Page 26 of 94 FirstFirst ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... LastLast
Results 626 to 650 of 2347
  1. #626
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You're going to have to back up the "not synchronously" part with some evidence. It's impossible to believe in attribution studies when you can't find any increasing trend in frequency or intensity of extreme weather events from historical data of the last 150 years. If the IPCC can't find it, you can bet its not there.

    And actually there is a period in the instrumental record that has approached or exceeded modern temperatures in the US. Check the heat of the 1930's. Many US high temperature records were set during that decade, it also had by far the the worst heat waves in US history: http://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.co...-heatwave.html
    Ohh Ron Johnson!!

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kkwiQmGWK4c


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Keystone is fucking lame. But, deadly.

  2. #627
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,239
    That was ....puuuurrrrfect.

    Oh, and this global warming thread is getting out of hand.

  3. #628
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,867
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    No deep thought required. Just a healthy dose of reality.
    Take your own advise. Get away from climate denier sites. You sound like an illogical idiot. You argue the temperature reading sites, not the actual temps. You argue that the temps have been this high before, but leave out the fact that the rate of increase we have now could only have been possible hundreds of years ago, or longer, from a catastrophic incident like a meteor or volcano

  4. #629
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    Take your own advise. Get away from climate denier sites. You sound like an illogical idiot. You argue the temperature reading sites, not the actual temps. You argue that the temps have been this high before, but leave out the fact that the rate of increase we have now could only have been possible hundreds of years ago, or longer, from a catastrophic incident like a meteor or volcano
    I'd suggest staying out of a discussion you clearly have no clue about.

    "You argue the temperature reading sites, not the actual temps."

    -I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

    "You argue that the temps have been this high before, but leave out the fact that the rate of increase we have now could only have been possible hundreds of years ago, or longer, from a catastrophic incident like a meteor or volcano"

    -This isn't close to true. Please take a look for yourself at the temperature record of the last 10,000 years. The temperature spikes during the Younger Dryas (12,800 - 13,200 years ago) were likely caused by comets. That was a 12 degree celsius temperature change in ~100 years or less, talk about real climate change.

  5. #630
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    "You argue that the temps have been this high before, but leave out the fact that the rate of increase we have now could only have been possible hundreds of years ago, or longer, from a catastrophic incident like a meteor or volcano"

    -This isn't close to true. Please take a look for yourself at the temperature record of the last 10,000 years. The temperature spikes during the Younger Dryas (12,800 - 13,200 years ago) were likely caused by comets. That was a 12 degree celsius temperature change in ~100 years or less, talk about real climate change.
    Wait, what? k2skier112 mentioned "catastrophic incident[s] like a meteor or volcano" and your response is to highlight a temperature spike "likely caused by comets." You are going to have to pick better cherries then that.



    Anyway, we have the Younger Dryas, a period when it was much colder, and we warm up. After that we kind of oscillate around a mean, sometimes it’s a little warmer sometimes it’s a little colder, that’s the climate thermostat. Different feedbacks allow things to get warmer and that allow things to cool down and so it oscillates around a mean. As we move towards present we have a couple of phenomenon called the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. Neither is terribly impressive in the larger scheme of things, we had much cooler period that lasted even longer within these fluctuations.

    The reason we talk about these is they occurred during recorded human history. During the medieval warm, the Vikings thought let’s settle Greenland and Iceland with cows and sheep etc. and there’s no sea ice blocking the land and then it got cold again and the colonies fail. That was result of 0.2° warmer over a short period of time, just a few hundred years, and it had huge impacts on these northern settlements on Greenland and Iceland.

    Then we go into the Little Ice Age about a degree colder, not a big drop in temperature and people in Europe were struggling because the glaciers started growing, they were overrunning cities hamlets and chalets and there are hundreds of paintings from this time period because it was chaos. In the US the rivers froze over, the rivers in Delaware for example. Washington was having a hard time with glaciers and ice in the river so these insignificant variations had big impacts on people.

