Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

I never read the Grauniad, it stopped doing any serious journalism years ago, the daily fail is just as bad on the other side and are exactly the sort of people who would bash the EU for this sort of thing.

 

Actually the agency concerned with rivers said that dredging really didn't have a lot of effect and wasn't cost effective, it went back to the same state pretty fast in most cases.

Good to know. Seems like catastrophies arrive "without warning" but mostly due to lack of or improper planning. Thanks.

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps you can tell us exactly what the ideal temperature is for every place on Earth every day of the year and what we must do to attain this utopia.

Whatever it may be, it appears to be the fault of our 4% of the 5% of ghg that has less and less effect, the more there is... Surely that precise mathematical relation will be revealed soon .... like when models finally manage to make an accurate prediction. Sure it will.

[Al_U_Card]

Anecdotal occurances are to science what nothing-burgers are to special prosecutor impeachment investigations... ;)

[johnu]

 

I depend on local observers. BTW, what is the weather like in fantasy land today? Is the earth still flat where you live? :lol:

[johnu]

...

Yada that doesn't make any sense, what's new?

...

 

LOL, more data points about extreme weather phenomena. Just like all the recent record hot years that have the climate change deniers denying that it's getting warmer.

[hrothgar]

Perhaps you can tell us exactly what the ideal temperature is for every place on Earth every day of the year and what we must do to attain this utopia.

 

Seems stupid to focus the mean when the rate of change is what has people really concerned, but then again no one ever accused you of being smart...

[Cyberyeti]

Good to know. Seems like catastrophies arrive "without warning" but mostly due to lack of or improper planning. Thanks.

 

And btw when I said once in 150 year events I should have been clearer, I meant rainfall events rather than floods, so the building/dredging is irrelevant to that, just changes the effect. Getting 6-9 months rain in 12 hours is never going to be good, but seems to be happening a lot more often these days.

[Al_U_Card]

And btw when I said once in 150 year events I should have been clearer, I meant rainfall events rather than floods, so the building/dredging is irrelevant to that, just changes the effect. Getting 6-9 months rain in 12 hours is never going to be good, but seems to be happening a lot more often these days.

For sure. I am just trying to recall AR5's WG1 and 2 and what they found relative to indications of changes to weather caused by CO2. I'll go back to my copy and give it a look see but my recollection is that the findings were hardly conclusive or even convincing. The SPM tends to sensationalize as well as changing a lot of the conclusions based on their selection of studies that support their position. It is the effect of our CO2 versus the other "forcings" that may, or may not, affect our weather.

[Al_U_Card]

The planet has "greened" 7% over the last several decades.

Colder times are drier times (droughts like the perpetual one in Ca. that occurred during the little ice age) and both cause crop failures.

Warmer always coincides with wetter and bumper crops as well as flourishing civilisations although the CO2 does help plants deal with drought.

Now, what was that exact mathematical relationship between [CO2] and global temps or is that only the models that are wrong for some other reason?

An interesting paper on sea level rise and the models inability to provide accurate projections https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/6/1/11

 

I really like the "keep your grant" phrasing at the end of the abstract.

 

"model-projection products exceed observational records for nearly all stations and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) experiments, and are likely in the range of 1.6–2.5 mm/year. The analysis might provide an early warning sign that the evaluation of ocean model components with respect to projected mean sea level could be relevantly improved. "

[Al_U_Card]

30+ years is climate, right? Observations only count when they show warming, right? Flowers are blooming earlier as it gets hotter, right? Or,

 

http://notrickszone.com/2019/03/23/spring-cooling-hamburgs-forsythia-blossoming-whopping-17-days-later-than-30-years-ago/

[hrothgar]

30+ years is climate, right? Observations only count when they show warming, right? Flowers are blooming earlier as it gets hotter, right? Or,

 

http://notrickszone.com/2019/03/23/spring-cooling-hamburgs-forsythia-blossoming-whopping-17-days-later-than-30-years-ago/

 

Yo shiite for brains

 

What happens if you start the analysis in 1988 rather than cherry picking 1987 as your starting date

Completely different result...

 

https://www.dwd.de/DE/klimaumwelt/klimaueberwachung/phaenologie/produkte/langereihen/forsythie_2006.jpg?__blob=poster&v=9

 

As I said in the other thread, you post a never ending series of misrepresentations and lies

[Al_U_Card]

 

So, all the way back to 1971 ... no change! Wow, CO2 is not the climate changing force it is made out to be. Went from 330 ppm to 410 and ... no difference! Unlike single Yamal trees and wonky statistical methods and general malfeasance by the IPCC peer-reviewed science, nature transcends our foolishness and remains true to form within its normal variation. CO2 has varied way more than 80 ppm in the past and just believing in the misrepresentations of the weasel-worded climastroligist screeds shows what's what.

