• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

AlbqOwl said:
Perhaps if they get lucky enough for one of their alarmist, doomsday predictions to actually happen.... etc etc
Click to expand...
So many words, so much wrong.

• No one wants this to happen. Weather reporters don't want people to be killed in storms, even if it increases their ratings.

• 43% generation is actually very high for a heavily industrialized nation. Capacity has doubled since 2001, and they are adding more renewables every year. They might hit as much as 80% renewable in 2020.

• No one ever said that wind is 100% carbon free. However, it requires almost no carbon to build and deploy a wind farm, especially compared to fossil fuel facilities, which obviously spew far more pollutants (including CO2) over their lifespans.

• The people who are the most vocal are the scientists, who aren't getting paid much to do basic research. They aren't the ones actually selling green tech. And of course, if you follow the money, you will find that many who are vocal against accepting the reality of climate change are heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry, especially Koch. (Unsurprisingly, they spend their money on PR and lobbying rather than science.) The amount spent on this effort by the fossil fuel industry, even at a time when corporations like Shell are slowly coming around to their corporate responsibilities, utterly dwarfs what is spent by those who accept the science.

I.e. You want greed? Look at Exxon, not Nordhaus and Romer.
 
bubbabgone said:
View attachment 67241808
Click to expand...

Look... if you regard considered scientific reports from major organizations ‘alarmist gobbledegook’, you probably should stick to cartoons for a living.

I’d suggest you focus on the photoshop part and find someone else to do the writing.
 
longview said:
Goofs it is ok that you do not understand the science or the math, just do not try and tax other people
based on your poor understanding.
Click to expand...

I think I have a handle on the science and math.

So do the thousands of scientists who developed this IPCC report.

But YOU are the outlier.

I’m pretty sure its not because you are a genius who happens to have a contradictory view to virtually everyone who studies this, but who am I to say for sure?
 
MTAtech said:
Yeah, because that's what you think this is all about. Sad.

We are talking about the survival of the human species and all you can focus on is your narrow minded suspicion that it's all about liberals trying to take away your right to incandescent bulbs.

We already see that Miami, that never flooded 50 years ago, is flooding regularly. Storms in the midwest are much more violent and the east coast now gets big hurricanes.
Click to expand...

"The Survival of the Human species" is kind of a high branch, because we do not have enough fossil fuel in the ground to do that.
It has taken the completely unrestricted efforts of everyone to increase CO2 levels by 128 ppm in 150 years.
The likely hood of us completing the first doubling, an additional 152 ppm in the next few decades is low.
The current rate of CO2 emissions is between 2 and 3 ppm per year.
The limiting factors are really the cost to find and extract oil, it is getting more expensive,
at some point oil for fuel will not be economically viable.

Also Miami has flooded plenty in the past, King tides occur most years, with some years being worse than others.
What if Hurricane Harvey-type flooding hit South Florida? - Sun Sentinel
I am not saying that Miami is not seeing some sea level rise, but the rate of 1.2 feet per century from the closest trending tide station
is not causing much change.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8722670
One would also think that closer stations would report the tide trend if Miami were such a problem.
 
Threegoofs said:
Look... if you regard considered scientific reports from major organizations ‘alarmist gobbledegook’, you probably should stick to cartoons for a living.

I’d suggest you focus on the photoshop part and find someone else to do the writing.
Click to expand...

Those reports are designed to keep the research cash flowing.
 
Visbek said:
Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (±0.2°C likely range) above pre-industrial
levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C (±0.1°C) per decade (high confidence). Global warming is
defined in this report as an increase in combined surface air and sea surface temperatures averaged
over the globe and a 30-year period. Unless otherwise specified, warming is expressed relative to the
period 1850-1900, used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in AR5. For periods
shorter than 30 years, warming refers to the estimated average temperature over the 30 years centered
on that shorter period, accounting for the impact of any temperature fluctuations or trend within those
30 years. Accordingly, warming up to the decade 2006-2015 is assessed at 0.87°C
(±0.12°C likely range). Since 2000, the estimated level of human-induced warming has been equal to
the level of observed warming with a likely range of ±20% accounting for uncertainty due to
contributions from solar and volcanic activity over the historical period (high confidence). {1.2.1}



Incorrect. It's since 1850.

And it's not "subjective." The data doesn't change based on one's opinions or preferences.



