A Little Global Warming, Anyone??

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by witchbottles, Sep 3, 2017.

  1. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    So 2-3 storms that have hit in an area of about a million square miles over the past 40-60 years have been once in a century type storms? Well that doesn't actually seem to unlikely.
     
  2. Paul M. Weir

    Paul M. Weir Well-Known Member

    Apr 3, 2004
    Dublin
    I said "the last couple of decades" which is 20 years, as far as I understand a couple is two not four or six, though you never know with you perverts :p.
     
  3. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    It doesn't matter how you try to couch it to make it seem like you have a point. A once in a century storm can happen in the first year of however you want to count, the last year, the 101 and 102 year, 0r any other combination you can think of. You sound like the idiots who play roulette and see Red the past 6 spins and say it is due to be black.

    'A total of 292 Atlantic tropical cyclones have produced hurricane-force winds in every state along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, as well as Pennsylvania. Florida was affected by 118 hurricanes, which is more than any other state; Texas ranked second. Hurricane Donna affected a total of eight states—more than any other hurricane.[1]

    The earliest time in the year for a hurricane to strike the nation was June 9, which was set by Hurricane Alma in 1966. The earliest major hurricane to strike the nation occurred in 1934, when an unnamed tropical cyclone made landfall on June 16. The latest in the year for a hurricane to strike the nation was on November 24 with Hurricane Iwa in Hawaii; for the Atlantic basin the latest was on November 22, which was set by Hurricane Kate in 1985. The latest in the year for a major hurricane to strike the nation was from the 1921 Tampa Bay hurricane, which moved ashore on October 25.[1]

    The 1880s were the most active decade for the United States, with a total of 25 hurricanes affecting the nation. By contrast, the least active decade was the 1970s, with a total of only 12 hurricanes affecting the American coastline. A total of 33 seasons on record passed without an Atlantic hurricane affecting the country—the most recent of which was the 2015 season. Seven Atlantic hurricanes affected the country in the 1886 season, which was the year with the most United States hurricanes.[1]'
     
  4. witchbottles

    witchbottles Well-Known Member

    Feb 26, 2010
    Rio Vista, CA
    sources he wants:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...y-warning-signs-of-global-6.html#.WbCHpsiGP0M

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/docs/NOAA_TKarl_Climate_Adaptation_QFRs.pdf

    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicat...s-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases

    https://www.cato.org/research/global-warming

    https://history.aip.org/climate/Govt.htm

    https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<1601:ICOYSN>2.0.CO;2

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1701595.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450(1983)022<0474:GVALUN>2.0.CO;2

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719.full

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000345/full

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5517/686

    https://books.google.com/books?id=w...e+change+since+1975&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s

    A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling
    AUTHORS
    Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate,
    Division on Earth and Life Studies,
    and Committee on a National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling
    PUBLISHER
    National Academies Press
    PRINT PUB DATE
    2012-12-24

    Estimating Climate Sensitivity : Report of a Workshop
    SUBTITLE
    Report of a Workshop
    PUBLISHER
    National Academies Press
    PRINT PUB DATE
    2003-12-01

    Science and Policy Implications of Abrupt Climate Change
    EDITOR
    National Research Council Staff
    PUBLISHER
    National Academies Press
    PRINT PUB DATE
    2002-04-23

    Climate Change : What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren
    SUBTITLE
    What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren
    AUTHORS
    Joseph F. C. DiMento
    and Pamela Doughman
    EDITOR
    Pamela M Doughman
    PUBLISHER
    MIT Press
    PRINT PUB DATE
    2014-05-14

    Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change
    PUBLISHER
    National Academies Press
    PRINT PUB DATE
    2010-01-01

    Climate Change in the 21st Century
    AUTHORS
    Stewart J. Cohen
    and Melissa W. Waddell
    PUBLISHER
    MQUP
    PRINT PUB DATE
    2009-10-30

    Global Environmental Change : Research Pathways for the Next Decade
    SUBTITLE
    Research Pathways for the Next Decade
    AUTHOR
    National Research Council Staff
    PUBLISHER
    National Academies Press
    PRINT PUB DATE
    1998-04-01

    Climate Change Science and Policy
    EDITORS
    Stephen H. Schneider,
    Armin Rosencranz,
    and Michael D. Mastrandrea
    PUBLISHER
    Island Press
    PRINT PUB DATE
    2014-05-14



    I can go on for some time - the information is there....... please feel free to research it at your leisure. It should all meet any representative standard for academic rigor from these references, I do not think anyone could make a challenge that any of the listed refs are not of sufficient rigor to not be cited in any serious academic study of climate change.
     
  5. MAS01

    MAS01 Active Member

    Sep 29, 2009
    Joplin, MO

    Didn't want to quote the entire post Jon.

    I'm just looking for two sources. The first is the one that says that the average temperature increase over the last 42 years is 1.8F per annum. What I've been able to fine is that the average global temp for 1951 to 1980 was 57.2F ( https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now ). Based on your statement, the current average global temp should now be 122F (57.2 +[1.8*36]). I hardly think that is the case.

    The same source I cited states that "In 2015, the hottest year on record, the temperature was about 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) warmer than the 1951–1980 base period."

    The second source I'd like to see is the one that states that that humans are responsible for 0.2F per annum cumulative over the same 42 year period. If in 2015, the average global temp was only 1.8F above the 1951-80 base period, it's more than a little ludicrous to say that humans are responsible for 8F of warming.

    All that being said, I don't disagree that we should be good stewards of the planet. But under current technology, solar and wind won't replace hydrocarbons. Will China, who is now the world's largest polluter, reduce it's energy consumption? No. Will India reduce it's energy consumption? No. Are you willing to tell developing and third-world countries that they can't increase their energy consumption to improve the lives of their citizens?

    I'll leave you with these questions:

    CO2 concentrations have increased from 370ppm in 2000 to over 400ppm today. If CO2 is the driver of global temperature, why is there no corresponding increase in the average global temperature over the last 8 to 10 years?

    What is the optimum average global temperature?

    What caused both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were higher than what they are today?

    What caused the North American and European glacial ice caps to melt at the end of the last Ice Age?

    Cheers,


    Mark
     
  6. KED

    KED Active Member

    Feb 12, 2012
    North Carolina
    I was cold this summer and last here in NC. When we first moved here some 10+ years ago we had highs in the months of July to early September of between 98 and 100+ degrees. I remember cutting my lawn in November once or twice and wearing shorts and no shirt while using the grill on the deck in early December, This year it only rarely hit the upper 90s. Todays high was only 77 as it has been for the last few days. Tomorrow and the rest of the week the highs should hit the mid 80s. Make of it what you will I'm cold! Burrrrrr!
     
  7. MrP

    MrP Smile,you won didn't you?

    Feb 17, 2003
    Woof? Bark? Whine?
    Because the earth as a closed system doesn't act so quickly maybe? And it does seem to correlate We've only got 13 years CO2 data but it shows the same trend (ish), a rise in CO2 from 380 to 406ppm and a rise in average temp by 0.25degc. That's measured data (NASA).

    Optimum worldwide average temp depends on where you live. I think the problem may be that once you breach that level (hotter or colder) then the amount of liveable/farmable land goes down....

    I'm a geologist and inclined to take the long view - the earth *will* adjust itself to the irritation that is the human race, we'll just not like it when it does throw us into a new ice age or warm period :)

     
  8. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    I wish someone could tell me what the climate of earth is supposed to be. Might be nice to know before we start trying to make meet what some group or another decides it should be.
     
  9. bendizoid

    bendizoid Official ***** Dickweed

    Sep 11, 2006
    Viet Nam
    That's the difference between you and I. Apparently, humans are a infestation upon the Earth from your point of view. My point of view is humans are a blessing, not a problem. That's a common point of view for a leftist socialist: humans are a problem. Even that commy leftist monolith in Turkey wants the population down to 500 million, that means 7 1/2 billion gotta die. That's kinda cruel.
     
  10. MrP

    MrP Smile,you won didn't you?

    Feb 17, 2003
    Woof? Bark? Whine?
    F*ck all to do with politics Bob, more to do what I do for a living and the time frame that forces you to think in. If global warming is accelerated by man then according to Mother Earth, we *are* a problem and entropy and the quest for equilibrium will catch up to us sooner or later.

    This has nothing to do with whether I want it to happen, either in my lifetime or at sometime in the next millenia ( I don't, I just want a good life for my kids and their kids kids kids etc), to suggest that is you just trying to paint every argument in terms of American political polarisation. I suspect we're more alike than you're willing to admit.
     