[hrothgar]

 

So, all the way back to 1971 ... no change! Wow, CO2 is not the climate changing force it is made out to be. Went from 330 ppm to 410 and ... no difference! Unlike single Yamal trees and wonky statistical methods and general malfeasance by the IPCC peer-reviewed science, nature transcends our foolishness and remains true to form within its normal variation. CO2 has varied way more than 80 ppm in the past and just believing in the misrepresentations of the weasel-worded climastroligist screeds shows what's what.

 

Once again, you are incapable of learning...

 

YOU cited web site that made a specific claim.

 

"The trend of spring blossoming show that springs in Hamburg have been cooling over the past 30 years."

 

Turns out that the claim was compete bullshit because they cherry picked the start points and the end points for the analysis.

 

You have now shifted your claim to say "No evidence of warming", never admitting that you are too stupid and too lazy to evaluate any of this information to begin with. You just credulous spew crap believing that it somehow supports your claims.

 

What a *****head you are.

[Al_U_Card]

So, that makes the precise relation between CO2 and global climate:

 

Global climate + CO2 forcing = Global climate.

 

Do the math and balance that equation. LOL

[hrothgar]

So, that makes the precise relation between CO2 and global climate:

 

Global climate + CO2 forcing = Global climate.

 

Do the math and balance that equation. LOL

 

No shiite for brains....

 

That means that its stupid trying to use an isolated data set of from Hamburg Germany to explain world wide climate change.

 

Why not go back to explaining the "truth" about 9/11?

Or did you finally give up on that idiocy?

[Chas_P]

Seems stupid to focus the mean when the rate of change is what has people really concerned, but then again no one ever accused you of being smart...

 

As Ken said in another thread, "This is hard to respond to. I don't want to just ignore it but I also don't feel like mounting a defense of myself. I acknowledge your comments. I'll leave it at that."

[johnu]

I have to admit that I have been completely wrong about how to solve the climate change problem and I have to thank Senator Lee for setting me straight:

 

GOP Senator Says Having More ‘American Babies’ Is The Solution To Climate Change

 

Climate change is an engineering problem ― not social engineering but the real kind. It’s a challenge of creativity, ingenuity and most of all, technological innovation. And problems of human imagination are not solved by more laws; they’re solved by more humans.

 

More babies will mean forward-looking adults, the sort we need to tackle long-term large-scale problems. American babies, in particular, are likely going to be wealthier, better educated and more conservation-minded than children raised in still industrializing countries.

The problem with trying to solve global warming today is that we don't have enough smart people working on the problem. Just wait for 20-30 years until a new generation of smart people become adults and solve the world's problems. And if they don't solve the global warming problem, wait 40-60 years until the children of the next generation solve the problem. It's good to know that the Republican party has more than 1 stable genius. :rolleyes:

[johnu]

Is it getting warmer???

 

Temperatures In Alaska And Australia Hit Record-Breaking Highs Last Month

 

According to the 2018 National Climate Assessment, Alaska “is among the fastest warming regions on Earth,” with it warming two to three times faster than the rest of the lower 48 states.

“It’s come in about 2.2 degrees (4°F) above the long term for the first quarter of the year,” he told Australia’s ABC News. “That’s nearly a degree hotter than the previous hottest first quarter of the year.”

 

That change, he said, is nothing ordinary.

 

“Even for an individual month that would be a very significant margin, but to be breaking a three-month-period record by nearly a degree is something which we would see very rarely, if ever, in a continent the size of Australia,” he said.

Back up north, scientists in Canada on Monday released a damning report that found that Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world and that the change is “effectively irreversible.”

 

According to the government report from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the average temperature in Canada is 3°F (1.7°C) higher today than it was 70 years ago, while the average global temperature is up 1.4°F (0.8°C). The Canadian Arctic has meanwhile risen by 4°F (2.3°C).

 

Climate change deniers had a scientific reason for the temperature increases. Basically they are saying that you can't believe those thermometers, that even if the thermometers are correct it was hotter in the past, and if you don't have a universally agreed upon theory about why there is global warming, it isn't happening.

[Al_U_Card]

The PDO explains Alaskan temperature declines in the 50s thru 70s (la nina cycle) followed by the warm el nino cycle of the last 30 years.

The BoM downunder has been caught fiddling the numbers repeatedly.

Now, what exactly was that relation between [CO2]a and global temperature (errr climate change) again? Try to be specific.

