Quantcast

Global Warming my a$$....

Sandro

Terrified of Cucumbers
Nov 12, 2006
3,224
2,537
The old world
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

The Times has reviewed an alarming draft report by government scientists who say climate change is happening now and severely affecting the United States.
The report directly contradicts claims about global warming made by the Trump administration, which must sign off on it before it can be released.
Full report for monkeys who can read good: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf (pages 13-14 offer a good overview)
 

DaveW

Space Monkey
Jul 2, 2001
11,160
2,685
The bunker at parliament
Yep as a species, we are about to have to make some really ugly changes to;
Water use
Diet
Population distribution
Transport
Building design
Extreme weather event resilience
Societal structure
Population growth........ IMO the breeders are over breeding us out of our current existence in a bad bad way*.
Energy generation & usage.... the growth in our electrical power hunger in the last century is mind boggling!



*I will openly admit to becoming ever more Malthusian in outlook.
 

mykel

closer to Periwinkle
Apr 19, 2013
5,067
3,778
sw ontario canada
Well, somehow it makes sense to Her Gropenfuhrer.
The solar tax has the ability to kill hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure spending along with better than 20K jobs.
Not to mention this also kills one of the fastest growing industries who actually pay a living wage.
He must know something we don't 'casue he knows how to make a great deal, he said so hisself.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,225
20,003
Sleazattle
Well, somehow it makes sense to Her Gropenfuhrer.
The solar tax has the ability to kill hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure spending along with better than 20K jobs.
Not to mention this also kills one of the fastest growing industries who actually pay a living wage.
He must know something we don't 'casue he knows how to make a great deal, he said so hisself.
He knows that the solar industry didn't give his campaign a whole bunch of money like the fossil fuel industry did.
 

gonefirefightin

free wieners
Ok, as a meteorologist with several degrees I will chime in on my educated opinion on the topic since I recently had a few other educated atmospheric scientists in the boat recently and this topic came up and we all agreed on this consensus.

Humans only really have 100 years or so of decent meteorological/atmospheric data compiled to base theories and climate swings off of and we are still learning much about the solar systems working and fundamental effects of it on our little planet's rotation as it relates to weather patterns. Thus I don't think we can correctly predict or hypothesize on a subject that does not have sufficient data to produce accurate facts.

Considering our best guess of the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we have maybe at most 200 years or so of climate data at best I would say we really don't know what we are talking about. It would be the same scientific study as only measuring .0.000004% of a periodical time study.

Bottom line, There simply isn't enough data.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,850
9,556
AK
We had climatologist give a speech on climate change in the Arctic during our last month’s science pub. Are you saying you don’t acknowledge the increase of CO2 relative to the industrial revolution?
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,225
20,003
Sleazattle
Don't we have ice cores?

This.

You don't need direct atmospheric measurements to be able to understand what was happening in the past. Shit I can take stroll down to my local city park and probably give you accurate estimates of local rainfall for the past 800 years by measuring tree rings on a Doug Fir log. Tree rings, sediment layer, ice cores all give you a good measurement of what happened in the past.

Even if you only look at accurate and direct atmospheric measurements. CO2 levels have gone from 320 ppm to 390 ppm in the past hundred years. That is about 20%, that is a huge number.

I have never heard a climate change denier ever explain the actual thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect, be it from atmospheric gasses or an actual greenhouse. That energy equation is well know and scientifically measurable and repeatable. You really don't need centuries of data to tell that an increase of greenhouse gasses is going to increase global temperatures. Even if we only look at the past 100 years of atmospheric measurements, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing dramatically.

People also don't seem to understand that burning massive amounts of fossil fuels will disrupt the normal carbon cycle equilibrium. During the carboniferous period, plants evolved liginum, an organic polymer that gives plants their fibrous strength. At that time no other organism could eat, digest or rot liginum. So for millions of years every plant that grew, unless burned, the liginum in their fibers would just stick around, capturing massive amount of carbon. All that material is what created fossil fuels. But eventually various bacteria and fungi evolved to digest liginum. So now all the carbon that plants use in their liginum is eventually be released back into the atmosphere as CO2, or even worse methane. The conditions that captured all that carbon no longer occur and are likely to never occur again. This isn't something that can be undone.
 
Last edited:

6thElement

Schrodinger's Immigrant
Jul 29, 2008
15,825
13,054
It's supposed to be 70 freedums near Denver tomorrow, that's normal for the end of January right?
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,225
20,003
Sleazattle
Temperatures of the Puget sound have increased significantly over the past decades. 5 years ago the sound was teaming with various starfish. Haven't seen a single one in two years, they have pretty much been wiped out by a wasting disease that has been around for a long time, but becomes highly virulent in warmer temperatures.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,850
9,556
AK
Right after new years I drove a freaking camaro SS around in Alaska because it was 45 degrees. 45 freaking degrees. The "normal" cycle up here has changed to 1 normal-ish winter in about 3, this winter is one of the warm no-snow ones.

There's always someone that says "but volcanoes" with no idea that volcanoes dump far less CO2 into the atmosphere than man. There are even people out there as dumb as trump that say the ice caps are increasing, where one year one portion showed an increase while the overall sea ice was decreased, people just make up their own facts. As our presenter last month said, there are still doctors out there that say smoking doesn't cause cancer. Not many, but there are definitely a few, so just because there are a few that deny the impact of man on the climate, doesn't mean the science that's been done is somehow invalid. Our presenter from last month was:

Brian Brettschneider is a research climatologist living in Anchorage. His areas of specialization are: historical Alaska climatology, Arctic sea ice climatology, climate patterns, tropical cyclone climatology, and climate communication. He is affiliated with the USF’s International Arctic Research Center (IARC). Some of his recent work has centered around the effects of a changing climate on Alaska. Brian has a popular Facebook Page devoted to odds and ends of Alaska climatology and a Twitter feed that focuses on Alaska, U.S., and global climatology patterns and trends. Many of his unique and light-hearted social media posts have received national and international attention from organizations such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, and others. He is also heard on a weekly segment called “Ask a Climatologist” on the Alaska Public radio network.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1753286738017444/

I have taken many flights with researchers traveling to the Arctic (since I oversee the flights). Having done research myself, I just want to punch someone in the nose that things it's some way to get rich or that it's just all made up.
 

jstuhlman

bagpipe wanker
Dec 3, 2009
16,622
12,911
Cackalacka du Nord
Temperatures of the Puget sound have increased significantly over the past decades. 5 years ago the sound was teaming with various starfish. Haven't seen a single one in two years, they have pretty much been wiped out by a wasting disease that has been around for a long time, but becomes highly virulent in warmer temperatures.
interesting - i've been noticing the same thing with a lack of starfish recently in places that I used to find them all the time as a kid in midcoast Maine . . .

and yeah, I'd go with @mykel 's comment re: meteroligist /= scientist/climatologist/marine biologist, etc.
 

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Ok, as a meteorologist with several degrees I will chime in on my educated opinion on the topic since I recently had a few other educated atmospheric scientists in the boat recently and this topic came up and we all agreed on this consensus.

Humans only really have 100 years or so of decent meteorological/atmospheric data compiled to base theories and climate swings off of and we are still learning much about the solar systems working and fundamental effects of it on our little planet's rotation as it relates to weather patterns. Thus I don't think we can correctly predict or hypothesize on a subject that does not have sufficient data to produce accurate facts.

Considering our best guess of the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we have maybe at most 200 years or so of climate data at best I would say we really don't know what we are talking about. It would be the same scientific study as only measuring .0.000004% of a periodical time study.

Bottom line, There simply isn't enough data.
I found this post by IAB from the random pic thread rather fitting...