Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

I'm trying to give RJ the benefit of the doubt. In fairness to him, and everyone else, these discussions can get pretty far into the weeds.

The problem is he keeps cherry-picking what he considers facts, probably because on the surface they appear to support his position, while ignoring the truth.

The paper he and I are currently discussing goes into detail about how the statistical emperical straight line fitting in figure 1 (the item he's focusing on) doesn't match how the actual trend has evolved figure 2 & 3 (the items he should be focusing on).

Figure 2 part "g" clearly shows, for example, that except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land is warming. Yet somehow he seems to think 98% of the planet, per the original claim, is not enough.

And Figure 3 clearly shows the evolution of the warming trend.


I don't think he's being dishonest, he's just seeing what he wants to see. On the other hand, it's easy to see how a dishonest actor might post figure 1 and ignore the rest even though the paper is saying the exact opposite.

Figure 2g is what I have been looking at. Look at my post #1254 where I said, "look at Fig. 2e,f,g. Those years have the most warming, and you can see areas of cooling or no warming for nearly all latitudes. Thus, "a warming period is NOT affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

The white areas do not count as "warming." Eyeball estimate looks like 10-15% of the surface of the planet is not warming, its unclear if Antarctica is included in their analysis. I think not, but if it is then that number is higher. Once again, this paper does not show that "a warming period now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

[MultiVerse]

Figure 2g is what I have been looking at. Look at my post #1254 where I said, "look at Fig. 2e,f,g. Those years have the most warming, and you can see areas of cooling or no warming for nearly all latitudes. Thus, "a warming period is NOT affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

The white areas do not count as "warming." Eyeball estimate looks like 10-15% of the surface of the planet is not warming, its unclear if Antarctica is included in their analysis. I think not, but if it is then that number is higher. Once again, this paper does not show that "a warming period now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

Per the paper itself the white areas count as less significant warming, a noisy pattern, but they do count as warming.

And while I did write "a warming period now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time" a reasonable person would admit that I previously and repeatedly qualified the statement by writing 98% of the planet or writing nearly the entire planet. In the context of the previous posts (plural) it should be clear that the whole planet is shorthand for 98%:

"Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed."

Also, your paper which clearly shows a warming trend approaching 98% uses 2009 data, while the paper I've been referencing for the 98% number is from 2019.

Your argument against the 2019 paper here is picayune at best because when you began arguing against the 2019 paper you were arguing against the 98% number.

[ron johnson]

lol.

1 - You wrote in response to me saying most of the global warming occurred in the past 35 years by cherry picking GISS data purportedly showing the warming was greater from 1920-1945 than it was from 1980-today, which is clearly an attempt at denying that recent warming is stronger than previous decades.

2 - You wrote the paper's authors "are relying on the IPCC for that statement" when in fact the warming rate, the pace of change, is a key component of their data set.

1. I don't know what post you took that quote by me from, but I don't know how you can cherry pick GISS data. The quote from the IPCC, "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" includes the warming of the first half of the 20th century, which is largely natural.

2. I'm saying that the paper's authors are deferring to the IPCC for that statement. It is not a conclusion from their study. The goal of the study, from the abstract: "This warming [of the past century] is spatially and temporally non-uniform, and one needs to understand its evolution to better evaluate its potential societal and economic impact. They conclude, "We find that the noticeable warming (>0.5 K) started sporadically over the global land and accelerated until around 1980. Both the warming rate and spatial structure have changed little since."

[Kinnikinnick]

There is nothing wrong with my climatechangedispatch linkm.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190417...sAZChPfmctah5w

This is what the actual author of the study referenced says about this:

“As the lead author of the paper published in Science Advances on which this article is based on, I would like to state that it is a misrepresentation of the findings published in Willeit et al (2019)*. Our paper does not in any way disprove the human origin of current climate change. On the contrary, our model, which is able to reproduce the last 3 million years of natural climate variability, clearly shows that the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution can not be explained by natural climate processes.”

So yeah Climatechangedispatch is out as a legitimate source. So what do you have?

0


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[ron johnson]

Per the paper itself the white areas count as less significant warming, a noisy pattern, but they do count as warming.

And while I did write "a warming period now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time" a reasonable person would admit that I previously and repeatedly qualified the statement by writing 98% of the planet or writing nearly the entire planet. In the context of the previous posts (plural) it should be clear that the whole planet is shorthand for 98%.

