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

[MultiVerse]

In response to Ron above, what's missing is referring back to the paper itself and not just the conclusion for info about internal variability and it's significance. The chart on the previous page was meant to convey that information and I've added a second chart to make it clearer.

The first chart is a temperature time series since 1900 of surface air temperature over land with the two most significant (U.S. Midwest & Arctic) regional climate events with trendlines for each and highlighted against annual mean land and sea surface temperature trendlines:

The second chart is annual mean surface air temperature averaged over the remaining land regions. Note how the warming trend prior to 1950 all but disappears. There's still variability, of course, but there's very little or no pronounced ETCW without the U.S. Midwest and Arctic anomalies:

[MultiVerse]

FWIW, the 1930s dust bowl heat waves were nuts. People really suffered without air conditioning.

In Cincinnati in 1934 the temperature topped 100 degrees for seven days. 145 people died due to heat. The heat index on several days topped 120 degrees. Swimmers were driven from the city's pool because the water became too hot to swim.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...ry/1777929001/


There's a lot of speculation about why the U.S. Midwest heatwaves were so bad and studies suggest environmental degradation was a big contributing factor.

Basically farmers stripped the land of trees and farming practices at the time let topsoil blow in the wind. No vegetation and bare soil acted as a source of dust in the atmosphere which reinforced the heat in the circulation pattern, creating feedback for even more heat.

[WMD]

now, you should know I love Russia and it's history, so that doesn't offend me.

Oh no! Parts of Russia are warming way faster than the global average.

"Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground"

A Washington Post analysis found that the region near the town of Zyryanka, in an enormous wedge of eastern Siberia called Yakutia, has warmed by more than 3 degrees Celsius since preindustrial times — roughly triple the global average.

The permafrost that once sustained farming — and upon which villages and cities are built — is in the midst of a great thaw, blanketing the region with swamps, lakes and odd bubbles of earth that render the land virtually useless.

“The warming got in the way of our good life,” said Alexander Fedorov, deputy director of the Melnikov Permafrost Institute in the regional capital of Yakutsk. “With every year, things are getting worse and worse.”

For the 5.4 million people who live in Russia’s permafrost zone, the new climate has disrupted their homes and their livelihoods. Rivers are rising and running faster, and entire neighborhoods are falling into them. Arable land for farming has plummeted by more than half, to just 120,000 acres in 2017.

In Yakutia, an area one-third the size of the United States, cattle and reindeer herding have plunged 20 percent as the animals increasingly battle to survive the warming climate’s destruction of pastureland.

[k2skier112]

Who knows whether Ron expected to be called on his dishonesty or whether it’s Homerism but by snipping the sentence and leaving out the fact that pre-1950 warming is attributed to internal variability completely changes its meaning:

“These anomalous events occurred during a period of strong global‐scale warming, which can be attributed to a combination of external forcing (particularly, greenhouse gas increases, combined with a hiatus in volcanic events) and internal decadal variability.”

What we do know is summer anomalies in the Midwestern United States & southern Canada and Arctic winter anomalies are the two largest factors in Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW). Those two regional events are what led to global annual mean surface air temperature increases. Otherwise, if you average the remaining land areas there's very little or no pronounced ETCW.



The reason why it matters is at the time global temperatures were cooler than average for the 20th century, and even though the U.S. is only about 2% of the planet, denialist (like BGnight, Ripzalot) cherry pick warm pre-1950 America to make all kinds of specious arguments about the state of the entire planet at the time.

Ron's an ignorant cunt

[ron johnson]

In response to Ron above, what's missing is referring back to the paper itself and not just the conclusion for info about internal variability and it's significance. The chart on the previous page was meant to convey that information and I've added a second chart to make it clearer.

The first chart is a temperature time series since 1900 of surface air temperature over land with the two most significant (U.S. Midwest & Arctic) regional climate events with trendlines for each and highlighted against annual mean land and sea surface temperature trendlines:

The second chart is annual mean surface air temperature averaged over the remaining land regions. Note how the warming trend prior to 1950 all but disappears. There's still variability, of course, but there's very little or no pronounced ETCW without the U.S. Midwest and Arctic anomalies:

Are we looking at different papers? I have been using this one: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.522 Your chart appears to come from this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo670

That paper is not public. I need further clarification on what each of the colored lines represent.

[ron johnson]

^^^^Still have no clue=clueless. Doesn't know basic things like max, min, mean and how averages and means are calculated. Seems clueless that warmer than average/mean temps today will result in warmer means being calculated in the future. on and on..

