Sign in to follow this  

Official Climate Change / Global Warming Thread II

What do Neowinians think?  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think Global Warming is caused by human carbon emissions?

    • Yes
      19
    • No
      5
    • Unsure
      4
  2. 2. Should we use the precautionary principle until we know for certain whether carbon dioxide causes global warming?

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      8


Recommended Posts

Andrew    2,682

A new year, a new discussion! Feel free to continue any discussions from the previous pinned topic.

 

Please post all new articles and discussion questions pertaining to climate change / global warming in this official thread. Any new threads that are started on this topic will be merged here.

 

Please be respectful of others' beliefs and don't forget the forum rules!

 

No Cursing or Swear Words
We encourage you to use our communities as a forum to debate topics, but please use proper adjectives to express yourself. We do not tolerate circumvention of our word filter or abuse upon another member. As stated above, we are a forum for all ages and expect posts to be family / work friendly.

 

No Racism, Threatening, No Victimization or Hateful Posts / Retaliation
If you are a long standing member, act like one; lead by example and assist other newer users rather than attacking them. We look upon our veteran users to use this opportunity to teach the newer users the appropriate way to conduct themselves in this community.

 

No Personal Attacks or Retaliation
Personal attacks such as instigating "flame bait", verbal abuse, mocking or sexist remarks of members is not tolerated at Neowin. Such content will be deleted on sight or moderated accordingly.

As above, if you are a long standing member, act like one. Lead by example and assist other newer members rather than attacking them. Members that reply to simply instigate argument will be warned / suspended from forum areas.

 

Post On Topic.
Please post on topic and within the subject area of the subforum. If your topic does not fit, please use our General Discussions area. If you have questions on the correct content area, please PM a moderator.

Use a title that describes the content of your post. Don't use all caps or special characters to draw attention to your post. This is an English speaking site, and we expect all posts to be in English. Links must resolve to other English speaking sites.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,384

Everyone who cherry-picked the RSS to claim that there was no warming for the last 18 years was wrong on-top of being wrong before for cherry-picking the dataset and start date.

 

Quote

We have shown that the long-term changes in MSU/AMSU-derived atmospheric temperatures depend strongly on the details of the adjustments applied to account for changing measurement time. We showed that diurnal adjustments based on general circulation model output are not sufficiently accurate to remove the effects of measurement time drift. This investigation also revealed that two satellites, NOAA-15 and Aqua, likely suffered from calibration drifts late in their respective missions. We compared three different approaches to account for the shortcomings of the model-based diurnal adjustments. All three approaches lead to similar results for the AMSU measurements, increasing our confidence in our chosen method, which optimizes the model-derived diurnal cycles by computing a second harmonic adjustment. Using this method, we have introduced a new version of the RSS TMT dataset. The resulting dataset shows more warming than the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. We also eliminated the use of NOAA-15 data after December 2011 and Aqua data after December 2009. The combined effect of this data editing is to reduce the amount of warming in the final merged product. Our method shows similar final results when different diurnal cycle climatologies are used as the starting point, suggesting that the method converges toward a common optimal result. In the tropics, the new dataset agrees well with the UW dataset, which was constructed using different methods but with a similar goal of deducing the needed diurnal adjustments from the satellite measurements themselves. Both the UW and RSS datasets agree more closely with estimates of changes in total column water vapor than the STAR and UAH datasets.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1

 

msu_update_march04_01.png

msu_update_march04_02.png

 

 

911635-monckton.jpg

Boom headshot.

 

Don't expect any retractions from your science denial blogs and commentators including politicians though.

Edited by TPreston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emn1ty    3,222
44 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Don't expect any retractions from your science denial blogs and commentators including politicians though.

I am not too worried about a 0.08°K - 0.13°K change per decade, to be honest. It would take 76 for us to have heated up an entire degree (or 125 years assuming the more conservative number), and by then I doubt CO2 emissions will matter especially since CO2 emissions are peaked or on the decline now for most major powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,384
50 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I am not too worried about a 0.08°K - 0.13°K change per decade, to be honest. It would take 76 for us to have heated up an entire degree (or 125 years assuming the more conservative number),

 3 °C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 due to forcing that has been known for decades.

 

www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Knutti_nature08.pdf

http://davidmlawrence.com/Woods_Hole/References/Keeling_1970_CarbonDioxide_FossilFuel.pdf

 

Quote

and by then I doubt CO2 emissions will matter especially since CO2 emissions are peaked or on the decline now for most major powers.

 

 

climate.2008.122-f1.jpg

Yeah 300 years aint half bad.

Edited by TPreston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    6,919

And the moron that is Scott Walker and the administration he runs strikes again. 

 

Orwellian’: Scott Walker admin. quietly scrubs mentions of ‘climate’ from ‘Climate Change’ website 



 

Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s administration has removed the word “climate” from a Department of Natural Resources website dedicated to climate change.

Throughout his time as governor of Wisconsin, Walker has taken a series of actions to “reduce the role of science in environmental policymaking and to silence discussion of controversial subjects, including climate change, by state employees,” according to the Scientific American.

 

The DNR page titled “climatechange.html” originally acknowledged that “[h]uman activities that increase heat–trapping (‘green house’) gases are the main cause [of global warming.] Earth´s average temperature has increased 1.4 °F since 1850 and the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.”

In all, 13 mentions of “climate” where stripped from the page along with all references to global warming. The word “climate” now appears only in the title of a footnote link at the bottom of the page.

“In short, the guts of this page are now gone, or sanitized,” Rowan observed. “This is Orwellian and propagandistic.”

 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/orwellian-scott-walker-admin-quietly-scrubs-mentions-of-climate-from-climate-change-website/

 

And this is why an all Republicans running all three houses is a very scary thing. When things like this happen at the state level, you can bet your ass they're being considered at the federal level by someone. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emn1ty    3,222
18 hours ago, TPreston said:

Yeah 300 years aint half bad.

The point is what's already in the atmosphere is already there and attacking CO2 emitters won't change that. So unless your claim is "the damage is already done" then my point still stands that we as a civilization have already hit our peak output and are on the decline thanks to alternative energy sources becoming more common (specifically natural gas).

 

1 hour ago, wakjak said:

And the moron that is Scott Walker and the administration he runs strikes again. 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/orwellian-scott-walker-admin-quietly-scrubs-mentions-of-climate-from-climate-change-website/

 

And this is why an all Republicans running all three houses is a very scary thing. When things like this happen at the state level, you can bet your ass they're being considered at the federal level by someone. 

This has more to do with politics than Climate Change, not sure it really belongs here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,384
13 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

The point is what's already in the atmosphere is already there and attacking CO2 emitters won't change that.

No it wont but it will prevent additional c02 hanging around for 300 years doing additional damage.

 

Quote

my point still stands that we as a civilization have already hit our peak output and are on the decline thanks to alternative energy sources becoming more common (specifically natural gas).

Thanks to climate "alarmists" like Obama. A fast decline is better than a slow decline considering it will be there for 300 years.

 

Capture.PNG

 

Edited by TPreston
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emn1ty    3,222
7 hours ago, TPreston said:

No it wont but it will prevent additional c02 hanging around for 300 years doing additional damage.

 

Thanks to climate "alarmists" like Obama. A fast decline is better than a slow decline considering it will be there for 300 years.

 

Capture.PNG

 

Natural Gas has not been a platform of alternative energy activists for over a decade. Wind and Solar have been the primary platforms, both of which are barely starting to meet expectations that we set more than a decade ago. Guess what, the US was on the decline (and steadily) before Obama even entered office.

 

us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1990-2014.pn

 

It's been on the decline since 2006, and we had a steep decline that started in 2007 before he was even able to enact any climate policy. So perhaps you should check the stats before you start attributing change to certain people, because the largest dip we've seen in greenhouse emissions started under Bush (and even then, I am more ready to attribute it to a market shift from coal to natural gas). Though oddly enough, everything I read seems to now lump natural gas into "fossil fuels". If you look above, natural gas doesn't make up a majority of our greenhouse emissions. But when natural gas is 33% of your emissions it sounds better to lump it in so your stat for fossil fuels isn't 34% (petroleum and coal) but 64%. And with the Aliso Canyon gas leak in California, I won't be surprised if the progress we've made towards natural gas will be undone with a new crusade against that industry as well.

We can't stop it overnight, and forcing it will only embolden resistance. You have to make the argument that by the time alternative energy sources become economical it'll be too late. In my opinion that's not the case, as Solar is finally getting it's legs hopefully in no small part to Tesla and Nuclear is shedding some of its stigma as time goes on. Also, if we invested as much money into fusion reactors as we've invested into trying to fight coal at a political and policy level we might already have fusion reactors and we'd not be discussing this at all right now.

My one problem with current climate policy is it's shortsighted, focusing on punishing people who don't change rather than working to find a solution. Punishment only goes so far.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K    8,917

NOAA/NASA release Annual Global Analysis.  Not looking good.  2016 was the warmest year in NOAA's 137-years series ... it was also the third consecutive year that a new global temperature has been set.

Quote

Global Temperatures

 

With the contribution of eight consecutive high monthly temperature records set from January to August, and the remainder of the months ranking among their five warmest, 2016 became the warmest year in NOAA's 137-year series. Remarkably, this is the third consecutive year a new global annual temperature record has been set. The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). The global temperatures in 2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Niño conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the year.

 

This marks the fifth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and also marks the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, all 16 years of the 21stcentury rank among the seventeen warmest on record (1998 is currently the eighth warmest.) The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010.

 

Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970.

 

Much of the record warmth for the globe can be attributed to record warmth in the global oceans. The annually-averaged temperature for ocean surfaces around the world was 0.75°C (1.35°F) higher than the 20th century average, edging out the previous record of 2015 by 0.01°C (0.02°F). A near-record strong El Niño in the Pacific Ocean at the beginning of the year led to some of the highest monthly global ocean temperatures on record, with January, February, March, April, June, July and August all ranking among the 12 warmest of all months in the 137-year record. January, February, and March each observed a monthly temperature at least 0.8°C (1.4°F) above average. This was a continuation of a high temperature threshold first crossed in September 2015.The El Niño dissipated in spring and was replaced by weak La Niña conditions near the end of the year. Even so, global ocean temperatures remained high, with the December temperature elevated at 0.61°C (1.10°F) above the 20th century average, an anomaly not achieved in the record until June 2009.

 

In addition to the strong El Niño, a strong negative phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) developed in the Southern Hemisphere winter and spring, influencing temperatures in that region. The indices were among their lowest levels on record in July and September, as reported by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

 

Overall, annual record warm and much warmer-than-average temperatures were observed in parts of every major ocean basin. Record warmth for the year was particularly notable across the northern Pacific waters near Alaska, the Bering Sea, parts of the southern and western Pacific, parts of the central western Atlantic, regions of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, parts of the southern and eastern Indian Ocean extending eastward across the waters of the southeastern Asia island nations and Oceania. The only ocean area with record cold temperatures was east of the Drake Passage near the Antarctic Peninsula, an area that has been much cooler than average since late 2013.

/snip

 

Full report at NOAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fresh    93

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

 

The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming

It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change

America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules

The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XuvCpmr5
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,157

OMG, Fresh is back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,384
1 hour ago, Fresh said:

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

 

The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming

It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change

America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules

The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XuvCpmr5
 

Ok NOAAs data is manipulated why does it correlate with the data of other organizations all over the world ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,384

*crickets for anyone interested in a point by point debunking of this tabloid ****rag

http://climatenexus.org/messaging-communication/current-events/climate-change-science-noaa-falsely-maligned-tabloid-spin

http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.ie/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html

 

I wonder why David Rose has not issued a retraction for all his claims of a pause based on the faulty RSS3 dataset :spam:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,384

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K    8,917
Quote

EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

 

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday evening that its website would be “undergoing changes” to better represent the new direction the agency is taking, triggering the removal of several agency websites containing detailed climate data and scientific information.

 

One of the websites that appeared to be gone had been cited to challenge statements made by the EPA’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt. Another provided detailed information on the previous administration’s Clean Power Plan, including fact sheets about greenhouse gas emissions on the state and local levels and how different demographic groups were affected by such emissions.

 

The changes came less than 24 hours before thousands of protesters were set to march in Washington and around the country in support of political action to push back against the Trump administration’s rollbacks of former president Barack Obama’s climate policies.

 

“As EPA renews its commitment to human health and clean air, land, and water, our website needs to reflect the views of the leadership of the agency,” J.P. Freire, the agency’s associate administrator for public affairs, said in a statement. “We want to eliminate confusion by removing outdated language first and making room to discuss how we’re protecting the environment and human health by partnering with states and working within the law.”

 

//

 

In its press statement, the EPA said that when it comes to website changes, “the first page to be updated is a page reflecting President Trump’s Executive Order on Energy Independence, which calls for a review of the so-called Clean Power Plan.”

 

That site, www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan, now redirects to https://www.epa.gov/Energy-Independence, which features an image of President Trump signing an executive order aimed at dismantling the power plant rule and other Obama-era climate regulations.

 

In the press statement, the EPA said that “language associated with the Clean Power Plan, written by the last administration, is out-of-date.”

 

//

 

Full article at The Washington Post

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    207

Jim K - such changes are quite commonplace when a new Administration comes in - was it not the case when Bill Clinton replaced Bush the Elder? (And I am referring to not just the EPA and NOAA, but NASA as well.)

But "Changes? Oh noes!" - even changes that are quite routine (such as when a different President comes in) - are coming in for a whacking.  Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensi    54
Posted (edited)

You're all worried about carbon but yet there are nukes being let off as "tests", big ass bombs going off and space crafts being sent out of the atmosphere ... Until ww3 happens you wont remember caring about Co2 because everyone will be radioactive full of cancer and mutations and that my friends is why we pay taxes lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emn1ty    3,222
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Jim K said:

 

Full article at The Washington Post

Looks like the information is still there to me.

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-research

Seems like an article over absolutely nothing. In fact, that part of the site is specific to the clean power plan which Trump is reworking, thus it making sense.

Edited by Emn1ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    207
19 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Looks like the information is still there to me.

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-research

Seems like an article over absolutely nothing. In fact, that part of the site is specific to the clean power plan which Trump is reworking, thus it making sense.

Mountains out of molehills, Emn1ty.

 

I didn't bring up Bush the Elder to Bill Clinton out of spite - my mother's then BFF (she died last year - hence the past tense) was in the OIG office at NASA under Reagan when she retired; and was rehired to the identical posting at EPA under the SEE program while Clinton was President.  (As we ALL should be aware, the bloom was coming off the "rose" at NASA even under Clinton, while EPA was being spotlighted - primarily due to a change in focus on environmental issues under Clinton (primarily due to his Vice-President.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K    8,917
37 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Looks like the information is still there to me.

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-research

Seems like an article over absolutely nothing. In fact, that part of the site is specific to the clean power plan which Trump is reworking, thus it making sense.

Not the same ... if you look at archive snapshot from January.  Various links broke (though I would assume those are being updated)....bunch of information (as stated by WaPo) missing.

 

1 hour ago, PGHammer said:

Jim K - such changes are quite commonplace when a new Administration comes in - was it not the case when Bill Clinton replaced Bush the Elder? (And I am referring to not just the EPA and NOAA, but NASA as well.)

But "Changes? Oh noes!" - even changes that are quite routine (such as when a different President comes in) - are coming in for a whacking.  Sheesh.

Who knows.  You're going back to the infancy of the internet (talking Bush elder and Clinton) ... lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NinjaGinger    162

I always assumed that everybody know that Carbon Dioxide is a symptom of warming not a cause. At least for the last 4.5 billion years it has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,384
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, NinjaGinger said:

I always assumed that everybody know that Carbon Dioxide is a symptom of warming not a cause. At least for the last 4.5 billion years it has been.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

Full Text

https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis et al., 2010, Science.pdf

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703706001979

Full text

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cab1/810561360762463dddc8e9615dc70b67f05d.pdf

 

I suggest you get your Science from actual scientific sources not blogs

 

KlD3Jlh.gif

Edited by TPreston
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NinjaGinger    162

I don't get it from blogs. Sorry to disappoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K    8,917
Quote

Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.

 

WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.

 

The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.

 

“Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.

 

The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.

 

The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.

 

One government scientist who worked on the report, Katharine Hayhoe, a professor of political science at Texas Tech University, called the conclusions among “the most comprehensive climate science reports” to be published. Another scientist involved in the process, who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity, said he and others were concerned that it would be suppressed.

/snip

Full article at The New York Times

 

Couple of findings from the leaked document.

 

  • The last few years have seen “record-breaking, climate-related, weather extremes as well as the warmest years on record for the globe.”
  • Scientists found with “very high” confidence that the global annual average temperature (measured over land and ocean) increased more than 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2015.
  • There are “many lines of evidence” to show that human activities were “primarily responsible for observed climate changes in the industrial era.”
  • Even if humans stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the earth would still warm up 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit over this century because of the already existing levels in the atmosphere.   
  • Extreme weather events are occurring more frequently and have become more intense. The warmest days have become warmer since the early 1960s and extreme heat waves have become more frequent.
  • Overall, it has rained more heavily and more frequently in the U.S. since 1901, and the highest increase has been observed in the northeastern part of the U.S.
  • Oceans have risen 8-9 inches since 1880, the report found with “very high confidence,” citing human activity as making a “substantial contribution” to that rise.
  • Oceans are getting increasingly acidic because they are absorbing a quarter of the  carbon dioxide produced from man-made activities, which is a growing threat to marine life.

Compiled by Vice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.