Also, your paper which clearly shows a warming trend approaching 98% uses 2009 data, while the paper I've been referencing for the 98% number is from 2019.

Your argument against the 2019 paper here is picayune at best because when you began arguing against the 2019 paper, you were arguing against the 98% number.

I can't see the paper, but if the white areas count as warming, then the graph should show the temperature scale for white as 0'-.5', not -.5'-.5'. If some areas of the globe were cooling beyond -.5', then surely some must have been in the -.5'-0' zone.

It does not clearly show a warming trend approaching 98% from 2009 data.

Just because there has been more warming this decade, that does not mean that even more of the globe is warming. Just for example, the best US data set (USCRN) started in 2005, does not show a warming trend in the US over that time frame:

[ron johnson]

Oh yes, I trust known Heartland Institute climate denier James Taylor over NASA any day. He's not even a scientist. You win.

What about the other two then? There is endless info on this...

[k2skier112]

I can't see the paper, but if the white areas count as warming, then the graph should show the temperature scale for white as 0'-.5', not -.5'-.5'. If some areas of the globe were cooling beyond -.5', then surely some must have been in the -.5'-0' zone.

It does not clearly show a warming trend approaching 98% from 2009 data.

Just because there has been more warming this decade, that does not mean that even more of the globe is warming. Just for example, the best US data set (USCRN) started in 2005, does not show a warming trend in the US over that time frame:

the talk is about GLOBAL warming and dumb cunt posts an altered graph with no link about US temps, for fucts sake just stop

[k2skier112]

Look man, you have reservations about politics, don't transfer them to science. Just because people you don't like believe this shit doesn't make it false.

As a lifelong democrat I share some of your concerns but not your doubts about the science. Compartmentalize. Figure out what goes with what. Science is not political, it speaks for itself, and you are misunderstanding it.

but but but Fox News said it was fake news....

[ron johnson]

https://web.archive.org/web/20190417...sAZChPfmctah5w

This is what the actual author of the study referenced says about this:

“As the lead author of the paper published in Science Advances on which this article is based on, I would like to state that it is a misrepresentation of the findings published in Willeit et al (2019)*. Our paper does not in any way disprove the human origin of current climate change. On the contrary, our model, which is able to reproduce the last 3 million years of natural climate variability, clearly shows that the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution can not be explained by natural climate processes.”

So yeah Climatechangedispatch is out as a legitimate source. So what do you have?

0


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

You aren't following me. Perhaps climatechangedispatch lacks reliability, but the only link I provided from them in this thread is legitimate: https://climatechangedispatch.com/97...-97-consensus/ It is merely a conglomeration of links to studies, articles and blogs about the "97% consensus." I could just post the links on my own like I did in response to WMD, but I preferred to use that link to show just how many places have debunked the "97% consensus."

[WMD]

If you guys are successful it might cause me to rethink my personal ban on talking about politics and (disputed) science on the internet, which is in place because no matter how hard you try nobody ever changes their mind. The ban has been quite relaxing, so I'm not sure who i'm rooting for here.

Ron's mind cannot be changed. I still bet he is paid by one of the Koch Brothers organizations. Anyone who thinks they can change his mind is as crazy as he is.

I post for everyone else reading the thread and I appreciate Ron giving me the opportunity to share so much information with you all.

[ron johnson]

Look man, you have reservations about politics, don't transfer them to science. Just because people you don't like believe this shit doesn't make it false.

As a lifelong democrat I share some of your concerns but not your doubts about the science. Compartmentalize. Figure out what goes with what. Science is not political, it speaks for itself, and you are misunderstanding it.

A lot of people in this thread have been trying to make this political. I have not. I have no interest in the politics of this subject.

[WMD]

A lot of people in this thread have been trying to make this political. I have not. I have no interest in the politics of this subject.

Or the science...

[ron johnson]

Ron's mind cannot be changed. I still bet he is paid by one of the Koch Brothers organizations. Anyone who thinks they can change his mind is as crazy as he is.

I post for everyone else reading the thread and I appreciate Ron giving me the opportunity to share so much information with you all.

I'm positive that I am more open minded than you are.

[ron johnson]

Or the science...

It's pretty clear you don't have any interest in the science yourself. For example, even after it was clearly demonstrated to you that the scientific consensus on hurricanes doesn't support that hurricanes are worsening from global warming, you continued to post hysterical hurricane articles.

