Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

[BHS1975]

And once we lose the summer sea ice in the Arctic it will get much worse which could be less than a decade away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BHS1975]

We might have these crawlers almost every year which would be catastrophic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ForsythSnow]

And once we lose the summer sea ice in the Arctic it will get much worse which could be less than a decade away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We might have these crawlers almost every year which would be catastrophic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I doubt it. The arctic, even if it accelerated its melting, wouldn't be gone in a decade. It would take probably much longer, like 50 years at the minimum.

For the crawling storms, we just have to see. There isn't really a pattern from what I've seen of crawling storms, though if the data were presented for storms that stalled near or on land and there was a defined increase in the 2010s, it could possibly be evident they are increasing in frequency.

 

[BHS1975]

I doubt it. The arctic, even if it accelerated its melting, wouldn't be gone in a decade. It would take probably much longer, like 50 years at the minimum.

For the crawling storms, we just have to see. There isn't really a pattern from what I've seen of crawling storms, though if the data were presented for storms that stalled near or on land and there was a defined increase in the 2010s, it could possibly be evident they are increasing in frequency.

I disagree. That little scrap of ice which was a quarter of what it was in the early 80s is going to be gone well before 50 years. I’d say 2030 tops especially with the negative feedback backs kicking in hard with more open ocean soaking up solar radiation and huge 20ft waves chipping away at the edges for example. Scientists are shocked with the speed of decline. The models are doing a terrible job by not accounting for all the feedbacks and by the time they catch up it will be too late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snowlover91]

Good points. They are automatically assuming the GW has been mainly due to AGW, which is debatable. But keep in mind "the slowdown of 30 per cent and 20 per cent over land areas affected by western North Pacific and North Atlantic tropical cyclones, respectively, and the slowdown of 19 per cent over land areas in the Australian region." So, there was a large slowdown of those specifically over land per this study.

Does it make sense from a met. view that there'd be a slowdown in average forward speed, especially well away from the tropics, due to GW regardless of the GW main cause?

Good question, I found a little information on it in a news article referencing the study. Interestingly enough they actually link the full PDF for reading, I haven't read through it yet but if you want to see the full PDF and their methodology it's linked in the article below. The most relevant part of the article is below.
"For Atlantic hurricanes, the slowdown was 6%. But when Atlantic storms hit land — like Harvey did in 2017 — the study said the slowdown is a significant 20%.

This trend is "almost certainly increasing local rainfall totals and freshwater flooding,
which is associated with very high mortality risk,” Kossin said.

The cause? Most likely, changing wind patterns due to global warming. "The atmospheric circulation that drives tropical cyclone movement ... is expected to weaken," NOAA said.

Global warming is also projected to increase the severity of the strongest tropical cyclones.

Some outside scientists were skeptical of the new study. That's mostly because data before the 1970s is not reliable so it is hard to make such conclusions, according to University of Miami hurricane researcher Brian McNoldy.

Texas state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon said "I just need more convincing that there actually has been a 10% motion change." Source https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lowing-down-increasing-flood-risks/678125002/

So from this we can see the factors I mentioned previously are ones that would need to be studied in greater detail to figure out if we are truly seeing a slowdown or if the questionable data pre-1970s is altering the results. It would be interesting to see a study that was done from the 1970s to present day to see if satellite tracking and other improvements change these results any.

 

[snowlover91]

I disagree. That little scrap of ice which was a quarter of what it was in the early 80s is going to be gone well before 50 years. I’d say 2030 tops especially with the negative feedback backs kicking in hard with more open ocean soaking up solar radiation and huge 20ft waves chipping away at the edges for example. Scientists are shocked with the speed of decline. The models are doing a terrible job by not accounting for all the feedbacks and by the time they catch up it will be too late.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do you think the ice will be gone by 2030? Just in the summer or winter as well? Are there any natural feedbacks that could counter this in a positive way? I think some scientists are shocked the ice isn't gone by now. I remember the various predictions that it would be gone by 2012, 2015, 2018, etc. it keeps getting pushed back. It's also interesting that going back to the 1940s scientists thought the ice disappearing was imminent. Seems like this fear mongering has been ongoing for at least 70 years.