  11. Dave68124

    Dave68124 Active Member

    May 9, 2005
    United States
    An article for the home team with dubious stats and stories.

    - Anyone bother to check those people that died in the heat wave? Were they medically compromised people in the first place or elderly?
    - Not sure how or why the story about the U.S. army platoon had any relevance - ever tried hacking through the bush carrying 100 pounds. I don't care how good of shape you are in, it is hard. Plus, how easy of a story to fabricate.
    - Power in India? Seriously? That is an infrastructure and population issue and not a global warming or climate change issue. (What is the proper term this week?)

    Only thing the author seemed to get right was that water will be a significant issue going forward, but since the seas are predicted to be hundreds of feet higher so it's just a mater of desalination.
     
  12. MrP

    MrP Smile,you won didn't you?

    Feb 17, 2003
    Woof? Bark? Whine?
    Power too. You need power to desalinate.

    I think it's a pretty scaremongery article, but get past the rhetoric and he's made some real points...i disagree about the power point, if temperatures warm, we'll all try and stay cooler (closer to our ideal temperature) and that'll strain the power grid, no matter what the infrastructure is like. It's not infinitely scaleable.
     
  13. Dave68124

    Dave68124 Active Member

    May 9, 2005
    United States
    That's my point. It is an infrastructure and population issue, especially how the author presented it, and not necessarily a global warming issue. The power issue was why so many people died in India during a heat wave. Well yeah, India's power grid sucks and it is even worse when you get outside of the big cities of India. Regardless, it was an article that appeared to contain very little logic and a poor attempt by the author to link disparate macro events together and say "I told you". Just preaching to the converted that won't take the time to question the white washed points in any detail.
     
  14. MrP

    MrP Smile,you won didn't you?

    Feb 17, 2003
    Woof? Bark? Whine?
    He made a point about 'ageing patchwork power grid in the United States is built with components that are allowed to languish for more than a century before being replaced' ...what's the truth there?

    Shrug. Climate change is happening...I think we'll figure out what needs to be done (if anything) by the time it all reaches crisis point. The human race is at its best in a crisis with short deadlines, we're crap at taking the long view (because it's hard to see what's in it for us?)
     
    Dave68124 likes this.
  15. Dave68124

    Dave68124 Active Member

    May 9, 2005
    United States
    Definitely agree with your last sentence. I usually stay away from the global warming topic, because frankly I don't know shit about it. However, I can read a fanboy article and recognize it as such.
     
  16. Mister T

    Mister T Active Member

    Aug 12, 2006
    Bruxelles
    Except that when it will become all too clear, even for morons, that this is becoming critical, it will already be too late to change course. So there can be no "short deadline".
     
  17. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    What course should it be changed to?
     
  18. MAS01

    MAS01 Active Member

    Sep 29, 2009
    Joplin, MO

    Not sure if there is really a correlation. The increase from 380ppm to 406ppm is 6.8%. An increase of .25C to the global average of 57.2F (14C) I stated earlier is 1.8%. Could it be merely a coincidence?

    Let's look at some individual countries, the BRICs vs the US, according to data from the World Bank ( https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?end=2013&start=2003 ). All data figures are from 2003 to 2013, and are on a per capita basis.

    Brazil -- from 1.8 to 2.5 tons/capita, an increase of 38.9%
    Russia -- from 11.1 to 12.5 tons/capita, an increase of 12.6%
    India -- from 1.0 to 1.6 tons/capita, an increase of 60%
    China -- from 3.5 to 7.6 tons/capita, an increase of 117%

    Unites States -- from 19.6 to 16.4 tons/capita, a decrease of 16.3%

    With China's population roughly three times that of the US, emmissions in the US would have had to increase to 22.8 tons/capita to achieve the same overall amount.

    For comparison, the EU went for 8.2 to 6.7 tons/capita, a decrease of 18.3%

    Honestly, I don't really think this is a problem, unless the powers that be are looking for ways to exert more control over every facet of our lives. Yes, the US has just had two major hurricanes in the last fortnight. But it has been 12 YEARS since the last major hurricane made landfall in the US. After Katrina hit in 2005, all of the "experts" said that this would be the new norm; more frequent and more powerful hurricanes. Well, looking at the data since then the "experts" were wrong. Could they be just as wrong with all of their other prognostications?
     
  19. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland

Share This Page