    These are important to point out because small climate variations had impacts on society. As we look forward what will the impact be resulting from recent larger changes resulting from the relentless rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

  6. #631
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Wait, what? k2skier112 mentioned "catastrophic incident[s] like a meteor or volcano" and your response is to highlight a temperature spike "likely caused by comets." You are going to have to pick better cherries then that.
    Name:  greenland.18kyr.gif
Views: 128
Size:  15.9 KB

    Notice the huge spike 12,000 years ago. That is likely the result of a comet. Now look at the last 10,000 years. Notice how constant the temperature has been compared to before 12,000 years ago.

  7. #632
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Name:  greenland.18kyr.gif
Views: 128
Size:  15.9 KB

    Notice the huge spike 12,000 years ago. That is likely the result of a comet. Now look at the last 10,000 years. Notice how constant the temperature has been compared to before 12,000 years ago.
    Right. All of that was addressed in the post above. Perhaps you responded while I was typing. In any event, maybe it was comet or maybe it was something else.


    Regardless, the Younger Dryas is a time period when things went back to full glacial conditions because ice was melting and things were getting warmer and all this meltwater from that giant ice sheet begins to pool up. We have a gigantic lake bigger than the Great Lakes combined it’s called quick glacial Lake Agassiz a giant meltwater Lake is filling up, some of it is trickling out into the Gulf going south through the Mississippi River but for the most part it’s just filling up, and the thing that’s keeping it from draining to the east is a dam of ice. At some point around 15,000 to 14,000 years ago that ice sheet broke and drained out into the North Atlantic.

    Currently the North Atlantic is part of a really important circulation pattern called thermohaline circulation so warm surface water from the tropics wants to reach equilibrium the tropics are warmer the poles are colder and as it’s doing that it is releasing heat into the atmosphere through evaporation. That’s why Europe is much warmer than it should be for its latitude because it is getting heat from this warm body of water that is making its way north so as it’s making its way north it is getting cooler because it’s losing its heat and it’s getting saltier because it is evaporating. Cold salty water sinks in that sinking in the North Atlantic is critical for this entire circulation pattern. If the water doesn’t sink it doesn’t push the system to keep circulating. That’s the main push. At one point scientists thought it was the temperature gradient but it’s really the thermohaline circulation pattern is hinged is contingent on that sinking saltwater in the North Atlantic.

    So if we take a giant pulse of fresh cold water into the North Atlantic then that thermohaline circulation pattern is shut off and that’s what happened. The influx of cold fresh water shut down the thermohaline circulation. So it stopped that distribution of global heat which plunged us back into near glacial conditions. This happened really quick and it lasted for about 1000 years and then within a century thermohaline circulation kicked back on and we proceeded to warm up into our interglacial conditions.

    Why do we care about thermohaline circulation and the distribution of global heat as it relates to climate? The concern now is the melting of the ice caps could have climate repercussions due to all the cold fresh melt water. There are buoys all over the ocean and they are monitoring temperature and circulation and we are seeing a slowing of thermohaline circulation. What we don’t know is if the slow melting of Greenland and the trickle of that water into the North Atlantic will eventually have the same impact as a giant pulse of fresh water. So we are sort of running an experiment that we don’t know what is going to happen.

  8. #633
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Anyway, we have the Younger Dryas, a period when it was much colder, and we warm up. After that we kind of oscillate around a mean, sometimes it’s a little warmer sometimes it’s a little colder, that’s the climate thermostat. Different feedbacks allow things to get warmer and that allow things to cool down and so it oscillates around a mean. As we move towards present we have a couple of phenomenon called the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. Neither is terribly impressive in the larger scheme of things, we had much cooler period that lasted even longer within these fluctuations.

