There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[brenthutch 444]

We just ran the experiment for the last 30 years.  The CAGW theory hypothesized that we would be suffering dire consequences by the turn of the century if we did not take drastic measures to cut our CO2 emissions.  Global CO2 output is greater than ever and two decades after that drop dead date, none of the predictions have come to pass.  Theory falsified.  

Edited December 7, 2019 by brenthutch

[mbohu 77]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

We just ran the experiment for the last 30 years.  The CAGW theory hypothesized that we would be suffering dire consequences by the turn of the century if we did not take drastic measures to cut our CO2 emissions.  Global CO2 output is greater than ever and two decades after that drop dead date, none of the predictions have come to pass.  Theory falsified.  

If you are referring to the AP article that you linked, you keep making the same mistake over and over again (in other references as well) and the question does pose itself, if that is on purpose, or if you are really mis-reading these predictions.
There is nothing in the article that says that the dire consequences would be visible by the turn of the century. The article says that if the trend would not be REVERSED by 2020 then dire consequences would EVENTUALLY appear. It does not give a time horizon for WHEN these consequences would appear. Here is the relevant quote that mentions the date: "... if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

IF IT IS NOT REVERSED BY 2000
NOT
BY 2000 ENTIRE NATIONS WILL BE WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH

 

Now: I can't say anything about the accuracy of this article. Personally I think and hope we still have time. The article does not seem extremely well-supported as it only says "A senior U.N. environmental official says..." Who is that official? What did other senior officials say?...

Edited December 7, 2019 by mbohu

[brenthutch 444]

So the dire consequences may or may not materialize in the next century or two, but our drop dead date to fix the problem is two decades in the past?

BTW you can't get more authoritative than a senior U.N. environmental official.

Edited December 8, 2019 by brenthutch

[mbohu 77]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

So the dire consequences may or may not materialize in the next century or two, but our drop dead date to fix the problem is two decades in the past?

Like I said, I have no data on this particular article, but yes, of course, if you start a complex process with exponential components, it is likely that the time that you can (at relatively low cost) do something to stop the thing from expanding to a state where change is impossible or very costly, would be at a much earlier time than when you will see the eventual consequences.

In other words:
So the dire consequences may or may not materialize in the next minute or two, but our drop dead date to keep ourselves from dying is one minute earlier, when we decided to jump out the plane without a chute?

...or

So the dire consequences may or may not materialize in the next century or two, but our drop dead date to fix the problem is two million years in the past, when the asteroid broke apart in the asteroid belt and started on its current course towards earth?

The timing mentioned in the article may be off--I certainly hope so. But it is clear that the time to do something about a complex problem like this, would have to be WAY earlier than when you see dire consequences like coastlines disappearing and entire continents' ice sheets melting. At that point, if there were any solutions available at all, they would be unbelievably expensive, not only in terms of money and economy but in terms of lost lives and in countless other ways. This is really not that hard to understand.

 

This is why we have to rely on scientific data (the canary in the coal mine), and referring to "I don't see anything bad happening right now" is simply not a good argument. By the time you see something happening that you would consider bad enough to actually do something, it will be MUCH too late.

[mbohu 77]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

BTW you can't get more authoritative than a senior U.N. environmental official.

Did just a tiny bit more research on this and:
"...the article conflates statements made by Brown, which did not represent a consensus view at the time, with statements made in several governmental studies that were more representative of the consensus view. "

Apparently the official was "...Noel Brown, who served as a regional director of the United Nations Environment Program and who was not a climate scientist"

So a bit "neither here nor there".

[billvon 2,991]

On 12/7/2019 at 8:08 AM, brenthutch said:

We just ran the experiment for the last 30 years.  

Yep.  And the predicted temperature increases came to pass.  The droughts?  Ocean acidification?  Increase in fires?  Those all came to pass, too.  Pretty good experimental validation of the models.

Quote

So the dire consequences may or may not materialize in the next century or two, but our drop dead date to fix the problem is two decades in the past?

You sound like a smoker claiming that smoking is not dangerous because no doctor can tell you down to the hour when you will die from it.

[brenthutch 444]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And the predicted temperature increases came to pass.  The droughts?  Ocean acidification?  Increase in fires?  Those all came to pass, too.  Pretty good experimental validation of the models.

