Theme Thread - GW -New/old technology - ecosystems collapsing -disease spreading - hunger increasing etcThis thread is NOT for GW/Change deniers

[longview]

Question-are droughts increasing or decreasing over the past 50 years?

I think droughts from rainfall are decreasing.
Precipitation measurements and trends in the twentieth century

Precipitation gauge data indicate that global land precipitation (excluding Antarctica) has increased by about 9 mm over the twentieth century (a trend of 0.89 mm/decade), which is relatively small compared with interannual and multi-decadal variability.

on the other side of the coin, our demand for water has increased faster than the slight increase in rainfall,
the result is less available water.
The cause is certainly Human activity.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They will only get worse

Scientists confirm global floods and droughts worsened by climate change

Scientists can now see the big picture on water globally — which areas are repeatedly drying and which are getting hammered by extra-strong rainstorms, thanks to new analysis of satellite data.

www.pbs.org

Yes.

Climate change can be natural you know.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Keep in mind, PBS is not science. If you want to think you know something, read the paper that they used for source material. Not what some pundit journalist is lying about.

Oh wait..

they didn't link the paper they claim says this from Nature. How can you consider that credible?

 

[longview]

They will only get worse

Scientists confirm global floods and droughts worsened by climate change

Scientists can now see the big picture on water globally — which areas are repeatedly drying and which are getting hammered by extra-strong rainstorms, thanks to new analysis of satellite data.

www.pbs.org

The climate is changing, but it is always changing. We are in a warming trend,
Some of it could be from Human activity, but it is highly unlikely we can change the trend.
Earth will warm...until it begins to cool, much like the cycles recorded in the ice cores for the last 800,000 years.
There is an upper limit to how much warming Human activity can cause, and we may be near it already.
We can adapt to warming, Cooling is an order of magnitude greater problem.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here is the paper should you choose to read it:

Changing intensity of hydroclimatic extreme events revealed by GRACE and GRACE-FO - Nature Water

How will climate change affect wet and dry extreme events around the world? On the basis of terrestrial water storage observations and a novel clustering algorithm, this study shows that the intensity of such events has been increasing with global warming.

www.nature.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

The paper does not make claim to any of this being caused by man. It only surveys data from a 20 year period using the GRACE satellite. Here are some pretty pictures from the paper if you like:



The paper even calls these "water cycle events" which leads us to conclude they are natural climate change events.

 

[Glitch]

I didn't know that.

If that is true, then the long journey to the Snake River and farther.

I wonder how many die before they get to their spawning ground.

Whenever we catch salmon in the rivers in Alaska we check them for sea lice. If the sea lice are still alive, it means that the salmon has not been in freshwater for longer than three days. Seal lice begin to die in freshwater. Salmon will continue to live for a couple of weeks without eating. They start mutating, with their flesh becoming mushy, and not very edible (other than for dog food) after about 3 to 5 days, depending on the species.

Thousands are caught by fisherman, and hundreds more are caught by eagles and bears, before the salmon make it to their spawning ground. The returning salmon are counted at the estuary and the river is only opened to fisherman once a sufficient number of salmon have returned. There have been some years when rivers have been closed completely, due to the lack of numbers. And other years when so many salmon have returned they had to open up the river for dip-netting and increasing the limits fisherman can catch in order to keep the salmon from killing off the rest of the fish when they die.

A dead and decaying salmon actually depletes the oxygen in the lakes and rivers where they die. If there is a sufficient number of dead and decaying salmon in one location, they can kill all the other fish in the area. So we try to keep their returning numbers to a healthy limit.

 

[Glitch]

Yes, that has been going on for some time now.

There are long natural cycles in nature. How do you distinguish natural from man caused?

I have no evidence to claim this is natural, but every time I have looked into what people claim mankind for causing droughts, I have found lower rainfall in the past. Generally in the 30's.

So what evidence do you have that this is caused my us?

I would be willing to wager that not many are aware of the Arctic desert in Alaska, known as the Kobuk Valley National Park. Probably because there are no roads and you can only get their by plane.




There are indeed long natural cycles in regard to weather. That is the very definition of climate. Just over 9,000 years ago the desert in Kobuk Valley didn't exist. Neither did the Sahara desert. Both were forested with creeks and rivers, and dotted with thousands of lakes. Just over 9,000 years ago Earth also had a completely different orbit than it does today. As Earth's orbit changed, so did Earth's climate.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that humans, or any other species, could be responsible for any change in the climate, regardless of how much that species may pollute its environment.

 

[JANFU]

The climate is changing, but it is always changing. We are in a warming trend,
Some of it could be from Human activity, but it is highly unlikely we can change the trend.
Earth will warm...until it begins to cool, much like the cycles recorded in the ice cores for the last 800,000 years.
There is an upper limit to how much warming Human activity can cause, and we may be near it already.
We can adapt to warming, Cooling is an order of magnitude greater problem.

I go with the science.
So if you believe humans are not in the majority responsible, then not to be rude. This is for those that believe the science

 

[longview]

I go with the science.
So if you believe humans are not in the majority responsible, then not to be rude. This is for those that believe the science

That’s just it, the observed science is saying that while human activity may still be the cause, increased CO2 levels are not, but that is what is identified as the fix, it will amount to nothing.
There is a single side benefit, and that is we need to move towards energy sustainability, but that will happen with or without CO2 regulations.

 

[JANFU]

That’s just it, the observed science is saying that while human activity may still be the cause, increased CO2 levels are not, but that is what is identified as the fix, it will amount to nothing.
There is a single side benefit, and that is we need to move towards energy sustainability, but that will happen with or without CO2 regulations.

No, CO2 causes temperatures to rise

 

[longview]

No, CO2 causes temperatures to rise

Yea that is the theory, but not what is being observed.
The CERES satellites were put up to monitor the changes in Earth's energy imbalance.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
Between 2002 and 2020 they did record an increase in energy imbalance, but the greenhouse effect
works because the greenhouse gases are transparent to Shortwave radiation, and block delay longwave radiation from leaving.
What the CERES satellites recorded is that while the CO2 level increased, the downward longwave radiation (That portion of the spectrum
that the greenhouse effect would cause warming) actually decreased.

For this period, the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 ± 0.22 W m−2 decade−1that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 ± 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a −0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR (Figures 2a–2c). TOA fluxes are defined positive downwards so that a positive anomaly/trend corresponds to a heat gain and a negative anomaly corresponds to a heat loss. As such, emitted thermal radiation (ETR) is defined positive downward and is therefore equal to −OLR.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, CO2 causes temperatures to rise

Yes, that isn't in question.

The question is by how much?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The positive thing is that more sectors can be decarbonized. For example that Industriell heat is a large share of energy consumption and CO2 emissions. So it can be great potential to use cheap renewable electricity to produce that heat. While combining it will simple forms of storage like bricks to release the heat then needed.

https://newatlas.com/energy/rondo-heat-battery-brick-toaster/

Also possible with a transition towards electric vehicles while also investing in public transport, bike lanes and walkability.

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/03/04/evs-take-92-1-share-in-norway-tesla-model-y-dominates/

15-minute cities: What are they and how do they work? – DW – 03/15/2023

City planners say we have to rethink the way we build urban areas to make them more sustainable, healthy and just. The so-called 15-minute city is one idea. But are they viable?

www.dw.com

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Nothing that I can see
The OP is about./for those who believe CC is caused by man-made actions

Fossil fuel companies have known that C02 emissions causes climate change for a very long time.

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.

news.harvard.edu

While at the same time contributed to the climate denialism you see on this forum. Through spending massive amounts of money on propaganda and lobbying.

“Kochland” Examines the Koch Brothers’ Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial

A new book by Christopher Leonard reveals how Charles and David Koch crippled government action on climate change.

www.newyorker.com

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming.

www.bbc.com

Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 - OpenSecrets News

The oil and gas industry spent about $124.4 million lobbying the federal government in 2022, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of lobbying disclosures.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[Glitch]

Fossil fuel companies have known that C02 emissions causes climate change for a very long time.

Atmospheric CO2 has absolutely no effect on the weather, surface temperatures, or the climate. That has been proven through 420,000 years of empirical evidence. All you have are lies that have been refuted by scientists from across the world.

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.

news.harvard.edu

While at the same time contributed to the climate denialism you see on this forum. Through spending massive amounts of money on propaganda and lobbying.

“Kochland” Examines the Koch Brothers’ Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial

A new book by Christopher Leonard reveals how Charles and David Koch crippled government action on climate change.

www.newyorker.com

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming.

www.bbc.com

Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 - OpenSecrets News

The oil and gas industry spent about $124.4 million lobbying the federal government in 2022, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of lobbying disclosures.

www.opensecrets.org

You can't even provide a single peer-reviewed study by any scientist anywhere that supports your lies. All you have is propaganda. While I can provide numerous peer-reviewed studies that prove you and your propaganda sources are deliberately lying.

• Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, 2003 (free preprint)
• Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination - Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 112-114, 2001 (free preprint)
• The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka - Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, pp. 583-589, 2001 (PDF)
• Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations - Science, Volume 283, Issue 5408, pp. 1712-1714, 1999 (free preprint)

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Atmospheric CO2 has absolutely no effect on the weather, surface temperatures, or the climate. That has been proven through 420,000 years of empirical evidence. All you have are lies that have been refuted by scientists from across the world.


You can't even provide a single peer-reviewed study by any scientist anywhere that supports your lies. All you have is propaganda. While I can provide numerous peer-reviewed studies that prove you and your propaganda sources are deliberately lying.

• Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, 2003 (free preprint)
• Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination - Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 112-114, 2001 (free preprint)
• The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka - Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, pp. 583-589, 2001 (PDF)
• Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations - Science, Volume 283, Issue 5408, pp. 1712-1714, 1999 (free preprint)

There are for example these federal scientific reports with both are peer reviewed and have links to hundred of more peer reviewed studies. That both acknowledge the urgent need to reduce C02 emissions.

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

Fifth National Climate Assessment

The Fifth National Climate Assessment is the US Government’s preeminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses. It is a congressionally mandated interagency effort that provides the scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States.

nca2023.globalchange.gov

The first report was published in 2018 then Republican controlled both the White House and Congress. So they would of course have stopped that report if it wasn't bases on solid scientific evidence.

While the latest report was published now then Republican politicians control the House. So they would of course have started hearing if they had been any credible contrary evidence.

 

[Buzz]

Yea that is the theory, but not what is being observed.
The CERES satellites were put up to monitor the changes in Earth's energy imbalance.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
Between 2002 and 2020 they did record an increase in energy imbalance, but the greenhouse effect
works because the greenhouse gases are transparent to Shortwave radiation, and block delay longwave radiation from leaving.
What the CERES satellites recorded is that while the CO2 level increased, the downward longwave radiation (That portion of the spectrum
that the greenhouse effect would cause warming) actually decreased.

Warning!!
Longview is lying about that study. CO2 is still causing warming. Here is a quote from it:

We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

CO2 is a well-mixed greenhouse gas.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Warning!!
Longview is lying about that study. CO2 is still causing warming. Here is a quote from it:

Really? Where? I would have to read the study again to see for sure, but my memory has a decrease in cloud cover which means a decrease in downward IR even though downward IR from CO2 is increasing. He said downward IR was decreasing. He did not say downward IR from CO2 is decreasing.

CO2 is a well-mixed greenhouse gas.

Yes, so?

Here you are again, trying to fabricate a win when you have clearly lost.

 

[Glitch]

There are for example these federal scientific reports with both are peer reviewed and have links to hundred of more peer reviewed studies. That both acknowledge the urgent need to reduce C02 emissions.

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

Fifth National Climate Assessment

The Fifth National Climate Assessment is the US Government’s preeminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses. It is a congressionally mandated interagency effort that provides the scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States.

nca2023.globalchange.gov

The first report was published in 2018 then Republican controlled both the White House and Congress. So they would of course have stopped that report if it wasn't bases on solid scientific evidence.

While the latest report was published now then Republican politicians control the House. So they would of course have started hearing if they had been any credible contrary evidence.

Government propaganda is not scientific nor even peer-reviewed. The references they do cite are deliberately misquoted to further their political agenda. Neither document provides any evidence to support the fantasy that humans have anything to do with the climate. All either document does is describe the effects of a warming climate.

You will never find a peer-reviewed paper that blames humans for the climate, because scientists are not that stupid. Only government propagandists and their media sycophants are that stupid. You cannot even demonstrate that humans have had an impact on weather much less the climate.

 

[JANFU]

Government propaganda is not scientific nor even peer-reviewed. The references they do cite are deliberately misquoted to further their political agenda. Neither document provides any evidence to support the fantasy that humans have anything to do with the climate. All either document does is describe the effects of a warming climate.

You will never find a peer-reviewed paper that blames humans for the climate, because scientists are not that stupid. Only government propagandists and their media sycophants are that stupid. You cannot even demonstrate that humans have had an impact on weather much less the climate.

Science is wrong. Right. Got it

 

[longview]

Science is wrong. Right. Got it

Actually the science is right, the assumptions made about the observed data is wrong!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Government propaganda is not scientific nor even peer-reviewed. The references they do cite are deliberately misquoted to further their political agenda. Neither document provides any evidence to support the fantasy that humans have anything to do with the climate. All either document does is describe the effects of a warming climate.

You will never find a peer-reviewed paper that blames humans for the climate, because scientists are not that stupid. Only government propagandists and their media sycophants are that stupid. You cannot even demonstrate that humans have had an impact on weather much less the climate.

Both reports have been peer reviewed by an external committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

Also Republican politicians have had a very close and profitable relationship with fossil fuel companies. There Trump went as far as appointed a coal lobbyist as head of EPA.

10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just One Year

If Wheeler truly cared about transparency, he would petition the Trump administration to change the name of his agency to “Every Polluter’s Ally.”

blog.ucsusa.org

The Trump administrationen also profit from it's relationship with fossil fuel dictatorships.

Report: Jared Kushner’s $2 Billion Saudi Check Appears Even More Comically Corrupt Than Previously Thought

“The reason this smells so bad is that there is all sorts of evidence he did not receive this on the merits.”

www.vanityfair.com

So the reason that the report was published in 2018 was because the scientific evidence was so overwhelming so Republicans politicians couldn't stop it.

That the massive influence of fossil fuel companies and dictatorships are also a big reason action on climate change have been delayed for many decades.

Fossil Fuel Interests Have Outspent Environmental Advocates 10:1 on Climate Lobbying

e360.yale.edu

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...stry-us-lawmakers-campaign-donations-analysis

Bush's sordid Saudi ties set template for Trump – he was just more subtle

The former president has been widely praised for his command of foreign policy. The reality, writes the author of House of Bush, House of Saud, was much more complex – and dark

www.theguardian.com

 

[JANFU]

Called the Dooms Day glacier, as when this one goes, glaciers behind it will move to the ocean
Not an if, but a when will it break

Thwaites Glacier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How much will the Thwaites Glacier raise sea level?


Put in other terms: Thwaites alone contains more than two feet of potential sea-level rise, and were it to wholly disintegrate, it could destabilize much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, causing global sea levels to jump 10 feet or more.Aug 13, 2023

We Reached the Glacier Just as It Collapsed - The Atlantic​

 

[longview]

Called the Dooms Day glacier, as when this one goes, glaciers behind it will move to the ocean
Not an if, but a when will it break

Thwaites Glacier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2 feet to 10 feet of sea level rise, over what time frame?
Let's see what your citation says.

The amount of ice from Thwaites likely to be lost in this century will only amount to several centimetres of sea level rise,[1][21] but its breakdown will rapidly accelerate in the 22nd and 23rd centuries,[10] and the volume of ice contained in the entire glacier can ultimately contribute 65 cm (25+1⁄2 in) to global sea level rise,[5] which is more than twice the total sea level rise to date.