[WMD]

I'm positive that I am more open minded than you are.

Are you bi or something?

[k2skier112]

It's pretty clear you don't have any interest in the science yourself. For example, even after it was clearly demonstrated to you that the scientific consensus on hurricanes doesn't support that hurricanes are worsening from global warming, you continued to post hysterical hurricane articles.

snort, "scientific consensus"

how much spit is on your monitor?

edjumakate urelfs, member, global warming...
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html


In the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific, we use the term "hurricane" to describe severe storms with high-velocity winds that rotate around a central, low-pressure core. The same type of disturbance in the Northwest Pacific is called a “typhoon” and “cyclones” occur in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

In order for a hurricane to form, two things must be present: a weather disturbance, such as a thunderstorm, that pulls in warm surface air from all directions and water at the ocean’s surface that is at least 80° Fahrenheit (27° Celsius). Because it is the interaction of warm air and warm seawater that spawns these storms, they form over tropical oceans between about 5 and 20 degrees of latitude. At these latitudes, seawater is hot enough to give the storms strength and the rotation of the Earth makes them spin.

Hurricanes start simply with the evaporation of warm seawater, which pumps water into the lower atmosphere. This humid air is then dragged aloft when converging winds collide and turn upwards. At higher altitudes, water vapor starts to condense into clouds and rain, releasing heat that warms the surrounding air, causing it to rise as well. As the air far above the sea rushes upward, even more warm moist air spirals in from along the surface to replace it.

As long as the base of this weather system remains over warm water and its top is not sheared apart by high-altitude winds, it will strengthen and grow. More and more heat and water will be pumped into the air. The pressure at its core will drop further and further, sucking in wind at ever increasing speeds. Over several hours to days, the storm will intensify, finally reaching hurricane status when the winds that swirl around it reach sustained speeds of 74 miles per hour or more.

Eventually, hurricanes turn away from the tropics and into mid-latitudes. Once they move over cold water or over land and lose touch with the hot water that powers them, these storms weaken and break apart.

Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.

[k2skier112]

Maybe next time I'll use puppets and crayons so you can keep up

[ron johnson]

the talk is about GLOBAL warming and dumb cunt posts an altered graph with no link about US temps, for fucts sake just stop

You are so helpless that I need to link a graph from NOAA USCRN? https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-p...=2019&month=12

And no, Multi and I are discussing global warming in the context of regional warming.

[k2skier112]

https://sciencing.com/elements-weath...e-7242308.html

https://www.weather.gov/crp/weather_education

https://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-words.htm

[ron johnson]

snort, "scientific consensus"

how much spit is on your monitor?

edjumakate urelfs, member, global warming...
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html


In the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific, we use the term "hurricane" to describe severe storms with high-velocity winds that rotate around a central, low-pressure core. The same type of disturbance in the Northwest Pacific is called a “typhoon” and “cyclones” occur in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

In order for a hurricane to form, two things must be present: a weather disturbance, such as a thunderstorm, that pulls in warm surface air from all directions and water at the ocean’s surface that is at least 80° Fahrenheit (27° Celsius). Because it is the interaction of warm air and warm seawater that spawns these storms, they form over tropical oceans between about 5 and 20 degrees of latitude. At these latitudes, seawater is hot enough to give the storms strength and the rotation of the Earth makes them spin.

Hurricanes start simply with the evaporation of warm seawater, which pumps water into the lower atmosphere. This humid air is then dragged aloft when converging winds collide and turn upwards. At higher altitudes, water vapor starts to condense into clouds and rain, releasing heat that warms the surrounding air, causing it to rise as well. As the air far above the sea rushes upward, even more warm moist air spirals in from along the surface to replace it.

As long as the base of this weather system remains over warm water and its top is not sheared apart by high-altitude winds, it will strengthen and grow. More and more heat and water will be pumped into the air. The pressure at its core will drop further and further, sucking in wind at ever increasing speeds. Over several hours to days, the storm will intensify, finally reaching hurricane status when the winds that swirl around it reach sustained speeds of 74 miles per hour or more.

Eventually, hurricanes turn away from the tropics and into mid-latitudes. Once they move over cold water or over land and lose touch with the hot water that powers them, these storms weaken and break apart.

Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.

How far did you have to dig to find that random undated, unsourced web page snippet? This has already been posted in the thread: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/

"In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups."