 

[Jimmy Hypocracy]

Why do you think the ice will be gone by 2030? Just in the summer or winter as well? Are there any natural feedbacks that could counter this in a positive way? I think some scientists are shocked the ice isn't gone by now. I remember the various predictions that it would be gone by 2012, 2015, 2018, etc. it keeps getting pushed back. It's also interesting that going back to the 1940s scientists thought the ice disappearing was imminent. Seems like this fear mongering has been ongoing for at least 70 years.

That’s the goal. Make predictions so far out in the future that many people won’t be around to see it come to fruition, and when it doesn’t happen just push the deadline back a couple decades. “Don’t you want to save the planet for future generations?” It really is a well thought out campaign slogan driven by fear and shame

 

[pcbjr]

a well thought out campaign slogan driven by

$

 

[MichaelJ]

Feedbacks have been predicted by models for years but we have seen very little or any backed up by the data .It appears there are negative feedbacks as well which have tempered the changes in ice, weather patterns, severe storms etc.. Go back and look at the statistics for the decreasing tornadic activity and number of major hurricanes decrease since the 1940's and compare those to the catastrophic predictions made by some. The really interesting thing is that some of these clowns continue to make predictions that are wrong but they are never called on it by the major media, Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Stormdoc]

That’s the goal. Make predictions so far out in the future that many people won’t be around to see it come to fruition, and when it doesn’t happen just push the deadline back a couple decades. “Don’t you want to save the planet for future generations?” It really is a well thought out campaign slogan driven by fear and shame

I still do not understand though why many people who argue against AGW so strongly do not see the basic argument for doing something about it. The simple idea no one can argue against, which is “control the things you can control”. No, science will never 100% prove that all of the recent warming is anthropomorphic, but why not have some common sense policies that address something we humans can do about, regarding CO2 release? You and others give fine arguments as to why the warming may not be anthropogenic, but then again there is nothing we can do about those factors. Sure their are folks who cry “ the sky is falling”, but more dangerous I think are those with their heads in the sand who think their is nothing that needs to be done.

 

[snowlover91]

I still do not understand though why many people who argue against AGW so strongly do not see the basic argument for doing something about it. The simple idea no one can argue against, which is “control the things you can control”. No, science will never 100% prove that all of the recent warming is anthropomorphic, but why not have some common sense policies that address something we humans can do about, regarding CO2 release? You and others give fine arguments as to why the warming may not be anthropogenic, but then again there is nothing we can do about those factors. Sure their are folks who cry “ the sky is falling”, but more dangerous I think are those with their heads in the sand who think their is nothing that needs to be done.

I have no problem with there being measures in places to take care of our environment. A good example of this is deforestation. It’s a big problem in a lot of countries and something that needs guidelines in place to prevent natural resources from being harvested in an unsustainable way. At the same time there are AGW proponents who are constantly fear mongering and saying if we don’t do this or that the world will slip into a catastrophic decline and billions will die. Then there is also the issue of whether the government should be pressure into AGW advocates into making strict environmental rules and regulations to reduce the carbon footprint. I’m not going to go into that one since it’s more of a political nature but these are some of the main issues people like myself have with the AGW advocates who are constantly trying to scare people into believing them.

 

[MichaelJ]

The amount of money that would be necessary to make miniscule changes would be a burden to the world economy and cost many jobs and force a different standard of living. While we are at it trying to prevent a "catastrophe" with AGW we better also start a missile shield system for shooting down any rogue asteroids or comets. After all one asteroid hitting the earth could kill billions of animals and humans and change the environment of the Earth for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years and we KNOW this has happened before. Those of us who do not think there is much if any danger of catastrophic AGW does not mean we don't think the Climate is changing, but understand it has for over a million years and will for the next million. The counter argument to the proponents who say " but we've never had this much co2 put into the atmosphere" should read past history of same and also acknowledge we have never had over 7 billion souls on the planet either which is the bigger issue IMO

 

[MichaelJ]

Here is a graph to help explain the earths co2 history (there are others if you don't like this one)

 

[SoutheastRidge]

Here is a graph to help explain the earths co2 history (there are others if you don't like this one)

How in the world can they tell what the temp and co2 levels were millions of years ago ?

