accomplish given the limited horizons for women of her time, Hayhoe pondered, “What would she have accomplished if she had been born today?”

Eunice Newton was born in Goshen, Conn., on July 17, 1819, one of 11 children of Isaac Newton Jr., a farmer and entrepreneur, and Thirza Newton, a homemaker. She attended the Troy Female Seminary, a school that encouraged female students to attend science lectures at a nearby college and had its own chemistry labs for experiments.

Science was not Foote’s only passion. She was also a prominent feminist and a signer of the declaration that emerged at the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention, one of the nation’s first organized events for women’s rights. Her name is fifth on the list. Her husband, Elisha Foote, a judge and amateur scientist whom she married in 1841, also signed the document, which called for “the civil, social, political and religious rights of women."

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/12/11/us/00overlooked-foote2/00overlooked-foote2-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp
Foote was the fifth name on the list of signatures on the declaration that emerged at the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention. Her husband also signed the document.Credit...Library of Congress

She also published on many different topics, and as a result she never built up the reputation that comes with accumulated research in one area or field.

She died on Sept. 30, 1888. She was 69.

Paul Yeaton, a great-great-grandson of Eunice Foote, said he knew little of his illustrious ancestor growing up. However, he said, “reading the monograph, jeez, it’s pretty remarkable, her powers of deduction.”

In hearing about the recent surge in research and publication that recognizes Foote’s work, he said, “It’s nice that somebody got their due rights.”

A short film about Foote, called “Eunice,” was made in 2018.

Another relative, Liz Foote, a scientist pursing a Ph.D. in environmental studies in Hawaii, said, “It’s an honor personally to be part of a family tree with someone like Eunice in it.” She added, “I’m just thrilled that we could be hearing more of her story now.”

nyt
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 01:11 am
@hightor,
Anyone surprised that fringe climate science deniers who spread online disinformation are now downplaying the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic?

https://i.imgur.com/ezwzdII.jpg
0 Replies
 
FreedomEyeLove
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 04:12 am
global warming enthusiasts are like feminists or religious zealots, 'listen and believe' to the 'existential threats'
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 09/29/2020 at 12:16:37