[johnu]

...

More cut and paste incomprehensible Yada that doesn't stick to the wall

...

[thepossum]

One thing I know for certain after 40+ years (in my case) of climate change awareness, publicity, research, debate, policy (or lack of) is that its one of those topics that should probably never be discussed in polite company along with religion and politics

 

Some people will never accept scientific evidence above what they experience unless it confirms their beliefs and experience.

 

Also, some others will never accept the fallibility of research process and that some proponents of action over the years have been rather aggressive in pushing the issue and attacking people who do not understand science. I will go so far as to say that many scientists do not understand science and the fallibility of their methods. The good ones do (eg professors), but there a lot of ordinary ones in other areas of society who can cause problems with lack of full knowledge of what they are talking about. There is a distinct arrogance among a certain group in society, especially the more educated academic research types who like to talk down to less educated people. There is also an arrogance from parties on that side of politics towards the more ordinary working person. It happens all the time. Although those less educated are often manipulated by those with agendas and knowledge on all sides of debates. The result of all this is people like Trump or the equivalent in different countries

 

It has also sadly connected up with the conspiracy theorists and anti-government, anti-elites movements. All issues are combined into one big consipracy

 

The majority of (good) researchers keep doing their work and despairing 1) how it is communicated, 2) how it is interpreted or misinterpreted and 3) over many things I guess

 

However sadly, the level of scientific communication around the world is seriously flawed and often is filtered through journalism (and now social media - the main form of infomation now) by people with no real scientific knowledge at all

 

Conclusion

 

Climate change will never be fixed. Its like King Knut trying to mythically stop the tides. The scientists will keep producing evidence. Some people will try to make good policy. The conspirarcy theorists will never believe and will keep attacking. There will be misleading information from both sides (including sadly the more informed). There will be continuing arrogance by the educated elites agaisnt the less educated and consistent manipulation of everyone by vested interests.

 

Meanwhile the majority of people and businesses and governments of good faith will gradually continue to improve things through their personal decisions, choice,s market. People are already decided on a reduction of emissions around the world and act accordingly irrespective of the debate and the misinformation

 

Thats life and history. But I sincerely doubt anything humans do can halt anything as major climate change including the anthropogenic part of it. Human's still havent realised that some systems are bigger than us

 

Regards P

[Al_U_Card]

Just the fact that hardly 1% of GHG is our doing and that water vapour is the dominant GHG (20 times more than atmospheric CO2) and that climate doom only exists in over-heated computer models that use the RCP 8.5 scenarios that are totally unrealistic, makes the whole "projection" of our responsibility for the weather totally unrealistic. If the scientific basis relies on more than the current "expert opinion" offered by the IPCC then what is the exact, mathematical relationship that links our CO2 with a changing climate? Gravity has one. Electro-magnetism has one ....

[hrothgar]

One thing I know for certain after 40+ years (in my case) of climate change awareness, publicity, research, debate, policy (or lack of) is that its one of those topics that should probably never be discussed in polite company along with religion and politics

 

Possum, you're new to the Climate Change thead

 

Please be aware that Al lies, all the time.

In addition to the climate change bullshiite that he spews forth, he is also a 9-11 "truther" who spent years trying to convince us that that 9-11 was a false flag operation.

 

His posts constantly contradict one another. At the moment he is claiming that the world is warming but that this a natural change.

Wait a couple weeks. he'll be claiming that the world isn't actually warming or perhaps that Freemason's are putting fluoride into the water supply.

[johnu]

His posts constantly contradict one another. At the moment he is claiming that the world is warming but that this a natural change.

Wait a couple weeks. he'll be claiming that the world isn't actually warming or perhaps that Freemason's are putting fluoride into the water supply.

 

Al_U_Card apparently spends most of his time trying to find anything and everything that casts doubt on global warming, no matter the source. Claiming that the world is warming but is a natural cycle is just one thing he has promoted. He also has claimed that there is no warming at all and that temperatures were much warmer in the recent past. He has claimed that sea levels are not rising and that the cause of coastal flooding is that the land mass is sinking (related to post glacial rebound). He claimed that forest fires were burning fewer acres in the US (based on totally discredited information) because the US was actually getting cooler.

 

Al_U_Card is so committed to denying global warming that he declined a good paying position to be the marketing director for the flat earth society B-)

[Chas_P]

Humans still haven't realized that some systems are bigger than us

 

 

Amen! I remember some time back seeing Nancy Pelosi shrieking, "I'M TRYING TO SAVE THE PLANET." I think she's grossly overestimating her capabilities. Compared to the forces of nature we humans aren't much more than a colony of ants.