    The reason we talk about these is they occurred during recorded human history. During the medieval warm, the Vikings thought let’s settle Greenland and Iceland with cows and sheep etc. and there’s no sea ice blocking the land and then it got cold again and the colonies fail. That was result of 0.2° warmer over a short period of time, just a few hundred years, and it had huge impacts on these northern settlements on Greenland and Iceland.

    Then we go into the Little Ice Age about a degree colder, not a big drop in temperature and people in Europe were struggling because the glaciers started growing, they were overrunning cities hamlets and chalets and there are hundreds of paintings from this time period because it was chaos. In the US the rivers froze over, the rivers in Delaware for example. Washington was having a hard time with glaciers and ice in the river so these insignificant variations had big impacts on people.

    These are important to point out because small climate variations had impacts on society. As we look forward what will the impact be resulting from recent larger changes resulting from the relentless rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    This is pretty accurate, but notice the troubling times are when it gets colder. Global cooling would be very dangerous for our society. Times of warming have always been associated with prosperity during the period of human civilization.

    We are also much more technologically advanced and therefore more able to handle these swings than past societies.

  9. #634
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    This is pretty accurate, but notice the troubling times are when it gets colder. Global cooling would be very dangerous for our society. Times of warming have always been associated with prosperity during the period of human civilization.

    We are also much more technologically advanced and therefore more able to handle these swings than past societies.
    Wow, how much do you get paid for this bullshit?

    Lies, lies and more lies.

    Trying to spread confusion.

    But it is all lies.

    I'm going to get laid now. Good night.

  10. #635
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,977
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    All the hysteria articles that the video is pushing back at, are about the melt, not the calving. Why wouldn't the video be about melt? It is dishonest propaganda from the media to publish those articles, which is the whole point of the video. The only thing that matters is if the icecap gained or lost mass over the year. Everything else is meaningless.

    Just like how the media ran headlines on the major news outlets about record breaking temperatures on Greenland last month. Well, turns out it the measurement was wrong: https://www.thelocal.dk/20190808/dan...nd-heat-record

    But you don't see any headlines about that.
    The video only presents graphs and photos that lead a viewer to believe ice is accumulating faster than it is melting in recent times. Which is absolutely false and misleading. Your pedantic defense that the media was only talking about melt is just that, pedantic, especially since there is only one mechanism by which ice arrives (snow, which is completely covered in the graph) and two main ones by which it melts, direct melting and breaking off into the ocean where it melts. The video almost completely ignored the fact that the icesheet has been losing mass almost every year. Just what was “dishonest” in the reporting? (que more semantics from dipshit while he ignores the completely misleading “reporting” from the climate deniers)

    The “hysteria” that the media is reporting on isn’t just that Greenland is melting at X rate today, it is that Greenland is melting much faster than it has in a very long time, that melt rate is increasing and will do so logarithmically as temperatures increase. If we shouldn’t be hysteric about Greenland melting and causing our major cities to need significant sea walls and eventually to be abandoned, at a cost of many many trillions, I don’t know what we should be hysteric about.

    Further almost no one is saying we have to get to 100% renewable with current tech, but that we should be getting to 30, 50, 70, 90 and 95 % as soon as practicable. Another straw man you’ve constructed, if it doesn’t get us to 100% then we shouldn’t do anything.

    All your cost projections and hysteria that the “true cost” of renewables don’t consider the environmental impacts are laughable when all your costing on fossil fuels include $0 for the effects of climate change.

    Future generations will look back on today and wonder how people like you could be so short sighted, so stupid, and so obviously wrong.

  11. #636
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,977
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    This is pretty accurate, but notice the troubling times are when it gets colder. Global cooling would be very dangerous for our society. Times of warming have always been associated with prosperity during the period of human civilization.

    We are also much more technologically advanced and therefore more able to handle these swings than past societies.
    Therefore because a little warning is good, the climate can’t possibly get too warm! The technology isn’t there for renewables but is there to cheaply address 3, 6, and 20 ft of sea level rise!