IPCC says no there is no trend in droughts.  Model invalidated.

Increase in fires?  Result of population increase in fire prone areas and poor land management.  Model invalidated.

Ocean acidification?  PH of the ocean is around eight which is alkaline not acidic.  Model invalidated.

BTW the daytime PH around coral reefs can be as high as 8.6 because the zooxanthellae algae, growing within the skeleton of the coral, love CO2 and soak it up like a sponge (which, coincidently, also has zooxanthellae)

[DJL 235]

27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

IPCC says no there is no trend in droughts.  Model invalidated.

Is this another example of a thing you're saying they didn't exactly get right which you think therefore invalidates all the things they did get right? Would you mind providing the IPCC quote on their expectation on droughts?  As it currently stands their statement is that there's inadequate information because the study period is too short to observe anything beyond natural variability but that it will likely increase in some places and decrease in others.  What you're saying isn't exactly damming.

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/presentations/Sbsta_drought.pdf

[brenthutch 444]

Bill is stating that the IPCC prediction of increased drought validates the model.  The IPCC says they can see no trend.  Just because the IPCC cannot find something isn't proof of its existence.

[DJL 235]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Bill is stating that the IPCC prediction of increased drought validates the model.  The IPCC says they can see no trend.  Just because the IPCC cannot find something isn't proof of its existence.

Got it.  There's been data that they've gotten worse where they always happened but everything I've read on IPCC lists them in the ambiguous category with a theory that they'll increase in some places.  I believe the same was said for hurricanes, for both we haven't been tracking them for very long and their natural variability is outside of the scale of our observations.

[turtlespeed 220]

On 12/6/2019 at 9:25 PM, billvon said:

Nope.  That's the state's tax burden, which is what you asked about.  So free, independent Texans see much the same in state taxes as evil socialist California.  Things that make you go "hmmmm."

What I asked about was Area, City, County, and State taxes.

[kallend 2,027]

Greenland ice loss accelerates bigly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/12/10/greenland-ice-losses-have-septupled-are-pace-sea-level-worst-case-scenario-scientists-say/?utm_campaign=post_most&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

[DJL 235]

On 12/9/2019 at 8:01 AM, brenthutch said:

IPCC says no there is no trend in droughts.  Model invalidated.

Increase in fires?  Result of population increase in fire prone areas and poor land management.  Model invalidated.

Ocean acidification?  PH of the ocean is around eight which is alkaline not acidic.  Model invalidated.

BTW the daytime PH around coral reefs can be as high as 8.6 because the zooxanthellae algae, growing within the skeleton of the coral, love CO2 and soak it up like a sponge (which, coincidently, also has zooxanthellae)

This is that example of some things being better than thought, some things being worse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/12/10/greenland-ice-losses-have-septupled-are-pace-sea-level-worst-case-scenario-scientists-say/?utm_campaign=post_most&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

[brenthutch 444]

Offset by gains in Antarctica and the newly greening deserts.

Seriously though, things have ALWAYS been getting better or getting worse, it has nothing/little to do with CO2.

Edited December 11, 2019 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 2,191]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Seriously though, things have ALWAYS been getting better or getting worse, it has nothing/little to do with CO2.

You are a pretty smart guy. You must be right and everyone else must be wrong. But even though I know in my heart that your superior intellect could never mislead you I still have this little niggle in the back of my mind that maybe, just maybe, your belief system on this has more to do with politics than is does with science. I think I may be a little brain washed by the "scientific community". You know, the tall forehead types who actually do real research and use numbers and stuff.

Edited December 11, 2019 by gowlerk

[DJL 235]

13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Offset by gains in Antarctica and the newly greening deserts.

Seriously though, things have ALWAYS been getting better or getting worse, it has nothing/little to do with CO2.

Except the steady rise in temperature shows that to be false or else we'd also have periods of balance.  If you turn your refrigerator off and move the frozen peas in with the milk to keep them cold that doesn't mean there's an offset by the gains in milk cooling.

Scientists barely even agree that the gains in snow in Antarctica offset it's own loss in ice, so it definitely doesn't represent a global offset.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-antarctica-losing-ice-or-gaining-it/

Edited December 11, 2019 by DJL

[Bigfalls 111]

Society as a whole probably will not take the steps necessary to limits mans contribution to global warming / climate change.

The predictions of the amount of rise of sea levels are just an educated guess based on current data, maybe accurate or not.

If you are sunning yourself on the beach and the tide is coming in, you move away from the ocean. 

If the sea levels are rising, now is the time to start building on higher ground since we have 40, 60, 80, 100 years to do it.

Don't wait until your towel is wet.

[billvon 2,991]

On 12/9/2019 at 5:01 AM, brenthutch said:

IPCC says no there is no trend in droughts.  Model invalidated.

Increase in fires?  Result of population increase in fire prone areas and poor land management.  Model invalidated.

Ocean acidification?  PH of the ocean is around eight which is alkaline not acidic.  Model invalidated.

BTW the daytime PH around coral reefs can be as high as 8.6 because the zooxanthellae algae, growing within the skeleton of the coral, love CO2 and soak it up like a sponge (which, coincidently, also has zooxanthellae)

No to all of the above.  Again, get your information someplace else other than FOX News.

Droughts?  Several papers have confirmed that warmer temperatures have caused (and exacerbated) droughts even when rainfall does not change.

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3931

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6334531/

Fires?  Again, several papers have shown that you get more (and longer) fires with longer wildfire seasons (duh) and that damage to forests done by climate change is leading to more dangerous fires.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-017-0175-3

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11649.short

Ocean acidification?  I will just laugh at you on this one.  Next time you see a doctor, tell him that there's no such disease as acidosis, because a blood pH of 7.1 is alkaline.  You read it on the Internet!

But in any case, the reason climate change deniers will fail is that people no longer need to read boring scientific papers to understand climate change.  They just have to look out their windows.

 

 

[brenthutch 444]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

No to all of the above.  Again, get your information someplace else other than FOX News.

Droughts?  Several papers have confirmed that warmer temperatures have caused (and exacerbated) droughts even when rainfall does not change.

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3931

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6334531/

Fires?  Again, several papers have shown that you get more (and longer) fires with longer wildfire seasons (duh) and that damage to forests done by climate change is leading to more dangerous fires.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-017-0175-3

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11649.short

Ocean acidification?  I will just laugh at you on this one.  Next time you see a doctor, tell him that there's no such disease as acidosis, because a blood pH of 7.1 is alkaline.  You read it on the Internet!

But in any case, the reason climate change deniers will fail is that people no longer need to read boring scientific papers to understand climate change.  They just have to look out their windows.

 

 

"Simulations were conducted using the Weather Research and Forecasting model using the pseudo global warming method".

Nothing about current drought conditions and climate change (oh wait we have even more climate change than we did a half a decade ago and no drought...….I will put that in the "things that make you go hmmmmm" category)

Model invalidated

"Climate-driven increases in wildfires, drought conditions, and insect outbreaks are critical threats to forest carbon stores. In particular, bark beetles are important disturbance agents although their long-term interactions with future climate change are poorly understood."

Model invalidated

With regard to you comparison of blood and sea water, well that is just silly.  The daily fluctuation of PH in and around coral reef systems is huge (it can vary from 7.8 to 8.7 in a single 24 hour period) so again you analogy is just silly.

Bill you need to read the articles before you post them.  What you claim is proof of what is happening now, is nothing more than conjecture and speculation about what may or may not happen in the future

 

 

[BIGUN 1,312]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

What you claim is proof of what is happening now, is nothing more than conjecture and speculation about what may or may not happen in the future

Quote

 

Highlights

The average annual land surface air temperature north of 60° N for October 2018-August 2019 was the second warmest since 1900. The warming air temperatures are driving changes in the Arctic environment that affect ecosystems and communities on a regional and global scale.

On the land

The Greenland Ice Sheet is losing nearly 267 billion metric tons of ice per year and currently contributing to global average sea-level rise at a rate of about 0.7 mm yr-1.

North American Arctic snow cover in May 2019 was the fifth lowest in 53 years of record. June snow cover was the third lowest.

Tundra greening continues to increase in the Arctic, particularly on the North Slope of Alaska, mainland Canada, and the Russian Far East.

Thawing permafrost throughout the Arctic could be releasing an estimated 300-600 million tons of net carbon per year to the atmosphere.

In the oceans

Arctic sea ice extent at the end of summer 2019 was tied with 2007 and 2016 as the second lowest since satellite observations began in 1979. The thickness of the sea ice has also decreased, resulting in an ice cover that is more vulnerable to warming air and ocean temperatures.

August mean sea surface temperatures in 2019 were 1-7°C warmer than the 1982-2010 August mean in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the Laptev Sea, and Baffin Bay.

Satellite estimates showed ocean primary productivity in the Arctic was higher than the long-term average for seven of nine regions, with the Barents Sea and North Atlantic the only regions showing lower than average values.

Wildlife populations are showing signs of stress. For example, the breeding population of the ivory gull in the Canadian Arctic has declined by 70% since the 1980s.

Focus on the Bering Sea

The winter sea ice extent in 2019 narrowly missed surpassing the record low set in 2018, leading to record-breaking warm ocean temperatures in 2019 on the southern shelf. Bottom temperatures on the northern Bering shelf exceeded 4°C for the first time in November 2018.

Bering and Barents Seas fisheries have experienced a northerly shift in the distribution of subarctic and Arctic fish species, linked to the loss of sea ice and changes in bottom water temperature.

Indigenous Elders from Bering Sea communities note that "n a warming Arctic, access to our subsistence foods is shrinking and becoming more hazardous to hunt and fish. At the same time, thawing permafrost and more frequent and higher storm surges increasingly threaten our homes, schools, airports, and utilities."

https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019

 

 

 

[BIGUN 1,312]

20 hours ago, BIGUN said:

The winter sea ice extent in 2019 narrowly missed surpassing the record low set in 2018, leading to record-breaking warm ocean temperatures in 2019 on the southern shelf. Bottom temperatures on the northern Bering shelf exceeded 4°C for the first time in November 2018.

The study's findings present "irrefutable evidence" that the Earth is on track for one of the most "pessimistic" models for rising sea levels, said Erik Ivins, lead scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and one of the study's authors.

Cumulative ice losses from Greenland as a whole have been close to the rates predicted by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for a high-end climate warming scenario, which forecasts an additional 50 to 120 millimeters of sea-level rise by 2100, the study states. The findings of the study predict an additional 70 to 130 millimeters by 2100.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-expose-400-million-people/story?id=67655108

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

The study's findings present "irrefutable evidence" that the Earth is on track for one of the most "pessimistic" models for rising sea levels, said Erik Ivins, lead scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and one of the study's authors.

Cumulative ice losses from Greenland as a whole have been close to the rates predicted by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for a high-end climate warming scenario, which forecasts an additional 50 to 120 millimeters of sea-level rise by 2100, 

 Seven centimeters of sea level rise by the end of the century?  Do you mean to say that 70 years after I am dead, my great grandchildren will go to the same beach house my parents took me to when I was a kid and standing in the exact same spot, their ankles will get wet instead of their toes? That sound absolutely terrifying!!! 

BTW the most "pessimistic" models predicted 6090mm sea level rise not 50-120.  Again, CAGW theory falsified. 

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 Seven centimeters of sea level rise by the end of the century?  Do you mean to say that 70 years after I am dead, that my great grandchildren will go to the same beach house my parents took me to when I was a kid and standing in the exact same spot, their ankles will get wet instead of their toes? That sound absolutely terrifying!!! 

BTW the most "pessimistic" models predicted 6090mm sea level rise not 50-120.  Again, CAGW theory falsified. 

 

So now you're mad that they're not saying the entire world will be underwater except for bands of roving jet ski riders?

[brenthutch 444]

Not mad. I just think it is funny that some folks believe it is a big problem and even more humorous is the notion that driving a Prius and going vegan will somehow prevent it from happening. 

[DJL 235]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Not mad. I just think it is funny that some folks believe it is a big problem and even more humorous is the notion that driving a Prius and going vegan will somehow prevent it from happening. 

Your response could also be a statement that it's silly for people to complain that they'll be standing 15cm lower on the Greenland Ice sheet, why are people driving a Prius and going vegan because they're going to be 15 cm lower on the ice sheet?  Do you think either of us are truly addressing the issues associated with either sea rise or ice loss?