Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Fishbone Jones]

 

[YZT580]

I assume by historical you mean paleontological/geological records? Otherwise that statement is not correct. We are at 560 ppm CO2eq right now or 420+ ppm CO2. The last time CO2 alone was this high was about 14 million yrs ago. Over the last million years CO2 has alternated between highs of around 280 during interglacials and lows of 180 during the glacials. We were presently trending into a glacial period although it was not expected to be as severe as the last one due to our present alignment of the Milankovitch cycles. The temperature change during these transitions was around 1.5C per 2000 yrs. Plants arent CO2 limited.
The rest of what you said has nothing to do with AGW directly

actually, it does. If you don't know, don't do anything; First line because we don't know enough about what influence we are actually having, if any, on global climate change. Full stop. We don't even have enough accurate and uncontaminated thermometers to give us reliable temperature readings. Wake up and follow the money.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think we're nicely hitting the line third down from the top on the left

Infographic: The Largest Risks Faced by the World

This chart shows experts' assessments of the most severe global risks over the next 2 and 10 years.

www.statista.com

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think we're nicely hitting the line third down from the top on the left

View attachment 84468

Infographic: The Largest Risks Faced by the World

This chart shows experts' assessments of the most severe global risks over the next 2 and 10 years.

www.statista.com

Looks like another climate change apocalyptic doomsday scenario in 10 years. At least there's no more war or inflation and the economy appears to be chugging right along. Must be because WEF (source) will be in charge

 

[Kirkhill]

I think we're nicely hitting the line third down from the top on the left

View attachment 84468

Infographic: The Largest Risks Faced by the World

This chart shows experts' assessments of the most severe global risks over the next 2 and 10 years.

www.statista.com

Alinsky 13

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals is a 1971 book by community activist and writer Saul D. Alinsky about how to successfully run a movement for change.

Rules for Radicals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think we're nicely hitting the line third down from the top on the left

A few things, and really only the first one matters:

1. What sane person would accept any prediction 10 years out, when "experts" in various domains have difficulty predicting things 6 months out? Don't we have predictions from 1, 2, 3 or more decades ago that we should be neck deep in sh!t by now?

2. Weather, "earth systems", and biodiversity/ecosystems are all just part of one thing ("climate catastrophe!"); representing it as 3 points is unsubtle alarmism.

3. Natural resource shortages are more likely to happen due to climate mitigation than if approximately unfettered capitalism is allowed to continue advancing technology. Capitalists seek to do more with less; it's part of how they cut costs and increase profits.

 

[OldSolduer]

2. Weather, "earth systems", and biodiversity/ecosystems are all just part of one thing ("climate catastrophe!"); representing it as 3 points is unsubtle alarmism.

Well the sky was falling according to that Chicken Little person....

 

[suffolkowner]

Replicating an experiment or a statistical analysis of some measurements and getting the same result is just an indication of consistency. Getting the same answer doesn't confirm whether it's wrong or right. Using different proxies might suggest whether the result is reliable, but I doubt there are enough proxies that can be measured on the same time mesh as we have been using to measure contemporary temperatures for the past few decades.

ok I can see the confusion here. Thats probably my fault for not using precise enough language but its the results that have been replicated not the study. No one wants to repeat someone else's work thats boring and obviously not unique. There is a ton of proxies available and the resulting data sets that have been generated from 1996 to 2020.

actually, it does. If you don't know, don't do anything; First line because we don't know enough about what influence we are actually having, if any, on global climate change. Full stop. We don't even have enough accurate and uncontaminated thermometers to give us reliable temperature readings. Wake up and follow the money.

but we do know
theres more money at Exxon et al than there is applying for NSF grants
it the "dont do anything" that throws me here do something or nothing is a policy issue not a question about AGW itself

I think we're nicely hitting the line third down from the top on the left

View attachment 84468

Infographic: The Largest Risks Faced by the World

This chart shows experts' assessments of the most severe global risks over the next 2 and 10 years.

www.statista.com

societal polarization is a funny one right? Like why would an established scientific theory be an issue for polarization? Having said that there seems to be a few other scientific theories or topics that have inspired similar popular debate

Evolution-doesnt seem so up front and center anymore
Vaccines- obviously recently very topical
GMO's- doesnt seem to attract as much attention as AGW or vaccines

 

[IKnowNothing]

theres more money at Exxon et al than there is applying for NSF grants

"Follow the money" as part of an argument skeptical of the science behind human caused climate change is one of the most puzzlingly ironic things you see

 

[Furniture]

land temperature stations record temperatures at 2m

No, it's supposed to be between 1.25m and 2m, with the average being about 1.5m.

Then you need to account for the various "classes" of observation sites, based on how well the sensors are sited. My job is inspection weather stations, and I can assure you that few meet the Class 1 standard, meaning that you are likely have an "estimation" variable as large as the predicted global warming... Add in that even a Class 1 site that is in the middle of an urban heat island like YYZ, still isn't representative of "global" trends, but is more a local representation of what happens when you cover a couple hundred square kms of ground with concrete.

I know in my field of expertise the data is bad, and as a weather forecaster I know the modeling has to be impacted by bad data going in.