"Therefore, we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity."

[old goat]

A lot of people in this thread have been trying to make this political. I have not. I have no interest in the politics of this subject.

chuckle

Or the science...

chuckle

I'm positive that I am more open minded than you are.

ROFL

[k2skier112]

after rj can pass a 6th grade quiz on weather, we'll move to climate. Then, IF he can pass that quiz it's off to oceanography and the cryosphere

then hopefully he can remove his right wing views, and monetary issues, with climate change and talk at the big boys table

[Norseman]

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cu...ped-pretending

[old goat]

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cu...ped-pretending

I read that--it's where I got the Scientific American article I posted--but Franzen is a novelist. If we're going to be particular about sources it applies on both sides of the argument.

[WMD]

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cu...ped-pretending

I posted those he other day but here it is again:


^^ the climate scientists on Twitter are furious about this article, saying Franzen gets the science wrong.

Michael Mann:
"Hey @NewYorker, I fixed the headline for you:
"What if we stopped pretending that false prophecies of unavoidable doom are anything other than crypto-denialist narratives that favor an agenda of inaction?" (see: washingtonpost.com/opinions/dooms…)"

Dr Genevieve Guenther:

There are many problems w the @NewYorker Franzen climate piece. Here are three:

1) It distorts the science.
2) It's completely apolitical.
3) It contradicts itself: is the apocalypse coming or should we all start local farmers markets

First: the science.

Franzen claims that climate change will spin "completely out of control" if the planet heats to somwhere around 2°C.

This is flat-out wrong.

According to @helixclimate, the EU agency tasked with studying climate impacts from 1.5° to 6°C, the "tipping points" that cause global heating to spin out of control happen at solidly higher temperatures.

But lest you think that scientists know what they're talking about, Franzen makes sure to attack the legitimacy of the @IPCC_CH.

The crazy thing, though? Franzen doesn't understand how climate science works.

(Although I don't know why I'm surprised.)

Climate scientists don't make "best predictions." Nor do they have most confidence in their "lowest" projected temperature.

They project temperature across a confidence *range*.

I get it, I guess, climate science is hard. But if you're going to write about climate science for the @newyorker you should really get it right.

Moving on to the more serious issue with this essay: did you all notice that it's easier for Franzen to imagine the end of the world than to envision a politics that will change our systems in time to save millions of lives?

That lack of vision is a choice.

It's an aesthetic choice.

It's a political choice.

These putatively lefty smart boys acting like they're so courageous and manly for accepting the apocalypse?

They're just lazy and entitled.

(And selfish, too, also selfish.)

...

Washington Post Reporter Sarah Kaplan

I'm not linking to that Jonathan Franzen essay (which is not only poorly argued but completely mischaracterizes the scientific understanding of climate change and its impacts on society), BUT...
1. "Climate Change" is not a bomb that's gonna go off in 2030 if we don't cut emissions. It's an ongoing process (that is already well underway) and every day we don't take action to mitigate it, it gets worse.

But the flip side of that is: everything we DO do makes it better.
Yes, a global avg temperature rise of 1.5 degrees will be better and safer for humanity than one of 2 degrees. But a 2 degree world is still better than a 3 degree world, which is better than 4 or 5 or 8. Cutting emissions isn't EVER "pointless."

2. Framing our response to change as a choice between mitigation and adaptation is misguided. And not a single person who actually spends time thinking about the problem sees it that way. We have to do both.
3. Franzen wants us to give up on large scale, transformative change and turn inward. He says the global climate catastrophe can't be averted, so we may as well stop caring about the whole world and just focus on ourselves.

Easy to say for someone who is white, affluent, privileged, protected -- and revealing of how blinkered Franzen's view of the world is.

Look at the Bahamas right now. What is that except the climate catastrophe, already well underway?

It's not only inaccurate to suggest that there's salvation to be found by retreating from the world. It's inhumane. It denies the suffering of millions of people we share this world with *right now*. It condemns countless more people to suffering in the future.

4. If you're struggling with how to feel about climate change, I'd recommend this @DrKateMarvel essay: "Courage is the resolve to do well without the assurance of a happy ending."

Or read what the poet Alice Major told @MrDanZak:

“It is an immense privilege to be alive at this time. We owe it to ourselves to try ... and to give meaning to it. Only by understanding our lives as meaningful can we hope to create meaningful change.”