  12. #637
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Right. All of that was addressed in the post above. Perhaps you responded while I was typing. In any event, maybe it was comet or maybe it was something else.


    Regardless, the Younger Dryas is a time period when things went back to full glacial conditions because ice was melting and things were getting warmer and all this meltwater from that giant ice sheet begins to pool up. We have a gigantic lake bigger than the Great Lakes combined it’s called quick glacial Lake Agassiz a giant meltwater Lake is filling up, some of it is trickling out into the Gulf going south through the Mississippi River but for the most part it’s just filling up, and the thing that’s keeping it from draining to the east is a dam of ice. At some point around 15,000 to 14,000 years ago that ice sheet broke and drained out into the North Atlantic.

    Currently the North Atlantic is part of a really important circulation pattern called thermohaline circulation so warm surface water from the tropics wants to reach equilibrium the tropics are warmer the poles are colder and as it’s doing that it is releasing heat into the atmosphere through evaporation. That’s why Europe is much warmer than it should be for its latitude because it is getting heat from this warm body of water that is making its way north so as it’s making its way north it is getting cooler because it’s losing its heat and it’s getting saltier because it is evaporating. Cold salty water sinks in that sinking in the North Atlantic is critical for this entire circulation pattern. If the water doesn’t sink it doesn’t push the system to keep circulating. That’s the main push. At one point scientists thought it was the temperature gradient but it’s really the thermohaline circulation pattern is hinged is contingent on that sinking saltwater in the North Atlantic.

    So if we take a giant pulse of fresh cold water into the North Atlantic then that thermohaline circulation pattern is shut off and that’s what happened. The influx of cold fresh water shut down the thermohaline circulation. So it stopped that distribution of global heat which plunged us back into near glacial conditions. This happened really quick and it lasted for about 1000 years and then within a century thermohaline circulation kicked back on and we proceeded to warm up into our interglacial conditions.

    Why do we care about thermohaline circulation and the distribution of global heat as it relates to climate? The concern now is the melting of the ice caps could have climate repercussions due to all the cold fresh melt water. There are buoys all over the ocean and they are monitoring temperature and circulation and we are seeing a slowing of thermohaline circulation. What we don’t know is if the slow melting of Greenland and the trickle of that water into the North Atlantic will eventually have the same impact as a giant pulse of fresh water. So we are sort of running an experiment that we don’t know what is going to happen.
    I would be hesitant to use the Younger Dryas impacts as directly translatable to the future of today's warming. The entire theory of CO2 caused catastrophic climate change depends on all these positive feedbacks amplifying future warming. How the positive or negative feedbacks will interact we don't know.

    In the case of the comet impact, the leading theory is the first series of comets that hit 12,600 years ago struck the North American icecap when we were already in a deep ice age. The icecap at the time was 1 - 2 miles thick and covered all of Canada and parts of the Northern US. All this ice melted almost instantaneously causing a massive disruption in ocean currents. The Greenland icecap has much less ice, and has no conceivable mechanism to melt out that quickly. The 11,800 year ago warm spike is theorized to have been caused by a comet impacting the ocean releasing massive amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere.

    Also, most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than today, and none of that warmth led to an ice cap melting disruption in the ocean currents.

    There is a really great JRE podcast on this if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ

    The guest, Randall Carlson, is one the most interesting guys around. I'm not sure if it was this podcast or one of the others that he was on, but it was because of his perspective on global warming that made me actually start researching the global warming narrative. Before that I accepted it all as true.


  13. #638
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,736
    Oh Ron Johnson!!

    There you go again.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kkwiQmGWK4c




    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Keystone is fucking lame. But, deadly.

  14. #639
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Therefore because a little warning is good, the climate can’t possibly get too warm! The technology isn’t there for renewables but is there to cheaply address 3, 6, and 20 ft of sea level rise!
    I'm not implying this.