WMO reference for site classification. https://library.wmo.int/viewer/68695/?offset=#page=68&viewer=picture&o=bookmark&n=0&q=

 

[Furniture]

"Follow the money" as part of an argument skeptical of the science behind human caused climate change is one of the most puzzlingly ironic things you see

Not really, governments hand out research money all the time based on their policies, and your research needs to align with the expectations if you ever expect to receive money again.

Just because one side is bad does not mean the other is good.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

| Patriots for Liberty | patriotsforlibertyusa · Original audio

. patriotsforlibertyusa · Original audio

www.facebook.com

 

[Quirky]

Trying really hard to be the best..




At least per capita we are the highest. Social programs don't fund themselves.

 

[dimsum]

Trying really hard to be the best..

View attachment 84493


At least per capita we are the highest. Social programs don't fund themselves.

There should be a corresponding chart on how much each country pollutes. Just putting tax amounts doesn’t mean much by itself.

Does France produce more or less than Canada? If Canada produces 20x more (number completely made up) than France, then it tells a completely different story.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Factor in that Canada is one of the world's largest carbon sinks, then compare how much CO2 we produce, net, compared to France. We might even be in the negative.

 

[YZT580]

During the early years of covid, our Co2 output dropped sharply yet there was no corresponding drop in temperatures. This should have been an indicator that we were chasing the wrong culprit. Water vapour has a far greater influence on temperatures than does carbon as does methane but neither is the principal cause of warming. That crown is worn by two: the first is de-forestation, particularly in the rain forest regions and the second is our rapidly expanding cities. Trudeau's much vaunted plans to build more housing and Ford's plans to jam more buildings into an acre of land will do more to influence the temperatures than anything else this country can do.

 

[dimsum]

During the early years of covid, our Co2 output dropped sharply yet there was no corresponding drop in temperatures. This should have been an indicator that we were chasing the wrong culprit. Water vapour has a far greater influence on temperatures than does carbon as does methane but neither is the principal cause of warming. That crown is worn by two: the first is de-forestation, particularly in the rain forest regions and the second is our rapidly expanding cities. Trudeau's much vaunted plans to build more housing and Ford's plans to jam more buildings into an acre of land will do more to influence the temperatures than anything else this country can do.

NASA sort of agrees, but they say that the CO2 output basically bounced back by end-2020. So 9 months of drop.

Emission Reductions From Pandemic Had Unexpected Effects on Atmosphere – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Earth’s atmosphere reacted in surprising ways to the lowering of emissions during the pandemic, showing how closely climate warming and air pollution are linked.

climate.nasa.gov

To be fair, it’s not completely refuting your point but it suggests that the issue(s) are not only CO2 emission, but how the oceans capture it and other gases (methane specifically) play a factor.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Factor in that Canada is one of the world's largest carbon sinks, then compare how much CO2 we produce, net, compared to France. We might even be in the negative.

Well, there's the Ocean of course.

But it's having its own issues with climate change too...

Quantifying the Ocean Carbon Sink​

The ocean acts as a “carbon sink” and absorbs about 31% of the CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere according to a study published by NOAA and international partners in Science. As atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the CO2 levels in the ocean. When CO2 is absorbed by seawater, a series of chemical reactions occur causing the seawater to become more acidic. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as ocean acidification.

Ocean acidification threatens the fundamental chemical balance of ocean and coastal waters across the globe. Ocean acidification can create conditions that eat away at the minerals used by oysters, clams, shrimp, coral reefs, and other marine life to build their shells and skeletons. Human health is also a concern, as lab studies have shown that many harmful algal species produce more toxins and bloom faster in acidified waters.

Quantifying the Ocean Carbon Sink

The newest version of the Surface Ocean Carbon Atlas (SOCATv2022) database is now available via NCEI.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

 

[YZT580]

NASA sort of agrees, but they say that the CO2 output basically bounced back by end-2020. So 9 months of drop.

Emission Reductions From Pandemic Had Unexpected Effects on Atmosphere – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Earth’s atmosphere reacted in surprising ways to the lowering of emissions during the pandemic, showing how closely climate warming and air pollution are linked.

climate.nasa.gov

To be fair, it’s not completely refuting your point but it suggests that the issue(s) are not only CO2 emission, but how the oceans capture it and other gases (methane specifically) play a factor.

fractional issue only. The best bang for the buck is to preserve the Amazon and green up the cities so they are less of a heat sink. CO2 spreads well into the atmosphere so its effect should be felt universally. Its not. The Antarctica hasn't warmed at all whilst the Arctic has significantly yet both should reflect an increase if carbon is the blocking agent. A city can produce a 10 degree difference. With our large number of cities in the northern hemisphere and particularly in America and Europe the air currents are playing havoc with the normal distribution from what I have read. We are wasting resources on chasing a what 2 or 3 percent improvement. We don't have that kind of money to throw around and I for one have no desire to live as my 19th century ancestors did. As for the ocean acidification issue, the experts were screaming that we were destroying the Great Barrier reef. The latest analysis shows that it is doing just fine thankyou very much. The experts also said that polar bears were dying off. They are doing just fine as well. So how many mistaken experts have to be shown wrong before you start to believe that maybe they are chasing the wrong shadows

 

[Brad Sallows]

Species that were around during prior eras of high CO2 will probably survive this one. Very young species, maybe not (we can't know), but there is more than one cause of extinction.