1.2.1.1 Definition of global average temperature
The IPCC has traditionally defined changes in observed GMST as a weighted average of near-surface
air temperature (SAT) changes over land and sea surface temperature (SST) changes over the oceans
(Morice et al., 2012; Hartmann et al., 2013), while modelling studies have typically used a simple
global average SAT. For ambitious mitigation goals, and under conditions of rapid warming, the
difference can be significant. Cowtan et al. (2015) and Richardson et al. (2016) show that the use of
blended SAT/SST data and incomplete coverage together can give approximately 0.2°C less warming
from the 19th century to the present relative to the use of complete global-average SAT (Stocker et al.
, 2013), Figure TFE8.1 and Figure 1.2)....

We adopt a working definition of warming over the historical period based on an average of the four
available global datasets that are supported by peer-reviewed publications: the three datasets used in
the AR5, updated (Karl et al., 2015), together with the Cowtan-Way infilled dataset (Cowtan and
Way, 2014). A further two datasets, Berkeley Earth (Rohde et al., 2013) and JMA, are provided in
Table 1.1. This working definition provides an updated estimate of 0.86°C for the warming 1880-
2012 based on a linear trend that was quoted as 0.85°C in the AR5. Hence the inclusion of the
Cowtan-Way dataset does not introduce any inconsistency with the AR5, whereas redefining GMST
to represent global SAT could increase this figure by up to 20%, (Table 1.1, Figure 1.2 Richardson et
al., 2016).

I.e. Section 1.2 explains what periods they chose, why they chose them, and what the data from those selected periods say. This is the basis for their assertion that temperatures will likely rise 1.5C by 2040, compared to temperatures in 1850. The report then outlines the likely consequences.
Click to expand...

Cutting and pasting words from other documents does not make them true!
HadCrut4 has a Decadally smoothed global data set.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...ries/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg_smooth.txt
Let see what they say. 1850 -.274 C, 2017 .685 C, Delta .959 C or .057 C per decade
2000 .402 C , 2017 .685 C, delta .283 C or .166 C per decade.
Now lets talk about the limitations of Decadally smoothing, the 2017 number of .685, does not reflect the decline
of almost .2 C since the peak of the 2016 El Nino.
It does not matter where you set zero, as long as you state where the ZERO reference point is.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think I have a handle on the science and math.

So do the thousands of scientists who developed this IPCC report.

But YOU are the outlier.

I’m pretty sure its not because you are a genius who happens to have a contradictory view to virtually everyone who studies this, but who am I to say for sure?
Click to expand...

Except that my estimates for ECS fall in the middle of the predictions based on observations.
 
longview said:
Except that my estimates for ECS fall in the middle of the predictions based on observations.
Click to expand...

Right.

Because you don’t get the concept that all the warning we will get for a given concentration of CO2 takes decades to realize.

The people who actually understand this take that into account. Deniers who just want to prove AGW is no bid deal, regardless of reality, ignore it.
 
Threegoofs said:
Right.

Because you don’t get the concept that all the warning we will get for a given concentration of CO2 takes decades to realize.

The people who actually understand this take that into account. Deniers who just want to prove AGW is no bid deal, regardless of reality, ignore it.
Click to expand...
ECS is inclusive of the delayed warming as well, read more before commenting.
 
Threegoofs said:
Scientists are constantly being paid to ‘debunk’ AGW.

That’s the concept of the null hypothesis, a central tenet in Science.

And for the last 30 years, all those attempted debunkings continue to strengthen our knowledge that there’s no question that GHG emissions are a major threat in the future.

The only deniers to this seem to be politically motivated, or just dumb as rocks.
Click to expand...

If the scientist even hints that he does not believe AGW to be a significant component in the problem, he won't be hired in most scientific groups. That's the simple truth. These groups funded to keep proving the AGW is an important problem aren't about to allow anybody to upset that apple cart.
 
Visbek said:
So many words, so much wrong.

• No one wants this to happen. Weather reporters don't want people to be killed in storms, even if it increases their ratings.

• 43% generation is actually very high for a heavily industrialized nation. Capacity has doubled since 2001, and they are adding more renewables every year. They might hit as much as 80% renewable in 2020.

• No one ever said that wind is 100% carbon free. However, it requires almost no carbon to build and deploy a wind farm, especially compared to fossil fuel facilities, which obviously spew far more pollutants (including CO2) over their lifespans.

• The people who are the most vocal are the scientists, who aren't getting paid much to do basic research. They aren't the ones actually selling green tech. And of course, if you follow the money, you will find that many who are vocal against accepting the reality of climate change are heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry, especially Koch. (Unsurprisingly, they spend their money on PR and lobbying rather than science.) The amount spent on this effort by the fossil fuel industry, even at a time when corporations like Shell are slowly coming around to their corporate responsibilities, utterly dwarfs what is spent by those who accept the science.

I.e. You want greed? Look at Exxon, not Nordhaus and Romer.
Click to expand...

I am interested in facts and not propaganda please. As for those wind turbines, here is somebody who seems to have really done his homework re the carbon footprint a wind turbine leaves:

https://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am interested in facts and not propaganda please. As for those wind turbines, here is somebody who seems to have really done his homework re the carbon footprint a wind turbine leaves:

https://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/
Click to expand...

LOL.

Not interested in propaganda.
Cites blatant propaganda site.

That site is like the Daily Caller for wind energy.

Not sure how a site that says ‘we are not here to debate wind power, we are here to DESTROY it’ can be considered anything BUT a propaganda site.
 
Threegoofs said:
It is... when you don’t use observed warning.
Click to expand...
ECS estimates can be based on many things, I prefer looking at how the climate has reacted to warming in the past.
 
AlbqOwl said:
As have I. For some time now New Mexico has experienced severe to extreme drought of the type and duration that probably drove the Anazazi from the cliff dwellings. Of course that happened long before the industrial revolution and the introduction of carbon based fuels into the equation.

Climate changes. It has always changed and it will continue to change. And probably 7.5+ billion people on the Earth living their lives has had some kind of effect since that is 6.5+ billion more people than were here in 1800. For certain human activity has affected the environment in areas where large concentrations of people live.

But the scientific community that is paid to prove that AGW is the primary issue--you note nobody is paying scientists to see if that theory can be debunked--so far has failed to produce sufficient evidence even with at least a few falsifying or rigging the data to do so. Their models have been proved off the mark so many times now that most thinking people see it for what it is. That doesn't stop the opportunists from taking financial or social climbing or political advantage of their theories as long as it is useful to do so.
Click to expand...

Cutting to the chase- you do not deny that climate change is a real phenomenon, you just don't like scientists? What the heck are you talking about?- "social climbing and political advantage"?. You do not seem to understand how science works. The science of climate change is very complex across multiple disciplines, but there is a consensus among scientists.
The mechanism that has reduced the affects of carbon overload up to this point- the ocean and forest carbon sinks- are rapidly being destroyed. To be sanguine about it , is to doom our grandchildren to a very uncertain future. It is all right in front of our noses now.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Not interested in propaganda.
Cites blatant propaganda site.

That site is like the Daily Caller for wind energy.

Not sure how a site that says ‘we are not here to debate wind power, we are here to DESTROY it’ can be considered anything BUT a propaganda site.
Click to expand...

Well if it is propaganda, then you should have no problem providing more credible information from a non-progaganda site that would discredit at least one or two points of the information provided.
 
Threegoofs said:
In other words... not the way actual people who study this for a living do it.
Click to expand...
Actually it is the way scientific observations are made, and yes other people do it as well.
 
Cassandra said:
Cutting to the chase- you do not deny that climate change is a real phenomenon, you just don't like scientists? What the heck are you talking about?- "social climbing and political advantage"?. You do not seem to understand how science works. The science of climate change is very complex across multiple disciplines, but there is a consensus among scientists.
The mechanism that has reduced the affects of carbon overload up to this point- the ocean and forest carbon sinks- are rapidly being destroyed. To be sanguine about it , is to doom our grandchildren to a very uncertain future. It is all right in front of our noses now.
Click to expand...

I love scientists. I have serious professional scientists in my family and many who are friends including anthropologists, geologists, and others who study the paleontological record.

But I do have a hard time believing those who are alarmists, opportunists, and who revel in the approval of their fellows when virtually all who promote AGW as a serious problem that government can address are funded by those governments. And pretty much all scientists not receiving that funding are skeptical that AGW is the serious problem that is promoted by the others. And my own observations just using common sense that of all the specific warnings and predictions put out there by the AGW religonists, none have proved to happen as they said it would. Or that NONE of them seem to be leading personal lives that would suggest they believe the stuff they predict.

I am not a denier. But I need more evidence to be a believer than the propaganda put out there by scientific opportunists who have everything to lose if AGW is universally debunked as a serious problem.
 
AlbqOwl said:
As have I. For some time now New Mexico has experienced severe to extreme drought of the type and duration that probably drove the Anazazi from the cliff dwellings.... etc etc
Click to expand...
The existence of natural cycles does not prove that human activity is changing the climate, and overwhelming those natural cycles.

That's like saying "cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, because you could get lung cancer before cigarettes were invented." The claim ignores both the causality (e.g. abundant evidence which describes the mechanisms by which cigarette smoke causes lung cancer) as well as the epidemiological evidence (e.g. as much as 90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking).

What does warming due to natural events look like? The warming from the end of the most recent ice age was about 3C, and lasted 5000 years. That's an average of 0.16C per century. The planet is now warming 0.2C per decade. That's a whole order of magnitude faster.

There is no question that the size of the human population has an impact. But almost all of that impact is due to energy generation that produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That's the single most important factor here. And it's planet-wide, not just in dense areas.

The scientific community is paid to determine the truth to the best of their ability. It is downright bizarre to imagine that almost every scientific endeavor follows this ethos, and somehow there is a massive ethical gap only among climate scientists, based off of what is basically a pittance of government grant spending, especially compared to working for a fossil fuel company.

By the way, a handful of scientists are in fact paid to deny climate change; Willie Soon was a scientist who denied climate change, and busted a few years ago for failing to identify the ways that fossil fuel companies funded his research. It's that almost none of the science supports the denier position, and are thus ineligible for said largesse -- hence much of the spending on lobbying and PR.

Back in the real world: The models are accurate. The predictions are already starting to come to pass. What we are seeing is not natural, and at best it's going to get much worse before it gets better.
 
longview said:
Cutting and pasting words from other documents does not make them true!
Click to expand...
Ignoring words and not reading the report does not make them false!


HadCrut4 has a Decadally smoothed global data set...
Click to expand...
Read the report. They cite their sources.


It does not matter where you set zero, as long as you state where the ZERO reference point is.
Click to expand...
And again, I already told you: The report explicitly states that it's taking 1850 as the starting point. Try to keep up.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If the scientist even hints that he does not believe AGW to be a significant component in the problem, he won't be hired in most scientific groups.
Click to expand...
Then why did Willie Soon work at the Smithsonian? Why is Svensmark at CERN?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am interested in facts and not propaganda please. As for those wind turbines, here is somebody who seems to have really done his homework re the carbon footprint a wind turbine leaves:
Click to expand...
:lamo

You claim you want facts and not propaganda, then link to a propaganda site. Nice.

It is utterly false that "100%" of wind power needs to be backed up "100%" by fossil fuel. E.g. as discussed, Denmark gets over 40% of its energy from wind, but doesn't face constant power blackouts. In fact, their grid is more reliable than nations which are more heavily reliant on conventional energy generation.

The footprint figures on that page are made-up nonsense. The median is closer to 11 tons of CO2 over the entire life cycle of wind turbine facility; 48 for a utility-scale solar PV facility; 490 for a gas-powered plant; 820 for a coal plant. It's not "homework" when you pull made-up numbers out of your ass.

Wind is not the end-all and be-all, and it certainly isn't perfect. However, it has a great deal going for it, including how it is one of the cleanest and cheapest options available today -- and that is without subsidies. Lazard Freres unsubsidized levelized cost of electrical generation over the full lifecycle of the facility, per 2017:

chart-1-finally.jpg
 
AlbqOwl said:
If the scientist even hints that he does not believe AGW to be a significant component in the problem, he won't be hired in most scientific groups. That's the simple truth. These groups funded to keep proving the AGW is an important problem aren't about to allow anybody to upset that apple cart.
Click to expand...

Science is not about "belief" and research is not generally highly lucrative. My nephew has a PHD and researches ocean chemistry at Woods Hole. His wife (a physician ) pretty much supports the family. My nephew was on a boat taking water samples for a week recently, not because he "believes" in climate change but because he wishes to quantify- w accurate data- changes in ocean PH.

Woods Hole was founded by that lefty organization "the Rockefeller Foundation" About half of the funding is from government.

"Founded in 1930 with a $1 million endowment provided by The Rockefeller Foundation, WHOI operates as a nonprofit with a balance sheet valued at roughly $500 million. With a fleet of floating laboratories as well as around 1,100 employees, WHOI’s chief mission is the exploration and research of all forms of sea life and marine geography."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom