Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

[Avalanche]

Like a lot of folks, at a crossroads in what i think and how I feel about AGW. My Grandfather, born in 1900s, 02 or 07, always said it couldnt get warm enough for him, while his grandfather spoke of how hot it was during his childhood, which I would assume to be early to mid 1800s.

If my only historical perspective was my time here, then yes, its warmer. To what extent, if any, can we make temps rise or cool, seems nominal at best. How cool should we try to make it? In spite of AGW, people still die from cold temps. So exactly where do we want to control the temp to be? Not everyone will be satisfied. Welcome to our new world.

 

[Iceagewhereartthou]

I am truly fascinated by the discussion in this thread and see valid points on both sides. I don't really opine in this thread much as I just don't know enough about this extremely complex issue to make a lot of contributions or take a hard stance. I tend to say that the climate is ever changing and there are far too many cycles and factors for us to say with any certainty that we know exactly what is causing these changes. I do think the climate has warmed in my lifetime; especially in my corner of the world, which is what I am most familiar with. However, my lifetime hasn't even been the blink of eye and the Earth has been way hotter and colder many times over in it's history. It makes sense to me that we are still warming from our last ice age, and from the Little Ice Age of the 16 and 1700s. Are we contributing to or hastening that warming? I think it is certainly possible; but then again, maybe we aren't. I think it's a bit arrogant for us to claim we know for certain one way or the other.

Maybe we should try something different than what we're doing. Let's stop using political manipulation (to an extreme), fear-mongering, and name-calling, to try to get people to fall in line with a movement that most of it's adherents don't even follow. Many of the most vocal preachers and rabid criticizers of AGW are also the most extreme contributors. Hollywood, entertainers, politicians; the one-percenters. The hypocrisy of their never ending finger pointing and their never ending consumption of fossil fuels (through their private jets, mega yachts, multiple mansions, garages full of cars, constant world traveling, and lavish dinner parties of seafood) is beyond sickening. If they want people to take them seriously, find some people who at least try to walk the walk.

I'm a believer we should be good stewards of the Earth because it is our home, but it starts with personal responsibility; not manipulation, fear-mongering, and name-calling. Beyond personal responsibility; I think we should reduce pollution, increase recycling, stop making everything disposable, research better alternatives, and make better choices. But, I think we should do these things because it makes sense to keep our home clean, efficient, and beautiful. Because we have a responsibility (there's that word again) to our feathered, furry, and scaly friends and leafy companions. But not because some people tell us they "know" how to fix the planet and we better fall in line; even though they don't have to. Not because people want to use the issue to manipulate surrendered control to governments and companies more interested in power than stewardship. And not because some people enjoy putting themselves on pedastals over people they see themselves as more enlightened and educated than. I think there is room for common ground here. We can be better stewards (and I think most people are willing to be) without all the bunk.

 

[MichaelJ]

For those who are freaking out because of some of the fires around the globe lately, check this out

 

[NoSnowATL]

 

[Bham 99]

That is truth!

 

[GaWx]

1. John Coleman, the guy in the video who says there is NO man-made GW, died 3.5 years ago. So, his saying this is very old news.
2. John has no met. degree. He has a bachelors in journalism.
3. John has done no studies of his own on AGW. Note that in totally refuting AGW, he backs it up with nothing.
4. Election Wizard has been pushing the BS that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump with no evidence. Therefore, EW has no credibility.

If one is going to look at this clip objectively, this should all be kept in mind.

From all I have read and learned, the physics behind AGW (increased greenhouse gas related global warming) are not debatable. However, what is debatable is how much AGW will end up warming the globe as politics are playing a huge part in the debate by making it worse than reality on the lib side.


From Mike Maguire, a pro met in Indiana who is 100% against the Green New Deal and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, who takes a middle road:

"On the contribution from greenhouse gas warming. I'm with Cliff Mass on this one. Probably 2 deg. F or so contribution from the increase in CO2. "

"For sure the planet is warmer by just over 1 deg. C over the last century with the coldest places during the coldest times of year(and night) warming the most. The physics of CO2 are irrefutable."


