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

[LongShortLong]

I thought you might appreciate things in more simple terms. Here is a paper on CO2's logarithmic forcing: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2014JD022466

This isn't a controversial subject.

A credible reference.

So we agree its well studied, and the experts who study it say we have a problem and are advising society to take action.

[Bunion 2020]

IMO, the only way humanity will survive the next few centuries without massive hardship is either a) wealth distribution raises the standard of living so that population slows and even reverses around the world, or b) a massive technological advancement allows us to continue fucking up our planet’s ecosystem with impunity. Both will require a massive expansion of current and future energy production in the developing world now, including fossil fuels, and an acceptance of a (slightly) lower standard of living of the wealthiest 10% of the population. Putting our faith in the politicians to fix any of this is a fools errand.

So, we are fucked. Especially us in the western world who have lived high on the hog for the past few generations. And we probably deserve it. Not that the developing world won’t suffer, but they have had far more practice at dealing with it.

I wish you all the best in the coming apocalypse. At least the trolls will go back beneath the surface where they belong.

Well placed group.

[ron johnson]

1. Communities
Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.

2. Economy
Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.


3. Interconnected Impacts
Climate change affects the natural, built, and social systems we rely on individually and through their connections to one another. These interconnected systems are increasingly vulnerable to cascading impacts that are often difficult to predict, threatening essential services within and beyond the Nation’s borders.

4. Actions to Reduce Risks
Communities, governments, and businesses are working to reduce risks from and costs associated with climate change by taking action to lower greenhouse gas emissions and implement adaptation strategies. While mitigation and adaptation efforts have expanded substantially in the last four years, they do not yet approach the scale considered necessary to avoid substantial damages to the economy, environment, and human health over the coming decades.

5. Water
The quality and quantity of water available for use by people and ecosystems across the country are being affected by climate change, increasing risks and costs to agriculture, energy production, industry, recreation, and the environment.

6. Health
Impacts from climate change on extreme weather and climate-related events, air quality, and the transmission of disease through insects and pests, food, and water increasingly threaten the health and well-being of the American people, particularly populations that are already vulnerable.

7. Indigenous Peoples
Climate change increasingly threatens Indigenous communities’ livelihoods, economies, health, and cultural identities by disrupting interconnected social, physical, and ecological systems.

8. Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services
Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being altered by climate change, and these impacts are projected to continue. Without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, transformative impacts on some ecosystems will occur; some coral reef and sea ice ecosystems are already experiencing such transformational changes.

9. Agriculture
Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on rangelands, and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly disrupt agricultural productivity in the United States. Expected increases in challenges to livestock health, declines in crop yields and quality, and changes in extreme events in the United States and abroad threaten rural livelihoods, sustainable food security, and price stability.

10. Infrastructure
Our Nation’s aging and deteriorating infrastructure is further stressed by increases in heavy precipitation events, coastal flooding, heat, wildfires, and other extreme events, as well as changes to average precipitation and temperature. Without adaptation, climate change will continue to degrade infrastructure performance over the rest of the century, with the potential for cascading impacts that threaten our economy, national security, essential services, and health and well-being.

11. Oceans & Coasts
Coastal communities and the ecosystems that support them are increasingly threatened by the impacts of climate change. Without significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions and regional adaptation measures, many coastal regions will be transformed by the latter part of this century, with impacts affecting other regions and sectors. Even in a future with lower greenhouse gas emissions, many communities are expected to suffer financial impacts as chronic high-tide flooding leads to higher costs and lower property values.


12. Tourism and Recreation
Outdoor recreation, tourist economies, and quality of life are reliant on benefits provided by our natural environment that will be degraded by the impacts of climate change in many ways.

What a beautiful mix of word salad, misrepresentations, and straight up lies. The NCA makes the IPCC look like a denier group.

[dan_pdx]

What a beautiful mix of word salad, misrepresentations, and straight up lies.

That's a fabulous description of your posts to this thread. Maybe you should show yourselves the door so the rational members of the board can continue bitching and moaning about how climate change is fucking up our ski seasons -- oh yeah, and threatening human society globally.

[ron johnson]

Saying, "there is no evidence of CO2 ever driving earth's temperature in the historical record" is disingenuous even for Ron.


- The fundamental theoretical physics, verified by extensive laboratory analysis, proves how CO2 and other greenhouse gasses absorb infrared heat at various temperatures and pressures.


-- When it comes to the historical record, Earth’s ice ages are thought to be caused by the wobbling of the planet’s orbit changing its orientation to the sun and causing more or less sunlight to hit higher latitudes, especially the polar regions. Under the right conditions as the earth warms up more CO2 is released into the atmosphere which explains, in part, why CO2 sometimes appears to lag a warming trend. The opposite happens, the planet cools, if atmospheric carbon dioxide is low enough and polar regions receive less sunlight.

Sometimes? It pretty much always lags behind temperature in the historical records. You say there is plenty of evidence that CO2 drove temperature in the historical record. That is news to me. I would like to see more of the evidence you have.