 

[Stormdoc]

Here is a graph to help explain the earths co2 history (there are others if you don't like this one)

Again you are not adressing my argument. No one doubts how much the earth and atmosphere have changed over the millennia, the question is what can humans do about it. It’s a simple risk/ reward equation. You argue it could alter the earths economy to make stricter CO2 emissions, but economic devastation can occur with AGW, just look at the recent hurricanes, which may/ may not be affected by it but if you have reasonable evidence we can do something to change it later then do so. It is as simple as investment now for better investment down the road.

 

[MichaelJ]

An argument without a solution is pointless. What exactly do you propose to do to in order to improve whatever you believe is happening to the Climate? We know now that one of the preferred methods of reducing dependence on oil is prohibitively expensive, kills millions of birds and requires way too much space, namely wind power. They won't increase Nuclear because "other"groups think it is inherently unsafe. As for Hurricanes, the increased costs are largely the result of more and increasingly expensive housing and other property being located right on the coast which dramatically increase the potential damage. The amount of major hurricanes striking the US has actually declined since the late 60's.

 

[MichaelJ]

How in the world can they tell what the temp and co2 levels were millions of years ago ?

By studying soil samples at depth using cores, much like they do with Greenland and Antarctic ice cores

 

[Stormdoc]

An argument without a solution is pointless. What exactly do you propose to do to in order to improve whatever you believe is happening to the Climate? We know now that one of the preferred methods of reducing dependence on oil is prohibitively expensive, kills millions of birds and requires way too much space, namely wind power. They won't increase Nuclear because "other"groups think it is inherently unsafe. As for Hurricanes, the increased costs are largely the result of more and increasingly expensive housing and other property being located right on the coast which dramatically increase the potential damage. The amount of major hurricanes striking the US has actually declined since the late 60's.

I’m not going to try to go into the complicated ways it can be addressed, I just know there must be a healthy medium between “worry mongerers” and then our current administration claiming it is just a hoax to ignore. I was compelled to say something about it just because folks are discussing excellent science here, but then some using the doubt about it as an argument to do nothing. I am a physician, and every time I treat a patient I have to use risk/benefit analysis to treat every patient. Drug A may carry some risk of side effects/adverse event, but it may be a small risk if it has reasonable chance of benefitting the patients health for 25 years down the road. The AGW discussion should be the same that we should debate in a healthy way,and if changing oil production economy could have a significant positive benefit 100 years down the road, then it is well worth some current economic risk. Same thing I tell my children regarding their decision making.

 

[MichaelJ]

I’m not going to try to go into the complicated ways it can be addressed, I just know there must be a healthy medium between “worry mongerers” and then our current administration claiming it is just a hoax to ignore. I was compelled to say something about it just because folks are discussing excellent science here, but then some using the doubt about it as an argument to do nothing. I am a physician, and every time I treat a patient I have to use risk/benefit analysis to treat every patient. Drug A may carry some risk of side effects/adverse event, but it may be a small risk if it has reasonable chance of benefitting the patients health for 25 years down the road. The AGW discussion should be the same that we should debate in a healthy way,and if changing oil production economy could have a significant positive benefit 100 years down the road, then it is well worth some current economic risk. Same thing I tell my children regarding their decision making.

But there is a huge difference in trusting a computer model or a proxy as in Climate Science as opposed to a double blind placebo controlled study required for prescription drugs in medicine (your discipline). We are guessing as to whether a model can correctly anticipate any variables involved in a stochastic system like the atmosphere. Like I mentioned earlier with the asteroid possibility, you can not prepare for any and all contingencies, so the ones we can control we should attempt it, but the atmosphere and hence Climate is not one of them IMO. There are likely a myriad of variables about Climate we don't even know about so how can we change them if we don't even know what they are? To spend Trillions ( and that could be a conservative estimate) on an attempt to correct something we don't even understand is a risk reward I am not willing to bet on until we learn a lot more about what the ramifications of all the drivers of our Climate are.

 

[MichaelJ]

I will say if we are willing to produce many many more Nuclear power plants to supply most of our energy, I would have no problem with that but moonbats like California Governor Jerry Brown are not willing to do that. Just remember back to a few years ago to the ACA by the previous administration was going to "fix" our health care system, how did that work out for most people?