"There is real greenhouse gas warming with absolute proven physics. Anybody that claims otherwise is to be avoided as a credible source.

But the authentic science shows pretty conclusively that its 50% of the amount that mainstream science is using for political, non scientific objectives."
--------------------------
So, because he said there is NO AGW, I'm saying John Coleman is wrong.

 

[MichaelJ]

Coleman does indeed not have a degree in any of the Atmospheric Sciences, James Hansen got his degree in Math and Physics, then an MS in Astronomy and finally a PHD in Physics. Michael Mann has his degrees in Math, Computing and Physics and also Geology. While these disciplines are used in Sciences , people like John Christy, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer have degrees specific to climate. Christy has a a MS and PHD in Atmospheric Sciences as well as Math. Spencer has a BS in Atmospheric Sciences and a MS and PHD in Meteorology. Curry has degrees in geology and a PHD in geophysical sciences. So why should we put more credence in a math and general physics guy over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?

 

[LickWx]

I’m pretty sure some of y’all global warming pushers have hilarious views on what your local climate used to be like . Savannah never averaged sub 60 highs or mild summers . 1960s 1880s 1560s or ever . Neither did Raleigh ever average more than a degree cooler than it is today. Your global warming is so intense Raleigh warmed .35 degrees from 81-10 to 91-20. If we are warming rapidly we should have warmed more , after all the 80s were dropped from our record and they were very cold . We dropped one of our coldest decades and still barely warmed ?

 

[GaWx]

Coleman does indeed not have a degree in any of the Atmospheric Sciences, James Hansen got his degree in Math and Physics, then an MS in Astronomy and finally a PHD in Physics. Michael Mann has his degrees in Math, Computing and Physics and also Geology. While these disciplines are used in Sciences , people like John Christy, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer have degrees specific to climate. Christy has a a MS and PHD in Atmospheric Sciences as well as Math. Spencer has a BS in Atmospheric Sciences and a MS and PHD in Meteorology. Curry has degrees in geology and a PHD in geophysical sciences. So why should we put more credence in a math and general physics guy over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?

The issue I'm addressing is that Coleman believed there's NO AGW...not even a little...NONE. The three folks who I bolded all do believe there is AGW...just not to catastrophic or modeled levels:


1. John Christy:

a. From Wikipedia:
"In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get."

b. From John Christy - DeSmog :
“…it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.”


2. Judith Curry:

a. From:
Climate Change Skeptic Or Denier? (forbes.com)

"Professor Judith Curry is often interviewed for her thoughts on climate change. While labelled a denier by many, she concedes that to some degree, she is part of the consensus (see: ). “Yes it’s warming. Yes, humans contribute to it. I mean everybody agrees with that; and I’m in the 98%. It’s when you get down to the details that there is genuine disagreement [January 7, 2017].” Is she a denier? A skeptic? A doubter?"

b. From Judith Curry - Wikipedia

"she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate prediction models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable."


3. Roy Spencer:
From: No, Roy Spencer is not a climate “denier” « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

1. "I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
2. I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).

I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as 'there is no greenhouse effect',

In the case of global warming, alarmists apparently insist that you must believe that global warming is a 'crisis' or an 'emergency', or else you will be thrown under the bus."


OTOH, Coleman, who had no atmospheric degree, said in that clip (which was in 2014) that there is definitely NO AGW and provided absolutely no evidence for that assertion. See the big difference here between Coleman and the other three? That's the only point I'm making. Why should we put more credence in a journalism guy (Coleman) over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?

If you disagree with this point, please explain. Thank you.

 

[Downeastnc]

I’m pretty sure some of y’all global warming pushers have hilarious views on what your local climate used to be like . Savannah never averaged sub 60 highs or mild summers . 1960s 1880s 1560s or ever . Neither did Raleigh ever average more than a degree cooler than it is today. Your global warming is so intense Raleigh warmed .35 degrees from 81-10 to 91-20. If we are warming rapidly we should have warmed more , after all the 80s were dropped from our record and they were very cold . We dropped one of our coldest decades and still barely warmed ?

The warming is not even over the entire planet.....the effect is felt more in the poles and less as you move towards the equator....

Look its a simple question, the Earth has a natural CO2 cycle, over the last 100 yrs of so man has come along and intervened in that cycle and is now releasing 30-35 gigatons of what was sequestered CO2 annually, CO2 has a known radiative forcing rate, CO2 is increasing faster than any known period in the last several million years, there is no way it is not contributing to warming, how much is a valid question....so your mistake is equating the warming in RDU with the rest of the world......its a much bigger deal for say the folks in Alaska...

As Alaska permafrost melts, roads sink, bridges tilt and greenhouse gases escape

Alaska’s Arctic landscape is under assault from a warming climate, and it’s happening a lot faster than anticipated.

www.adn.com

This graph says it all....

 

[BHS1975]

The problem is we are seeing a lot of unforeseen effects from just 1C of warming that our infrastructure and people are not prepared for and we are shooting past 1.5C by the 2030s unless we take extreme measures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelJ]

The issue I'm addressing is that Coleman believed there's NO AGW...not even a little...NONE. The three folks who I bolded all do believe there is AGW...just not to catastrophic or modeled levels:


1. John Christy:

a. From Wikipedia:
"In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get."

b. From John Christy - DeSmog :
“…it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.”


2. Judith Curry:

a. From:
Climate Change Skeptic Or Denier? (forbes.com)

"Professor Judith Curry is often interviewed for her thoughts on climate change. While labelled a denier by many, she concedes that to some degree, she is part of the consensus (see: ). “Yes it’s warming. Yes, humans contribute to it. I mean everybody agrees with that; and I’m in the 98%. It’s when you get down to the details that there is genuine disagreement [January 7, 2017].” Is she a denier? A skeptic? A doubter?"

b. From Judith Curry - Wikipedia

"she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate prediction models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable."


3. Roy Spencer:
From: No, Roy Spencer is not a climate “denier” « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

1. "I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
2. I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).

I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as 'there is no greenhouse effect',

In the case of global warming, alarmists apparently insist that you must believe that global warming is a 'crisis' or an 'emergency', or else you will be thrown under the bus."


OTOH, Coleman, who had no atmospheric degree, said in that clip (which was in 2014) that there is definitely NO AGW and provided absolutely no evidence for that assertion. See the big difference here between Coleman and the other three? That's the only point I'm making. Why should we put more credence in a journalism guy (Coleman) over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?

If you disagree with this point, please explain. Thank you.

If you look back you will see that I said I was a "lukewarmer" ie someone who believes the planet is warming but that it is WAY too early to tell what is causing this. The reason is probably a combination of mainly natural cyclical changes and the increasing population resulting in new houses, roads, buildings etc and possibly a small amount due to greenhouse gases. My point to you was you can point out John Coleman as somene who is not qualified to make his statements (and I agree there, we should putlittle credence in what he says coincerning atmospheric science) but I could point out hundreds of those on the other side who are not qualified to make their statements of the catastrophic effects of a verified 1 degree C rise in our temps but why bother, because the news media use them as their go to guys when reporting on AGW. Many people (I suspect BHS is one) who think the increase of CO2 atoms which are in the atmosphere can continue on a linear rise when it is established this is not true, it rises in a logarithmic manner and even this will reach a point of saturation of CO 2 in the upper atmosphere at some point. Personally I think the saturation will come around 600ppm+ but it is a theory and must be backed up by data but I won't be around when it does. Overall I don't think there is a big difference in our views on AGW but cherry picking the extremes of either side is not productive, thanks

 

[LickWx]

The warming is not even over the entire planet.....the effect is felt more in the poles and less as you move towards the equator....

Look its a simple question, the Earth has a natural CO2 cycle, over the last 100 yrs of so man has come along and intervened in that cycle and is now releasing 30-35 gigatons of what was sequestered CO2 annually, CO2 has a known radiative forcing rate, CO2 is increasing faster than any known period in the last several million years, there is no way it is not contributing to warming, how much is a valid question....so your mistake is equating the warming in RDU with the rest of the world......its a much bigger deal for say the folks in Alaska...

As Alaska permafrost melts, roads sink, bridges tilt and greenhouse gases escape

Alaska’s Arctic landscape is under assault from a warming climate, and it’s happening a lot faster than anticipated.

www.adn.com

This graph says it all....
View attachment 86361

Except apparently , according to your highly esteemed NCEI , the station which warmed the most in the entire US was not in Alaska .... but Charlottesville VA. Lmao. Does that make sense ? Absolutely not . They can’t even properly record the weather and calculate the climate normals .

 

[J.C.]

Am I the only one that thinks that a potentially longer growing season in the more northern and southern latitudes would be a positive outcome with regards to food production? Its like climate alarmist want the late 1700s mini ice age all over again.

 

[LickWx]

Am I the only one that thinks that a potentially longer growing season in the more northern and southern latitudes would be a positive outcome with regards to food production? Its like climate alarmist want the late 1700s mini ice age all over again.

Exactly , a bit warmer climate is a net positive . Not too mention, a warmer world means a wetter Sahel region in Africa . Remember the giant famines and droughts of the 80s in east Africa ? Those are correlated with cooler global temps , specially cold Atlantic .

 

[NoSnowATL]

Exactly , a bit warmer climate is a net positive . Not too mention, a warmer world means a wetter Sahel region in Africa . Remember the giant famines and droughts of the 80s in east Africa ? Those are correlated with cooler global temps , specially cold Atlantic .

Its simple and I've said it a few million times. Just stop trying to control the climate and let whatever happens happen. My guess is that we die from a asteroid before we die from GW.

 

[J.C.]

Exactly , a bit warmer climate is a net positive . Not too mention, a warmer world means a wetter Sahel region in Africa . Remember the giant famines and droughts of the 80s in east Africa ? Those are correlated with cooler global temps , specially cold Atlantic .

We all know what this is about. One particular political party has to keep fear mongering on various issues because of repeated failed policies. I used to believe all of that ---- too. On topic though, it does feel like our region of the country has gone a significant time now without an extreme drought like the one faced back in the late 2000s. If AGW has anything to do with our wetter climate of late, bring it on.

 

[NoSnowATL]

We all know what this is about. One particular political party has to keep fear mongering on various issues because of repeated failed policies. I used to believe all of that ---- too. On topic though, it does feel like our region of the country has gone a significant time now without an extreme drought like the one faced back in the late 2000s. If AGW has anything to do with our wetter climate of late, bring it on.

Nope you forgot, GW is blamed for every single event in weather. Drought, rain, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding etc... hell even if its sunny its because of GW.

 

[Downeastnc]

Except apparently , according to your highly esteemed NCEI , the station which warmed the most in the entire US was not in Alaska .... but Charlottesville VA. Lmao. Does that make sense ? Absolutely not . They can’t even properly record the weather and calculate the climate normals .

Your basically saying disregard all the obvious evidence and data because a few bad data points are included....this is silly. I have no idea what percentage of the warming is our fault, I know its more than zero and less than all....trying to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible is a good thing, I know the evidence points towards humans having a fairly significant impact.....but nations and industries should be incentivized to go as green as possible, same with the auto industry etc.....if for no other reason than to reduce the pollution and other issues fossil fuels produce....I dont buy into the alarmist crap, and I dont support global carbon taxes or other things at this point, but by the same token the deniers saying man is not responsible for warming are just as full of crap as the alarmist

 

[LickWx]

Your basically saying disregard all the obvious evidence and data because a few bad data points are included....this is silly. I have no idea what percentage of the warming is our fault, I know its more than zero and less than all....trying to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible is a good thing, I know the evidence points towards humans having a fairly significant impact.....but nations and industries should be incentivized to go as green as possible, same with the auto industry etc.....if for no other reason than to reduce the pollution and other issues fossil fuels produce....I dont buy into the alarmist crap, and I dont support global carbon taxes or other things at this point, but by the same token the deniers saying man is not responsible for warming are just as full of crap as the alarmist

It’s not a few lol. None of it made sense , Charlotte warmed 1.3 degrees Asheville 1.5 but Boone cooled and Raleigh and Greensboro didn’t budge . Nashville warmed like 2 degrees lmao , it’s embarrassing really.