What we've seen from past global temperature reconstructions is the warming and cooling is not uniform across time and space for the planet. Sometimes Antarctica begins warming or cooling for hundreds or even a thousand years before northern latitudes do the same, and vice versa.


--- Even if a person disagrees with all of the above, or even disagrees with the studies themselves, the fact remains there is plenty of evidence demonstrating CO2 drove the earth's temperature in the historical record.

For example, according to the 2012 study linked below, during the last deglaciation the earth started slowing warming due orbital change but after that the vast majority of warming, something like 80-90%, occurred due to CO2 increases:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

That study has received a fair amount of criticism:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...ence-by-proxy/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...y/#more-60932/
http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature

[ron johnson]

That's a fabulous description of your posts to this thread. Maybe you should show yourselves the door so the rational members of the board can continue bitching and moaning about how climate change is fucking up our ski seasons -- oh yeah, and threatening human society globally.

I guess the difference is that is coming from an organization that is supposed to have scientific integrity, and I'm just a jack off climate change denier sitting in mom's basement arguing with people on a ski message board.

Either way, you haven't demonstrated any understanding of climate science, so I don't think you would be able to decipher the validity of any of the scientific discussion in this thread anyway.

[ron johnson]

A credible reference.

So we agree its well studied, and the experts who study it say we have a problem and are advising society to take action.

Seems to me its mostly the activists and politicians doing the advising.

[WMD]

Wattsupwiththat is a known Koch brothers paid denier site. Good reference.

[Buster Highmen]

I don't think you would be able to decipher the validity of any of the scientific discussion in this thread anyway.

There's a big difference in dismissing an argument and making a personal attack.
Your arguments are inconsistent, citing bogus websites, denying leveraging those websites, insulting authors and posters, making wild claims and ignoring established statistical methods.

So I'm just not convinced.

About the only positive thing I can think of is that theories are supposed to be somewhat indeterminate, Heisenberg, quantum theory, error analysis and all that. To that extent we should be suspicious and critical of theories and "facts". But that's a very different thing than putting the conclusion ahead of the data and insulting those who disagree.

So, I'm out, not that it matters.

[k2skier112]

Attachment 294257

I laffed hard

this is how I picture rj, full on delusional retart

[dan_pdx]

I guess the difference is that is coming from an organization that is supposed to have scientific integrity, and I'm just a jack off climate change denier sitting in mom's basement arguing with people on a ski message board.

Either way, you haven't demonstrated any understanding of climate science, so I don't think you would be able to decipher the validity of any of the scientific discussion in this thread anyway.

Um, coming from the guy that couldn't understand a sentence about confidence level, that's pretty rich.

[MultiVerse]

Sometimes? It pretty much always lags behind temperature in the historical records. You say there is plenty of evidence that CO2 drove temperature in the historical record. That is news to me. I would like to see more of the evidence you have.

That study has received a fair amount of criticism:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...ence-by-proxy/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...y/#more-60932/
http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature

- Before getting into the weeds, are you arguing greenhouse gases do not act to amplify warming associated with very long timescale variations in the Earth's orbital configuration?

- Are you arguing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the industrial era are not driving modern warming?


If you answer CO2 does amplify to the first question, which is the consensus opinion BTW, then CO2 both lags and leads. Because of orbital changes (the planet wobbles) either the Southern Hemisphere (or the Northern Hemisphere) slowly warms up whereas in the opposite hemisphere (which is still cold, obviously) CO2 leads the warming.

This is not controversial.



But, if you deny CO2 causes any warming then we are back to where we started with you (and wattsupwiththat) saying everything you and they don't agree with is a conspiracy.

In any case, you really are having a hard time with this whole spatial-variability thing aren't you? You're not alone either, wattsupwiththat also completely misses the point of spatial-variability with their criticism too, and inadvertently reinforces the paper's findings. Although I doubt they (and you) realize it.

You've done a lot of that too in this thread so thanks for all the help with the research.

[rideit]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...a2n3hbr1dKcs_U

[WMD]

To those who say we can't afford to do anything about climate change, the Government Accountability Office has set the cost of the Wall Street bailout in 2008 at $16 trillion. Bernie's climate plan, the most expensive plan offered so far, costs ... wait for it ... $16 trillion.

Seems the world didn't end when we spent that to bail out the banks. It probably won't end if we spend it to continue human life on the planet either.

[ron johnson]

- Before getting into the weeds, are you arguing greenhouse gases do not act to amplify warming associated with very long timescale variations in the Earth's orbital configuration?

No.

- Are you arguing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the industrial era are not driving modern warming?

No.

If you answer CO2 does amplify to the first question, which is the consensus opinion BTW, then CO2 both lags and leads. Because of orbital changes (the planet wobbles) either the Southern Hemisphere (or the Northern Hemisphere) slowly warms up whereas in the opposite hemisphere (which is still cold, obviously) CO2 leads the warming.

This is not controversial.

The Shakun paper is the first research I have ever seen suggesting CO2 leading. Is there more?

But, if you deny CO2 causes any warming then we are back to where we started with you (and wattsupwiththat) saying everything you and they don't agree with is a conspiracy.

In any case, you really are having a hard time with this whole spatial-variability thing aren't you? You're not alone either, wattsupwiththat also completely misses the point of spatial-variability with their criticism too, and inadvertently reinforces the paper's findings. Although I doubt they (and you) realize it.

You've done a lot of that too in this thread so thanks for all the help with the research.

After further review, I don't think the first wattsupwiththat link is an especially strong rebuttal. The second link has to raise some questions though? I think the first point in the 3rd link is valid as well. Unless you have more evidence of CO2 leading temperature, the Shakun paper remains an outlier.

[WMD]

Relatively aggressive plans by the West are probably the right thing to do for many reasons. Expectation-wise though, what's the plan for the developing world (which has the faster growing population & higher intensity of FF burn per $ of GDP to start with)?

There are various plans, but a chunk of Bernie's costs are to help share technology with the developing world. Elizabeth Warren wants to create a a $1.5 trillion “Green Industrial Mobilization” of American-made renewable energy products and a $100 billion “Green Marshall Plan” to help developing nations get American renewable products.

The point isn't the dollar figures. The point is we must help the world get to net zero emissions by 2050 and there are ways to do that.

[ron johnson]

There's a big difference in dismissing an argument and making a personal attack.
Your arguments are inconsistent, citing bogus websites, denying leveraging those websites, insulting authors and posters, making wild claims and ignoring established statistical methods.

So I'm just not convinced.

About the only positive thing I can think of is that theories are supposed to be somewhat indeterminate, Heisenberg, quantum theory, error analysis and all that. To that extent we should be suspicious and critical of theories and "facts". But that's a very different thing than putting the conclusion ahead of the data and insulting those who disagree.

So, I'm out, not that it matters.

That is not a personal attack. So far dan_pdx's contribution to the thread has been to post an alarmist cartoon graph as proof of AGW, and to rely on midwest farmers and western skiers as proof of the effects of AGW. The only person to demonstrate any scientific understanding of climate change in this thread has been been MV, yet that hasn't stopped everyone else from chiming in on a subject they clearly know little about.

It's also hilarious you keep accusing me of personal attacks. Have you not noticed its about about 100 to 1 on the personal attacks in the opposite direction?

My main arguments in this thread have been that:
1) Current non carbon renewable tech is lacking and the only way to get the world to stop burning carbon is to get the tech to a point where it makes economic sense for the world to adopt.
2) There is no consensus on how much warming humans are responsible for or how dangerous it is.
3) There is no evidence of extreme weather events getting worse from global warming.
4) You are lied to constantly about the subject of AGW from the media.
5) There is nothing unusual about the climate of today in the context of the past 2,000 years.

I have not needed any bogus websites, inconsistent arguments, wild claims, or ignoring established statistical methods for points 1-4 and they are 100% true. Point 5 is where I have gotten into the weeds with MV, with MV claiming that the globally synchronous warming is unusual. I remain unconvinced by his position, but won't begrudge him for it.

Before you leave I'd like if you could give some examples of me "citing anomalies as proof that trends don't exist but only when it supports your claims," because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

[ron johnson]

Um, coming from the guy that couldn't understand a sentence about confidence level, that's pretty rich.

I misread a sentence, yet still understood what it meant. You're really going to beat me over the head with that on huh?

[Flounder]

I misread a sentence, yet still understood what it meant. You're really going to beat me over the head with that on huh?

So then what does it means when confidence is at a 5 Sigma level? Please explain it to us so that we can see that you understand.

[reckless toboggan]

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/environ...enta-study/amp

Potentially harmful carbon pollution created by the combustion of fossil fuels reaches fetal side of placenta

[rideit]

Relevant quote

“Science offers something close to certainty on many fronts, but on doom, it is ambiguous."

[glademaster]

Relevant quote

“Science offers something close to certainty on many fronts, but on doom, it is ambiguous."

Seems to me like we're in the clear then. Right, Ron?

[Ripzalot]

well, well, well....only found in finnish at the moment. i wonder why?

Climate guru Petteri Taalas: Climate change is not yet out of control, but the debate is - "It has the features of a religious extremism"

https://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/i...d-b027a403e106

[k2skier112]

well, well, well....only found in finnish at the moment. i wonder why?

Climate guru Petteri Taalas: Climate change is not yet out of control, but the debate is - "It has the features of a religious extremism"

https://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/i...d-b027a403e106

because it hasn't made the bullshit deniers circle yet. he just looks like an angry dickhead with a grudge

[Grape_Ape]

Both my sons and many more Baltimore youth are marching to City Hall today. So proud of them.

Those that still deny global warming/climate change can go fuck themselves. The world passes you by...