Hilarious that you are calling me out. You have demonstrated in this thread that there is about a 10% chance of anything you say being valid. You posted this:

And those average temperatures included the extremes logged in the US during that earlier period.. So, being above average includes being above averages that have that data included. The threshold for "heatwave" went up after those hot spells.

Which is peak dumbassery for someone trying to accuse me of not knowing what max, min, and means are. Please provide an example of me not knowing what a "max, min, mean, or how averages and means are calculated." But like WMD, I'm sure you will never respond to my request because you won't be able to find anything. The only thing I was unsure about is what a high min record was.

[SkiCougar]

>>I was not sure where to put this as its is an ostasio-cortez townhall and one of her supporters speaking I thought maybe polyass but since it on changes that can be made to combat climate change, I put it here:

link to the video:
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/sta...289664/video/1

the supporter in AOCs townhall say claims we only have a few months left: "We got to start eating babies! We don't have enough time! ... We have to get rid of the babies! ... We need to eat the babies!"

apparently more people/babies are more trouble as people exhale CO2

>>now, since I am a knuckle dragging denier I will not be doing this but apperently if you all are concerned you could eat your kids or each other. just trying to pass on current efforts of alarmists and ways you can help.

[Bunion 2020]

You are such a fucking stooge.

For most of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) Thursday town hall, the woman in a black jacket sat quietly in the third row. Then, as the event in Corona, N.Y., neared its end, the woman suddenly stood up and began yelling about climate change.

“But we’re not going to be here much long because of the climate crisis,” the woman blurted. “We got to start eating babies,” she abruptly declared, taking off her jacket to display a T-shirt that read, “Save the planet. Eat the children.”

The woman’s bizarre speech swiftly became the center of a heated Twitter fight Thursday night that pitted Ocasio-Cortez against President Trump, his son, Donald Trump Jr., and other conservatives, who suggested the woman was an example “climate change hysteria.” In response, Ocasio-Cortez chastised critics for trying to “mock or make a spectacle” of a woman who “may have been suffering from a mental condition.”

It now seems likely that the scene was carefully planned.

The woman was apparently part of an attempt by a right-wing fringe political group to embarrass the Democratic congresswoman. Late Thursday, a Twitter account belonging to the LaRouche PAC — which was founded by conspiracy theorist Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. — took credit for the stunt. A historian who has documented the organization said the woman’s outburst was “a fairly well-established tactic for them.”

“They’ve been doing this since the ’70s,” Matthew Sweet, whose book “Operation Chaos” delved into the group’s complex history, told The Washington Post. “The tactic is you go to a political meeting and you create a disturbance that disrupts the meeting, and more importantly, that creates a kind of chaos.”

The LaRouche PAC did not respond to a request for comment early Friday.

By early Friday, a number of news outlets, including some conservative websites, had published articles about the woman’s comments. A two-minute video of the event had garnered more than 5 million views on Twitter, drawing reactions from Trump and Trump Jr., and the hashtag “#EatTheBabies” was trending.

Trump Jr. tweeted that the woman “Seems like a normal AOC supporter to me,” and the president retweeted his son, adding, “AOC is a Wack Job!"

In a tweet addressing the town hall, Ocasio-Cortez hit back at critics, writing, “At one point I was concerned there was a woman in crisis,” adding that she wanted to “ensure we treat the situation compassionately.”

“This person may have been suffering from a mental condition and it’s not okay that the right-wing is mocking her,” she wrote minutes later. “Be a decent human being and knock it off.”

Meanwhile, the LaRouche PAC Twitter account, which Sweet confirmed is operated by the group, was crowing.

“LaRouche PAC trolls AOC, AOC doesn’t rule out eating babies. #EatTheBabies,” it tweeted.

Throughout Thursday night, the group repeatedly confirmed their involvement in replies to various Twitter users, writing, “It was us.”

Daniel Burke, who is affiliated with the group and is running as an independent for a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey, also shared posts on his social media platforms giving credit to the LaRouche organization for sparking the trending hashtag.

Sweet said he has never seen the woman in the video before, but a person who looked like her showed up in photos posted on the LaRouche PAC’s Facebook page Wednesday. A description of the photos said they were taken in New York earlier this week as members challenged students “with a polemical campaign, ‘Eat the Children,’ signing up man-made global warming believers to reduce the planet’s population one child at a time!”

The woman also appeared to be behind a video uploaded Thursday by Burke, who claimed the clip was an “exclusive interview with a representative from ‘Eat the Children,’ the organization which intervened on AOC today at her own town hall!”

A representative for Ocasio-Cortez could not be reached for comment early Friday.

Though the group seems to be trying to “get as much capital as they can” from the viral video, Sweet said he doesn’t think they are “going to be too elevated” by the incident.

“Enemies of AOC are going to use this against her and they don’t care who this woman was,” he said, later adding, “The noise that they’ve made is going to drown out their part in the process.”

[neufox47]

But the fact remains that we don't have the technology to do anything about it anyway.

Page after page of you posting energy analyses that only consider 100% changeover to renewables, then you come out with this quote. How disingenuous. We can relatively easily drop co2 emissions 40-60% with minimal increased energy costs. That would do something. That would significantly lower the amount of co2 we omit over the next 100 years. It would also more quickly lead to technology that will make 0 carbon energy technology a reality.

Yet since we can’t go to renewables Right Now you somehow conclude we can’t do anything. It might mean the 1-3 degrees less warming 150 or 200 years from now.

You also refuse to acknowledge any cost associated with co2 pollution in all your cost comparisons. Even though you have acknowledged AGW is real, you refuse to consider the trillions that will be spent annually to fight only rising sea levels; never mind the rest of the negative effects. You’re as disingenuous as you are dumb.

People like you will leave a environmental disaster to our children and grand children. There will be many many more Greta’s and much more anger towards idiots like yourself.

I don’t know if you are just that stupid (see multiple examples of not being able to interpret basic graphs, understand basic statistics, or grasp basic scientific concepts), or just obtuse.

[Bunion 2020]

You are being trolled.

[jackstraw]

>>I was not sure where to put this as its is an ostasio-cortez townhall and one of her supporters speaking I thought maybe polyass but since it on changes that can be made to combat climate change, I put it here:

link to the video:
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/sta...289664/video/1

the supporter in AOCs townhall say claims we only have a few months left: "We got to start eating babies! We don't have enough time! ... We have to get rid of the babies! ... We need to eat the babies!"

apparently more people/babies are more trouble as people exhale CO2

>>now, since I am a knuckle dragging denier I will not be doing this but apperently if you all are concerned you could eat your kids or each other. just trying to pass on current efforts of alarmists and ways you can help.

Does it physically hurt to be so fucking dumb?

[WMD]

Page after page of you posting energy analyses that only consider 100% changeover to renewables, then you come out with this quote. How disingenuous. We can relatively easily drop co2 emissions 40-60% with minimal increased energy costs. That would do something. That would significantly lower the amount of co2 we omit over the next 100 years. It would also more quickly lead to technology that will make 0 carbon energy technology a reality.

Yet since we can’t go to renewables Right Now you somehow conclude we can’t do anything. It might mean the 1-3 degrees less warming 150 or 200 years from now.

You also refuse to acknowledge any cost associated with co2 pollution in all your cost comparisons. Even though you have acknowledged AGW is real, you refuse to consider the trillions that will be spent annually to fight only rising sea levels; never mind the rest of the negative effects. You’re as disingenuous as you are dumb.

People like you will leave a environmental disaster to our children and grand children. There will be many many more Greta’s and much more anger towards idiots like yourself.

I don’t know if you are just that stupid (see multiple examples of not being able to interpret basic graphs, understand basic statistics, or grasp basic scientific concepts), or just obtuse.

This. Yes.

Except that Ron is lying when he says we don't have alternatives. We do have alternatives, and in many cases they are cheaper than our current energy sources.The cost Is from replacing functioning assets before their useful life has expired, and even then many of the new sources will be cheaper. It will mean lost revenue for the fossil fuel companies though, as they do not want to have a lot of stranded assets.

We need to electrify everything that can be electrified starting immediately while ensuring the grid is powered with renewable energy.

Some (Jacobson at Stanford) say we could make the switch to 100% clean Wind, Water, and Solar today if we had the will. Other experts say we have 80-90% of the technology we need right now, and surely will have the rest in a decade or two if we make it a priority. We must make it a priority.

It is so fucked up that a small number of people are able to prevent us from taking action to make a better future for all people.

[SumJongGuy]

Hilarious that you are calling me out. You have demonstrated in this thread that there is about a 10% chance of anything you say being valid. You posted this:



Which is peak dumbassery for someone trying to accuse me of not knowing what max, min, and means are. Please provide an example of me not knowing what a "max, min, mean, or how averages and means are calculated." But like WMD, I'm sure you will never respond to my request because you won't be able to find anything. The only thing I was unsure about is what a high min record was.

If you can't grasp that temps from the past are included in average temps going forward.. and thus rising temps will be reflected in rising means you are beyond help. You called me "clueless" for pointing that out then wiffed at the most basic discussion of high max and high min temp records.

[BmillsSkier]

Attachment 296329

It’s like they don’t even know about the McRib.

[neufox47]

Does it physically hurt to be so fucking dumb?

I; guarantee; Skouger; thinks; he’s; of; above; average; intelligence; too;. Dunning; Kruger; all; the; way;;;;.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

[ron johnson]

Page after page of you posting energy analyses that only consider 100% changeover to renewables, then you come out with this quote. How disingenuous. We can relatively easily drop co2 emissions 40-60% with minimal increased energy costs. That would do something. That would significantly lower the amount of co2 we omit over the next 100 years. It would also more quickly lead to technology that will make 0 carbon energy technology a reality.

Yet since we can’t go to renewables Right Now you somehow conclude we can’t do anything. It might mean the 1-3 degrees less warming 150 or 200 years from now.

You also refuse to acknowledge any cost associated with co2 pollution in all your cost comparisons. Even though you have acknowledged AGW is real, you refuse to consider the trillions that will be spent annually to fight only rising sea levels; never mind the rest of the negative effects. You’re as disingenuous as you are dumb.

People like you will leave a environmental disaster to our children and grand children. There will be many many more Greta’s and much more anger towards idiots like yourself.

I don’t know if you are just that stupid (see multiple examples of not being able to interpret basic graphs, understand basic statistics, or grasp basic scientific concepts), or just obtuse.

I'm sorry, but every energy plan I see trying to tackle this is calling for 100% non carbon renewables in 30 years. It tells me no one is actually serious about this. If global warming was really this existential threat its made out to be, then these 'environmentalists' should be nuclear supporters. It does seem possible that we could get pretty low emission energy system running on a mix of hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, and natural gas. But that wouldn't be satisfactory to these nutjobs, instead they want to live in some fairy tale with no grasp of reality. I've posted this multiple times asking what it gets wrong and I can't get a response from any of you: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible

We can relatively easily drop co2 emissions 40-60% with minimal increased energy costs. That would do something. That would significantly lower the amount of co2 we omit over the next 100 years. It would also more quickly lead to technology that will make 0 carbon energy technology a reality.

Dropping co2 emissions 40-60% with minimal increased energy costs is not going to be 'relatively easy'. I bring up Germany all the time because they have invested heavily in wind and solar, have the highest energy prices in Europe, and they haven't been able to reduce co2 emissions for 10 years. Even if the US was able to drop co2 emissions 40-60%, its not going to do much of anything to reduce warming. I've brought this up before as well and asked what is wrong with it, and I get no response from you guys: https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/07/25/reduce-u-s-carbon-emissions-to-zero-and-the-temperature-decrease-by-2100-will-be-undetectable/#acebe0c39097

"That's right--a carbon tax that completely eliminated our emissions would not be scientifically detectable in global temperatures in the the year 2100."

Dropping 40-60% of co2 emissions with wind and solar is not going to inherently lead to more technology that will make zero emissions a reality. From the conclusion of my first link: "If policymakers want a revolution in energy tech, the single most important action would be to radically refocus and expand support for basic scientific research."

You also refuse to acknowledge any cost associated with co2 pollution in all your cost comparisons. Even though you have acknowledged AGW is real, you refuse to consider the trillions that will be spent annually to fight only rising sea levels; never mind the rest of the negative effects. You’re as disingenuous as you are dumb.

I don't view co2 as a pollutant, it is essential for life. I make a point of bringing up the environmental costs of solar, wind, and batteries because few people recognize how 'ungreen' these technologies are. Even if we get a 40-60% reduction in co2 emissions like you want, it won't do anything to stop sea level rise, so you are going to have to pay for it regardless.

[ron johnson]

If you can't grasp that temps from the past are included in average temps going forward.. and thus rising temps will be reflected in rising means you are beyond help. You called me "clueless" for pointing that out then wiffed at the most basic discussion of high max and high min temp records.

Here are the two most common global temperature graphs you will see:

This first one is NASA GISS. It shows the mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2018, relative to the 1950 to 1980 mean. The mean does not include the extremes from the period you are talking about. The 0 on the Y axis is the 1950 to 1980 mean.


This one is HADcrut4. It uses the 1961-1990 mean.

The same process is used for heat wave indexes.

You called me "clueless" for pointing that out then wiffed at the most basic discussion of high max and high min temp records.

Wiffed? I asked for clarification because I wasn't sure what a high min temperature was.

[SumJongGuy]

Here are the two most common global temperature graphs you will see:

This first one is NASA GISS. It shows the mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2018, relative to the 1950 to 1980 mean. The mean does not include the extremes from the period you are talking about. The 0 on the Y axis is the 1950 to 1980 mean.


This one is HADcrut4. It uses the 1961-1990 mean.

The same process is used for heat wave indexes.



Wiffed? I asked for clarification because I wasn't sure what a high min temperature was.

Strike TWO!!!!!!!!!!!!

We were talking daily max and daily min.. Those are based on historical data, complete historical data and the daily average is as well. FWIW, both those graphs include historical data as well..

[Timberridge]

It’s like they don’t even know about the McRib.

It reminds me of the time I saw two blue jays battling it out next to our bird feeder. They were so distracted they didn't see the chicken hawk that swooped down from a nearby pine and ate one of them for dinner.

Though to be fair, its only available in limited areas.

[ron johnson]

Strike TWO!!!!!!!!!!!!

We were talking daily max and daily min.. Those are based on historical data, complete historical data and the daily average is as well. FWIW, both those graphs include historical data as well..

You responded to this MV post:

- I don't know what Ron is upset about now. Here's the section we're discussing in case anyone wants to see for themselves:

There has been a likely increasing trend in the frequency of heatwaves since the middle of the 20th century in Europe and Australia and across much of Asia where there are sufficient data. However, confidence on a global scale is medium owing to lack of studies over Africa and South America but also in part owing to differences in trends depending on how heatwaves are defined

-- Indexes are not the same thing as temperature. And time spatial variability means the hottest day somewhere in Missouri or Iowa might have been in 1934 but in Reno, for example, the hottest day on record was July 12, 2002 when the temperature hit 108.0°F.

In 2017 Albuquerque, Cleveland, Dallas, Phoenix, and Tampa had their hottest year on record. The U.S. also experienced its warmest consecutive 24, 36, and 48 months on record, with more than 33,000 record highs set in the preceding three years.

Heat wave indexes don't tell us much about winter, either.

That's why it makes more sense to look at annual mean temperatures.

With this post:

And those average temperatures included the extremes logged in the US during that earlier period.. So, being above average includes being above averages that have that data included. The threshold for "heatwave" went up after those hot spells.

What are "those average temperatures" you are referring to? Where is the daily max and daily min talk you are referring to?

[SumJongGuy]

You responded to this MV post:



With this post:



What are "those average temperatures" you are referring to? Where is the daily max and daily min talk you are referring to?

We're comparing those annual averages to other previous annual averages idiot! Those "hottest temps" from 1934 are included in the annual mean for 1934.

FWIW, I'm not the one claiming to have proof that the settled science isn't settled and the consensus is dead wrong about the implications of global warming and wrong about humans being the main driver of it.

Carry on with your crusade though because God will fix it amirite??? God knows there is no remedy for your math and statistics shortcomings.

[ron johnson]

We're comparing those annual averages to other previous annual averages idiot! Those "hottest temps" from 1934 are included in the annual mean for 1934.

FWIW, I'm not the one claiming to have proof that the settled science isn't settled and the consensus is dead wrong about the implications of global warming and wrong about humans being the main driver of it.

Carry on with your crusade though because God will fix it amirite??? God knows there is no remedy for your math and statistics shortcomings.

I'm struggling to figure out what point you are trying to make. Have I ever said or implied that the hottest temps from 1934 aren't in the 1934 mean?

Obviously you aren't following anything I'm saying in this thread because I have never denied human's role in global warming.

You got any examples of these math and statistics shortcomings you are blathering on about?

[abraham]

>>I was not sure where to put this as its is an ostasio-cortez townhall and one of her supporters speaking I thought maybe polyass but since it on changes that can be made to combat climate change, I put it here:

link to the video:
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/sta...289664/video/1

the supporter in AOCs townhall say claims we only have a few months left: "We got to start eating babies! We don't have enough time! ... We have to get rid of the babies! ... We need to eat the babies!"

apparently more people/babies are more trouble as people exhale CO2

>>now, since I am a knuckle dragging denier I will not be doing this but apperently if you all are concerned you could eat your kids or each other. just trying to pass on current efforts of alarmists and ways you can help.

This is a glorious post.

I seem to remember reading a similar idea in school. Maybe the title was "An Unassuming Suggestion"?

[SumJongGuy]

You got any examples of these math and statistics shortcomings you are blathering on about?

I'm hard pressed to find a post from you that isn't an example..

[El Kanone]