  15. #640
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,820
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    This is pretty accurate, but notice the troubling times are when it gets colder. Global cooling would be very dangerous for our society. Times of warming have always been associated with prosperity during the period of human civilization.

    We are also much more technologically advanced and therefore more able to handle these swings than past societies.
    Hmmm, I'd like to know what the technologies are for dealing with ever increasing wildfires that destroy whole towns, massive floods, increasing numbers of Category 5 hurricances and tornados--all things we've seen in the last year, and growing ever increasing amounts of food on ever decreasing arable land. Central America's emigration has been driven as much by drought and crop failure as by gangs and violence. Man's main adaptation to climate fluctuations has mainly been to move--but witness the furor migration is increasingly causing and ponder the difficulty of migration for a technologically advanced urban society.

  16. #641
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Wow, how much do you get paid for this bullshit?

    Lies, lies and more lies.

    Trying to spread confusion.

    But it is all lies.

    I'm going to get laid now. Good night.
    Please, do tell me what is wrong with that statement. Keep in mind we are talking in the the context of +/- a few degrees of warming or cooling.

    You haven't been able to disprove any of my points, all you are left with is saying BS and name calling.

  17. #642
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    The video only presents graphs and photos that lead a viewer to believe ice is accumulating faster than it is melting in recent times. Which is absolutely false and misleading. Your pedantic defense that the media was only talking about melt is just that, pedantic, especially since there is only one mechanism by which ice arrives (snow, which is completely covered in the graph) and two main ones by which it melts, direct melting and breaking off into the ocean where it melts. The video almost completely ignored the fact that the icesheet has been losing mass almost every year. Just what was “dishonest” in the reporting? (que more semantics from dipshit while he ignores the completely misleading “reporting” from the climate deniers)

    The “hysteria” that the media is reporting on isn’t just that Greenland is melting at X rate today, it is that Greenland is melting much faster than it has in a very long time, that melt rate is increasing and will do so logarithmically as temperatures increase. If we shouldn’t be hysteric about Greenland melting and causing our major cities to need significant sea walls and eventually to be abandoned, at a cost of many many trillions, I don’t know what we should be hysteric about.

    Further almost no one is saying we have to get to 100% renewable with current tech, but that we should be getting to 30, 50, 70, 90 and 95 % as soon as practicable. Another straw man you’ve constructed, if it doesn’t get us to 100% then we shouldn’t do anything.

    All your cost projections and hysteria that the “true cost” of renewables don’t consider the environmental impacts are laughable when all your costing on fossil fuels include $0 for the effects of climate change.

    Future generations will look back on today and wonder how people like you could be so short sighted, so stupid, and so obviously wrong.
    Actually Greenland has been accumulating ice faster than melting the past 2 years, but its not important. If you can't see that a report making headlines across major networks on 1 day of record melt during a summer of melting within the range of normal is propaganda I don't know what to tell you. If, at the end of the summer, they report that there has been record ice loss this year, I'd have no issue, but singling out a single day is nothing but stoking alarm. It's possible to have a record melt day in the summer and still gain mass over the year.

    Sea levels have been rising at about the same rate of ~3mm/year since 1850, with no rate increase in recent times. Notice the first 100 years of this rise are before increasing CO2 levels: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13002750#f0015

    Yes, everyone is saying we need to get to 100% renewables. Just ask WMD, both his NY and Montana plans want 100% renewables. If you don't get close to 100% from non carbon, you don't end up seeing a significant decline in CO2 output. For the 100th time, look at Germany for an example.

    Re: cost projections. Obviously this depends on your perspective. I don't view global warming as a major threat, really just for those living at sea level. If you are one to believe that fossil fuels are going to lead to extinction, well there is no cost greater than that.

  18. #643
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Hmmm, I'd like to know what the technologies are for dealing with ever increasing wildfires that destroy whole towns, massive floods, increasing numbers of Category 5 hurricances and tornados--all things we've seen in the last year, and growing ever increasing amounts of food on ever decreasing arable land. Central America's emigration has been driven as much by drought and crop failure as by gangs and violence. Man's main adaptation to climate fluctuations has mainly been to move--but witness the furor migration is increasingly causing and ponder the difficulty of migration for a technologically advanced urban society.
    There is zero evidence of an increase in the frequency or magnitude of droughts, forest fires, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. This is all media driven propaganda. Look in the latest IPCC report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

  19. #644
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I would be hesitant to use the Younger Dryas impacts as directly translatable to the future of today's warming. The entire theory of CO2 caused catastrophic climate change depends on all these positive feedbacks amplifying future warming. How the positive or negative feedbacks will interact we don't know.

    In the case of the comet impact, the leading theory is the first series of comets that hit 12,600 years ago struck the North American icecap when we were already in a deep ice age. The icecap at the time was 1 - 2 miles thick and covered all of Canada and parts of the Northern US. All this ice melted almost instantaneously causing a massive disruption in ocean currents. The Greenland icecap has much less ice, and has no conceivable mechanism to melt out that quickly. The 11,800 year ago warm spike is theorized to have been caused by a comet impacting the ocean releasing massive amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere.

    Also, most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than today, and none of that warmth led to an ice cap melting disruption in the ocean currents.
    1 - You brought up Younger Dryas. The takeaway, regardless of cause whether comets or something else, is a pulse of fresh cold water into the North Atlantic resulted in thermohaline circulation pattern shut off. The point is abrupt climate changes have happened multiple times and do not appear to be random like a comet. In other words, once could be due to comets but that doesn't explain other abrupt climate change events in the geologic record.

    2 - Unless regional cherry picked data is used a person cannot say, "most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than today." It is more accurate to say temperatures have oscillated around a mean for the past 10,000 years. But sometime around the early aughts, and relative to peak Holocene warmth 8,000 or so years ago, global temperatures have since returned to the Holocene maximum.

    3 - Over the last 800,000 years greenhouse gas concentrations never exceed 300 ppm and never go below about 180 ppm (parts per million). There is a natural range of variability in these fluctuations of greenhouse gases. We have our preindustrial at about 278 ppm. Then, in January 1979 were up to 336. In 2012 we are up to 393. 2013, 400 ppm. So now we are over 400 ppm.

    4 - This is important because as we look over the geologic time record we understand that CO2 and greenhouse gases are really important in regulating the climate mode that we are in. Seeing greenhouse gas concentrations increase, we know that greenhouse gases trap heat so what we’re doing is we are changing our atmospheric concentrations to a level that we haven’t seen in this current icehouse phase and so we can expect changes.

  20. #645
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,273
    This is stupid.

    From the ipcc sr15 summary for policymakers doc:

    " Climate models project robust7
    differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C,8 and between 1.5°C and 2°C.8 These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence).
    {3.3}

    B.1.1 Evidence from attributed changes in some climate and weather extremes for a global warming of about 0.5°C supports the assessment that an additional 0.5°C of warming compared to present is associated with further detectable changes in these extremes (medium confidence). Several regional changes in climate are assessed to occur with global warming up to 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels, including warming of extreme temperatures in many regions (high confidence), increases in frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation in several regions (high confidence), and an increase in intensity or frequency of droughts in some regions (medium confidence). {3.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Table 3.2}

    B.1.2 Temperature extremes on land are projected to warm more than GMST (high confidence): extreme hot days in mid-latitudes
    warm by up to about 3°C at global warming of 1.5°C and about 4°C at 2°C, and extreme cold nights in high latitudes warm by up to about 4.5°C at 1.5°C and about 6°C at 2°C (high confidence). The number of hot days is projected to increase in
    most land regions, with highest increases in the tropics (high confidence). {3.3.1, 3.3.2, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3}

    B.1.3 Risks from droughts and precipitation deficits are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in
    some regions (medium confidence). Risks from heavy precipitation events are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming in several northern hemisphere high-latitude and/or high-elevation regions, eastern Asia and eastern North America (medium confidence). Heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones is projected to be
    higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming (medium confidence). There is generally low confidence in projected changes in heavy precipitation at 2°C compared to 1.5°C in other regions. Heavy precipitation when aggregated at global scale is projected to be higher at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). As a consequence of heavy precipitation, the fraction of the global land area affected by flood hazards is projected to be larger at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). "

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using TGR Forums mobile app

  21. #646
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You're going to have to back up the "not synchronously" part with some evidence. It's impossible to believe in attribution studies when you can't find any increasing trend in frequency or intensity of extreme weather events from historical data of the last 150 years. If the IPCC can't find it, you can bet its not there.

    And actually there is a period in the instrumental record that has approached or exceeded modern temperatures in the US. Check the heat of the 1930's. Many US high temperature records were set during that decade, it also had by far the the worst heat waves in US history: http://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.co...-heatwave.html
    Please stop asking for evidence and then citing obviously agenda-based sources. Also, my post you are responding to wasn't talking about extreme weather events, I was talking about global temperature development. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond assuming you just misunderstood my post, but please note that this "bait and switch" tactic is a bullshit debate tactic often employed by people trying to refute scientific evidence without corresponding supporting evidence.

    It seems like maybe you don't understand the concept of uncertainty in the scientific process and your arguments switch somewhat haphazardly between rejecting the economics of renewable energy sources, global temperature development over the Holocene, and frequency of extreme weather events. I don't know much about the economics of renewables, but I do know that analyses of trends in global temperatures and frequency/intensity analyses of extreme events especially beyond the instrumental record require different proxies with different spatial and temporal resolutions. Thus, the uncertainty regarding global temperature development over the Holocene is lower than the uncertainty associated with reconstructions of extreme weather events. I'd agree with you that we are much less certain about short-duration extreme events (i.e. flooding / intense precipitation / intense tropical storms) than we are about global temperature development -- and this is well-reflected in the IPCC report, no?

  22. #647
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    318
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617#ref11

    Here's a nice study with a good library of cited literature more about extreme events, and also has a nice discussion (with cited literature) regarding attribution studies.

  23. #648
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,736
    Ron Johnson is either a shill for the fossil fuel industry or most likely simply unable to even understand the sources that he himself posts.



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Keystone is fucking lame. But, deadly.

  24. #649
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,977
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Actually Greenland has been accumulating ice faster than melting the past 2 years, but its not important. If you can't see that a report making headlines across major networks on 1 day of record melt during a summer of melting within the range of normal is propaganda I don't know what to tell you. If, at the end of the summer, they report that there has been record ice loss this year, I'd have no issue, but singling out a single day is nothing but stoking alarm. It's possible to have a record melt day in the summer and still gain mass over the year.

    Sea levels have been rising at about the same rate of ~3mm/year since 1850, with no rate increase in recent times. Notice the first 100 years of this rise are before increasing CO2 levels: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13002750#f0015

    Yes, everyone is saying we need to get to 100% renewables. Just ask WMD, both his NY and Montana plans want 100% renewables. If you don't get close to 100% from non carbon, you don't end up seeing a significant decline in CO2 output. For the 100th time, look at Germany for an example.

    Re: cost projections. Obviously this depends on your perspective. I don't view global warming as a major threat, really just for those living at sea level. If you are one to believe that fossil fuels are going to lead to extinction, well there is no cost greater than that.
    Sea level rise is accelerating. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    Greenland getting that warm is unusual and getting that warm as frequently as it is is very unusual.

    You dismiss cost projections by saying it doesn’t matter because you don’t live on the coast, oh good I’m sure the economy will be fine!

  25. #650
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    Ron Johnson is either a shill for the fossil fuel industry or most likely simply unable to even understand the sources that he himself posts.



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Most definitely a sock puppet for a banned poster.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •