Climate change

[CaptRenault]

The Atlantic Hurricane season 2020 is on roll...

You should post this in a thread about hurricanes. It has nothing to do with climate change.

 

[EagerBeaver]

You should post this in a thread about hurricanes. It has nothing to do with climate change.

Some meteorologists would disagree and would say that rising temperatures fuel hurricane conditions, because hurricanes need warm water to start, and to gain steam in intensity heading toward land. I am pretty sure that these are established scientific facts.

 

[CaptRenault]

An article in City Journal about California's preening, pretty-boy, SJW governor, Gavin Newsom, explains how his leftist climate change polices have negatively impacted the state and a majority of its citizens. Though forest fires are a natural phenomenon in California, they were made far worse by state policies. And green policies have led to frequent blackouts and exorbitantly high electric rates.


Governor Preen
California’s Gavin Newsom presides with aristocratic hauteur over a state in crisis.

.

..In addition to woke posturing on race and gender issues, climate change stands as the key driver of this kind of politics. In many regions, notably the Midwest, Democrats face a conflict between siding with the environmental lobby or with workers in fossil fuels, large-scale manufacturing, and construction. That tension is less evident in California, where a draconian tax and regulatory environment has reduced construction, particularly in the big coastal metros, and where manufacturing has stagnated, while policymakers have targeted the heavily unionized oil industry for extinction.

Draconian climate-change policies allow progressive elites to advertise their good intentions without curtailing their economic opportunities. The state’s renewable-energy policies enrich his Newsom’s tech backers even when their efforts—such as the Google-backed Ivanpah solar farm—fail to deliver affordable, reliable energy, and bring severe impacts on sensitive habitats, notably in the state’s deserts. Even the most impressive of the tech masterminds, Elon Musk, can trace a significant part of his fortune—now estimated at over $100 billion, the world’s fifth-largest—to generous subsidy policies for solar panels and electric cars. Policies that raise energy and housing prices, of course, tend to be politically unpopular—so Newsom, like his predecessors, imposes these regulations administratively, or through executive orders, thus freeing the governor to avoid legislative and political tangles and freeing him of any obligation to explain these positions to the public.

Climate issues have also offered Newsom an ideal way to justify failed progressive policies. Newsom and his ally, presumptive Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris, blamed the wildfires on climate change and all-purpose bogeyman Donald Trump. The media echoed the charges: the New York Times suggests that California is “ground zero for climate disasters,” while the Los Angeles Times claims that California now fights not just fires and droughts but also “climate despair.”

In reality, as the usually left-leaning Pro Publica has revealed, the fires were made far worse by green policies including constant lawsuits against local efforts to clean up old growth, particularly dead trees, and stopping even sustainable logging. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office also found that overall, the fires were less driven by global warming and more by policies that allowed for the accumulation of fuel, as well as growing development in certain exurban areas—partly motivated by a desire to escape the extremely high housing prices along the coast.

The fires are certainly not great for the environment or for reaching the state’s super-ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) goals: according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the 2018 fires emitted roughly as much GHG as an entire year of electrical generation. California, though a hotbed of climate extremism, reduced its greenhouse gases between 2007 and 2016 at a rate that ranked just 40th per capita among the states. Even if California wiped out all emissions, it would have an almost-infinitesimal impact on global climate—and in fact, a negative one, if industry relocates to China, where much electricity is still powered by coal...

 

[CaptRenault]

I am pretty sure that these are established scientific facts.

It's definitely not "an established scientific fact," like say, the germ theory of disease or evolution or the theory of relativity.

As this conclusion from a NOAA website concludes, there's much that scientists don't understand about the effect of climate change on the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. The layperson's translation of the quote below is "We don't know anything for sure."

...In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups. A recent study finds that the observed increase in an Atlantic hurricane rapid intensification metric over 1982-2009 is highly unusual compared to one climate model’s simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, and is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing. These climate change detection results for rapid intensification metrics are suggestive but not definitive, and more research is needed for more confident conclusions. A slowing of tropical cyclone propagation speeds over the continental U.S. has been found since 1900, but its cause remains uncertain.

Therefore, we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, there is increasing evidence that the increase in tropical storm frequency in the Atlantic basin since the 1970s has been at least partly driven by decreases in aerosols from human activity and volcanic forcing. However, this does not imply that the increase will continue into the future, as a number of models project that greenhouse gas warming will lead to future decreases in Atlantic tropical storm frequency. Anthropogenic forcing may have already caused other changes in Atlantic hurricane activity that are not yet confidently detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or due to limitations in modeling and physical understanding (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate, uncertainties in simulation of Atlantic multidecadal variability).

We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense (higher peak winds and lower central pressures) on average. In our view, it is uncertain how the annual number of Atlantic tropical storms will change over the 21st century. All else equal, coastal inundation levels associated with tropical cyclones should increase with sea level rise as projected for example by IPCC AR5. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by prototype IPCC mid-range warming scenarios, such as A1B or RCP4.5.

The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to our tropical cyclone projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence on tropical cyclones at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. In the case of global mean surface temperature, the IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[Zaeballo]

2020 has been a difficult year, but finally a great news indeed. With John Kerry as the new Climate Czar, we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief. With his unblemished record of achievement (the most impressive one is becoming -- arguably -- the dumbest senator the state of Massachusetts has ever produced, by no means an easy task) we can safely declare that the planet is now saved. The Arctic ice is already coming back, the Antarctic ice is melting, the oceans are receding and the global warming has been stopped in its tracks. This is indeed the day we've been long waiting for, congratulations everyone!

Kerry vows to treat climate change as 'urgent national security threat' | Fox News

After four years on the sidelines, John Kerry is getting back into politics to combat climate change.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Zaeballo]

Interesting read...

ESCIMO is a “reduced complexity earth system” climate model5 which we run from 1850 to 2500. In ESCIMO the global temperature keeps rising to 2500 and beyond, irrespective of how fast humanity cuts the emissions of man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The reason is a cycle of self-sustained melting of the permafrost (caused by methane release), lower surface albedo (caused by melting ice and snow) and higher atmospheric humidity (caused by higher temperatures). This cycle appears to be triggered by global warming of a mere + 0.5 °C above the pre-industrial level.

An earth system model shows self-sustained thawing of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020 - Scientific Reports

The risk of points-of-no-return, which, once surpassed lock the world into new dynamics, have been discussed for decades. Recently, there have been warnings that some of these tipping points are coming closer and are too dangerous to be disregarded. In this paper we report that in the ESCIMO...

www.nature.com

 

[desirardent]

Climate experts say that if we cut all manufacturing in North America until the year 2100 we will reduce the rise in temperature by 0.17F. I, for one, think that it is worth it. Than I could put one of those signs in my lawn that says “In This House We Believe...Science Is Real.”

Real science is:
- over 200,000 cycles of glaciations and global warming pre-human
- last glaciation ended 50,000 years ago. Remember that Canada, Northern Europe and Russia were covered by up to 2,000 meters of ice.
-amplitude of temperature change in glaciation-warming cycles has increases by more than 1,000 fold during the last billion years.
-humans have not caused global warming but have accelerated it.
-the main cause of this acceleration is that there are too many humans on the planet that needs to produce and transport food to feed 2-3 times a day.
-global warming does not put the planet in danger, but the human species.
-in 2-3 billion years, there won't be much life left because it will be too warm because the sun will double in volume. It will eventually explode in a supernova in 4.5 billion years.
- I am not part of the skeptics, I am a geologist

 

[The Nature Boy]

Brothers and sisters.....we must all remember we r all children of this earth...

How White Supremacy Caused the Climate Crisis

Embedded in the theory of racial supremacy is the theory of human supremacy over nature, which has brought environmental calamity upon us.

www.earthisland.org

 

[No_Church_InThe_Wild]

With the pandemic going on Global warming is not on everybody’s mind like it used to be but it will , once things start to go back to normal and then these threads will become relevant again
I’m no scientist so I didn’t bother reading the whole article as I would of had a better chance at understanding a foreign language
But what little I understood , I think is what most people suspected and that is thst global warming is caused by a combination of natural cycles and human activity
always believed GW to be real but just thought that man’s influence on it to be exaggerated . They say don’t be a sceptic just go and read the science and science is after all facts . But which one do you trust with so many studies out there circulating and some contradicting each other it can get confusing... To those that read the above article does it say/explain what percentage of Global warming is caused by human activity vs natural cycles ( if that’s the correct term ) ... that’s what I’ve always wanted to know basically

 

[Fradi]

I guess Greta has trouble making speeches with a mask on and can only do that in her home country where it is not required.
Don't despair though as soon as Covid is under control all the self loathing leftists will be more than happy to jump right back on the climate change bandwagon with our glorious leader JT leading the charge in full Indian wedding gear always ready for an opportune selfie.

I wonder if all these climate change heroes have ever taken a trip to India, China, and Russia, maybe then they would realize what we do here is like spitting into a lake to make more water.

 

[No_Church_InThe_Wild]

^^
true ... I’m all for everyone doing their part , but the reality is that here in the West it wouldn’t amount to anything to really make a difference... sadly I’m not optimistic

 

[Zaeballo]

To those that read the above article does it say/explain what percentage of Global warming is caused by human activity vs natural cycles ( if that’s the correct term ) ... that’s what I’ve always wanted to know basically

I think the verdict of science on this specific question -- the extent to which human activity may (or may not) have impacted global warming -- is not really in dispute: no one has a fucking clue.

 

[Fradi]

I have seen first hand what goes on in China and Russia and many of my colleagues who visited and lived in India on work assignments all saw the same thing.
Absolutely no controls whatsoever even fundamental things like safety glasses or protective work boots were missing in China.
At least we refused to grant them any orders until proper safety equipment was in place for the workers but environmental controls were non existent.
Funny thing is we had to jump through hoops when shipping them anything with only a specific type of wood allowed to prevent any kind of insect infestation, while at the same time they shipped with any crap available.

 

[hungry101]

Only a few people really understand climate change. Only a handful of people, AOC, Greta Thunberg, and perhaps John Carey, and the guy that invented the internet (you know, the guy that ran for President and wouldn’t concede the election for 37 days....his wife wanted to sensor all music....you know the guy....). Only these people really understand global warming and understand the appropriate virtue signaling and other paganistic rituals to combat it. Throw a heterosexual white male into a volcano? That could help. There is a former Green Peace member that is saying that there is a carbon deficit. I am hoping that this catches on so that we can avoid these non-science idiots from crashing our economy.

Yes Fradi, I remember doing business in Guangzhou, China. Every night my eyes burned. It was like Gary, Indiana in the early 70’s. That was just a few years ago. They knew that it was a problem.

 

[Fradi]

We talk about climate controls yet the major polluters in the world not only don’t have any kind of climate controls they don’t even have sanitary controls.
I refused to work in India, because many of my colleagues came back sick from there and some had long term problems as a result.

 

[RVK7]

Yesterday it rained cats and dogs here, when it should’ve snowed. It’s December after all. "It's because of your f... wood stove and unconscious people like you that the Earth is getting warmer," my neighbor shouted at me as he ran home. What a leftist fool!

He's so stupid: he always confuses weather and climate, and he thinks he’s got a scientific mind. Where are his conclusive proofs that my wood stove and my climate-skepticism are warming the planet? I want to see it, asshole!

I might be a freakin redneck with my Humvee, but I know one basic thing that my neighbor has lost sight of in his world of unicorns: doubt is the first ingredient of scientific thought and the safest wall against dogmatism and stupidity. And against socialism too.

That's the problem with these shitty idealists: they stick to their ideas according to their biases and ideological affiliations, even in the presence of documented evidence. That's how they end up driving a Prius, wearing dresses, voting for some dickhead president and predicting the apocalypse.

Speaking of apocalypse, is New York City buried in horseshit today, as some end-of-the-world alarmists like my neighbour and his sisters predicted at the end of the 19th century? Bullshit! Does the smoke from wood stoves saturate the Big Apple's atmosphere today, by the way? Come on, don’t be so naive!

I, for one, am not worried at all. For two reasons. First, my neighbor and all the apostles of climate change are unable to understand — even though they might be right — that "invoking facts and science as a strategy of opposition has the potential to backfire". Nothing to fear. For that, they would’ve to read Roger Pielke Jr. It's not going to happen.

Second, climate change denying scientists are 15 times more quoted in the mainstream media — their favorite fake news — than normal scientists. It’s not me: I found this in a very serious study that my neighbor and his sisters will never read cause it's the kind of thing they don't want to hear.

Anyway, be sure of this: doubt will triumph. That's why the Earth is still flat.

I'm writing all this on my iPad in front of my wood stove that is heating like hell, to my greatest satisfaction. Today, indeed, it's really cold in here. It's December after all. And guess which way the wind is blowing? Bull's-eye, dudes: my neighbor's house.

 

[sene5hos]

Your leftist fool, is his house to your left?

Hervé en français on dit: à con, con et demi

 

[RVK7]

Your leftist fool, is his house to your left?

Hervé en français on dit: à con, con et demi

Technically, if his is on the left, mine’s on the right, right? Figuratively however, as I show him my ass most of the time, I’d rather say he’s on the shit side. For the rest, I can't count that far, even in French.

 

[No_Church_InThe_Wild]

^^
@RVK7 it’s too bad thst your neighbour and his sisters don’t appreciate your take on climate change .... keep thst wood burning stove going and maybe go buy a pet rooster and that will teach them .... I like the way you think dude , very refreshing indeed

 

[sene5hos]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/kyoto-cherry-blossoms-1.5970996

Kyoto's earliest cherry blooms in 1,200 years point to climate change, says scientist.

The famous pink cherry blossoms of Kyoto reached full bloom this year on March 26, the earliest date in the 12 centuries since records began, according to a Japanese university.

The earlier flowering indicates climate change, said Yasuyuki Aono, a professor of environmental science at Osaka Prefectural University, who has compiled a database of records of the full blooms over the centuries.

Global temperatures in 2020 were among the highest on record and rivaled 2016 as the hottest year ever, according to international data compiled by the World Meteorological Organization and released in January this year.

"As the temperatures rise the onset of flowering is earlier," Aono told Reuters in a Zoom interview.