Trump

[WuDrWu]

This argument that even MIT says it's only going to reduce the temperature less than one degree is just completely misleading. The researchers came out and said Trump misinterpreted their research.

The number one goal is halting warming, so a small decrease in temperature would be huge success. Additionally, it's not like we want to decrease temperatures by an average of 20 degrees or something.

Lol "you've" been such a tremendous manipulator of temperature fluctuation to date.

[SB Shock]

The number one goal is halting warming,

You do realize they are not even talking about decreasing temperature right? They are talking about slowing the increase in the rise of global temperatures.

so a small decrease in temperature would be huge success

So you are willing to increase the average electricity cost for average U.S. family by $30,000 over the next decade for no climate or environmental benefits. Just for a symbolic gesture? You really want to knock back you economy $2-3 Trillion dollars for a symbolic gesture?

http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero

Germany auto association responded

“The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive,” Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.

“The preservation of our competitive position is the precondition for successful climate protection. This correlation is often underestimated,” Wissmann said, adding that the decision by the Unites States was disappointing.


The VDA said electricity and energy prices are already higher in Germany than in the United States, putting Germany at a disadvantage.

Why wouldn't you from the start be trying to "facilitate a cost effective and economic feasible climate policy"?

The Paris accords were not about fixing anything, but it was about trying to drive up the cost outside of Europe to make Europe's industries more competitive to the world. China and India not going to play along. Guess where all the job are going... ? And guess what, regardless of the offset in CO2 reduction you might get - those offsets will be lost by the increases in Asia (China, India).

[ShockCrazy]

You do realize they are not even talking about decreasing temperature right? They are talking about slowing the increase in the rise of global temperatures.



So you are willing to increase the average electricity cost for average U.S. family by $30,000 over the next decade for no climate or environmental benefits. Just for a symbolic gesture? You really want to knock back you economy $2-3 Trillion dollars for a symbolic gesture?

http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero

Germany auto association responded

Why wouldn't you from the start be trying to "facilitate a cost effective and economic feasible climate policy"?

The Paris accords were not about fixing anything, but it was about trying to drive up the cost outside of Europe to make Europe's industries more competitive to the world. China and India not going to play along. Guess where all the job are going... ? And guess what, regardless of the offset in CO2 reduction you might get - those offsets will be lost by the increases in Asia (China, India).

Honest question for you. Where is the line for you? Say we knew for a certainty that the climate changes would be catastrophic(we don't but there is very strong evidence), and the costs you presented would make a difference(say a different, better legislation), would you support it?

[ShockingButTrue]

https://www.mixedtimes.com/news/donald-trump-signs-bills-assisting-law-enforcement-we-are-behind-you-100-percent

Nice to see the guys in blue get a little relief. They needed it.

[SB Shock]

Honest question for you. Where is the line for you? Say we knew for a certainty that the climate changes would be catastrophic(we don't but there is very strong evidence),

Actually there is not evidence, but there is a fear (by some, with others trying to prosper off that fear) that the natural warming we are in may get compounded (by the effects of man) and it will become runaway warming.

We know from science that world was much warmer and more prosperous. If there would be total honesty, it would be admitted that a warmer earth that opened up large swaths of inhabited land, better access to natural resources and long growing periods would actually be better for the world. But is there a point where to warm is to warm - sure.

and the costs you presented would make a difference(say a different, better legislation), would you support it?

I support being good stewards. I love technology and embrace it. Would should make it so there is an incentive develop and implement renewable energy. We should develop adopt technology when feasible to lower our energy footprint. But if you don't do this in a cost effective that is economically feasible manner you will cause more suffering than doing nothing at all.

What I think should be done is quite talking about climate change and focus on what our goals as world should towards regulating industry and establishing standards for keeping our water, our air and land from being polluted.

There has been so much bad science and fear mongering warnings that didn't come true that continuing down that path will be just be continue to be just as divisive. But if you can get the world to adopt technology and limits that will improve the lives of people by having better air, water and cheap renewable energy - then in the end it will take care of it self.

But if you have 10 cows, and you neighbor has 100 cows, and you want to be equal to your neighbor - the solution is not to make your neighbors kill 90 of his cows.

[ShockCrazy]

Actually there is not evidence, but there is a fear (by some, with others trying to prosper off that fear) that the natural warming we are in may get compounded (by the effects of man) and it will become runaway warming.

We know from science that world was much warmer and more prosperous. If there would be total honesty, it would be admitted that a warmer earth that opened up large swaths of inhabited land, better access to natural resources and long growing periods would actually be better for the world. But is there a point where to warm is to warm - sure.



I support being good stewards. I love technology and embrace it. Would should make it so there is an incentive develop and implement renewable energy. We should develop adopt technology when feasible to lower our energy footprint. But if you don't do this in a cost effective that is economically feasible manner you will cause more suffering than doing nothing at all.

What I think should be done is quite talking about climate change and focus on what our goals as world should towards regulating industry and establishing standards for keeping our water, our air and land from being polluted.

There has been so much bad science and fear mongering warnings that didn't come true that continuing down that path will be just be continue to be just as divisive. But if you can get the world to adopt technology and limits that will improve the lives of people by having better air, water and cheap renewable energy - then in the end it will take care of it self.

But if you have 10 cows, and you neighbor has 100 cows, and you want to be equal to your neighbor - the solution is not to make your neighbors kill 90 of his cows.

There is strong evidence and saying there isn't is deceptive, now you could argue there isn't ENOUGH evidence, but that's a different discussion. I liken the predictions to much like weather forecasts for severe threats. It's based on probability without certainly, but the goal with what some say is sensationalist forecasts is to ensure people take the very real chance something disastrous could happen seriously. Yes there is a cost to prepared and it not happening but it is so insignificant compared to ignoring all warnings and doing nothing.

[SB Shock]

There is strong evidence and saying there isn't is deceptive, now you could argue there isn't ENOUGH evidence, but that's a different discussion. I liken the predictions to much like weather forecasts for severe threats. It's based on probability without certainly, but the goal with what some say is sensationalist forecasts is to ensure people take the very real chance something disastrous could happen seriously. Yes there is a cost to prepared and it not happening but it is so insignificant compared to ignoring all warnings and doing nothing.

Strong evidence of what?

[wufan]

Strong evidence of what?

Totally agree with your take on good stewardship and incentivizing! There is strong evidence that the climate has increased in temperature between 0.5 and 1 C over the past 150 years. There is also strong evidence that carbon emissions have increased due to human impact since the industrial revolution at roughly the same time. Thats pretty much it when it comes to warming. Most scientists and nearly all climatologists believe that these two things are related despite the fact that historically CO2 has been a several hundred year lagging indicator caused by tree decay once it's too cold to sustain growth.

What bad things happen when global temperature increases? Regional droughts. Probably several other regional inconveniences. What bad things happen when countries go into recessions?

[wufan]

BTW, any scientist that produces a predictive model isn't doing real science (that's not to say there's no value). True science is creating a hypothesis based on observation and then trying like mad to destroy it. So, when you hear that all climatologists believe in man made global warming, realize that they aren't basing this on scientific observation. The entire discipline is based on predicting the future based on past measurement. As an example, when there was no temperature rise between 2010 and 2012, they said it was because the time was too short. Then when it continued for three more years, they didn't revise their model, rather they went back to their data and recalibrated it based on probable poor buoy placement. Suddenly, the model worked again and the cooling disappeared.

[CBB_Fan]

BTW, any scientist that produces a predictive model isn't doing real science (that's not to say there's no value). True science is creating a hypothesis based on observation and then trying like mad to destroy it. So, when you hear that all climatologists believe in man made global warming, realize that they aren't basing this on scientific observation. The entire discipline is based on predicting the future based on past measurement. As an example, when there was no temperature rise between 2010 and 2012, they said it was because the time was too short. Then when it continued for three more years, they didn't revise their model, rather they went back to their data and recalibrated it based on probable poor buoy placement. Suddenly, the model worked again and the cooling disappeared.

This may sound elitist as all get-out, but you are blatantly spreading misinformation and distrust. For instance, the moral your much-simiplified story is something along the lines of your broader point "Climatologists aren't real scientists, they either don't know what they are doing or are blatantly cooking the books." This tactic of selling a simplified, editorialized story is the lifeblood of Rush Limbuagh, but it is almost always just a strawman argument set up in the form of a story.

The actual story of the buoys is one I'm familiar with, and it is far more interesting than "oh, the temperature doesn't match our models, lets cheat to make them match." It involves office politics, a change in measurement, and some real politics as well. The primary people involved were one Dr. Bates, a retired and disgruntled researcher at NOAA, and the leader of the NOAA climate research Dr. Karl. Dr. Bates had a dispute with Dr. Karl and other researchers over how new data sets would be incorporated into existing models, and after he retired he made postings on a blog that got picked up by a variety of conservative news sources happy to hear talk of "global cooling." But Dr. Karl himself makes it clear that his gripes were not evidence against global warming.

The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was. That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people. - Dr. Bates, talking to reporter Scott Waldman in an interview with E&E news

In short, his concern was the data set used in Dr. Karl's paper used in a data set that had not gone through all the quality checks that had previously been set up and that the information was stored on the public NOAA drive rather than the NCEI's private drive for data that had passed its quality checks. The real story wasn't at all about buoys not matching climate models, but rather about the tension between research scientists trying to publish new advancements versus engineers trying to ensure everything following standard protocols. Some believe Dr. Bates was also acting out of a personal grudge; he was administratively admonished and relieved of a supervisory position at NCEI while Dr. Karl led the center.

Several people abused Dr. Bates' testimony to make a political point, particularly David Rose of the Daily Mail. Needless to say, conservatives were ecstatic at the opportunity to attack liberal scientists and to say the world wasn't actually warming (even though every other, more accurate dataset said it was). But the methodology and results of Dr. Karl's were have since been independently verified. The old data combined two datasets: an old method where water taken aboard ships and measured, and a new method were water measured at buoys. Even before Dr. Karl's work, this was a known problem causing obvious inaccuracies as ship intake water was warmed as it went through the engine room. Shifting to buoys naturally led to colder measurements, something that was well documented. Karl's work corrected the difference between the two datasets and weighted more on the buoy datasets (as the newer method was more accurate).

Even though Dr. Karl can be reasonably criticized for his data documentation standards, his findings were independently verified and better matched not just climate models but also land and satellite measurements. And his methods were unquestionably better science than those used previously. It wasn't about poor buoy placement or recalibrations, and it isn't an example of climatologists not doing "real science."

Now luckily, I knew exactly the story you were referring to and could expand on it. But what happens when someone talks off the top of their head and it never gets corrected? A game of telephone, where dozens or even hundreds of people hear a false version of the story with editorialized facts and accept the conclusion they were given.

[wufan]

This may sound elitist as all get-out, but you are blatantly spreading misinformation and distrust. For instance, the moral your much-simiplified story is something along the lines of your broader point "Climatologists aren't real scientists, they either don't know what they are doing or are blatantly cooking the books." This tactic of selling a simplified, editorialized story is the lifeblood of Rush Limbuagh, but it is almost always just a strawman argument set up in the form of a story.

The actual story of the buoys is one I'm familiar with, and it is far more interesting than "oh, the temperature doesn't match our models, lets cheat to make them match." It involves office politics, a change in measurement, and some real politics as well. The primary people involved were one Dr. Bates, a retired and disgruntled researcher at NOAA, and the leader of the NOAA climate research Dr. Karl. Dr. Bates had a dispute with Dr. Karl and other researchers over how new data sets would be incorporated into existing models, and after he retired he made postings on a blog that got picked up by a variety of conservative news sources happy to hear talk of "global cooling." But Dr. Karl himself makes it clear that his gripes were not evidence against global warming.



In short, his concern was the data set used in Dr. Karl's paper used in a data set that had not gone through all the quality checks that had previously been set up and that the information was stored on the public NOAA drive rather than the NCEI's private drive for data that had passed its quality checks. The real story wasn't at all about buoys not matching climate models, but rather about the tension between research scientists trying to publish new advancements versus engineers trying to ensure everything following standard protocols. Some believe Dr. Bates was also acting out of a personal grudge; he was administratively admonished and relieved of a supervisory position at NCEI while Dr. Karl led the center.

Several people abused Dr. Bates' testimony to make a political point, particularly David Rose of the Daily Mail. Needless to say, conservatives were ecstatic at the opportunity to attack liberal scientists and to say the world wasn't actually warming (even though every other, more accurate dataset said it was). But the methodology and results of Dr. Karl's were have since been independently verified. The old data combined two datasets: an old method where water taken aboard ships and measured, and a new method were water measured at buoys. Even before Dr. Karl's work, this was a known problem causing obvious inaccuracies as ship intake water was warmed as it went through the engine room. Shifting to buoys naturally led to colder measurements, something that was well documented. Karl's work corrected the difference between the two datasets and weighted more on the buoy datasets (as the newer method was more accurate).

Even though Dr. Karl can be reasonably criticized for his data documentation standards, his findings were independently verified and better matched not just climate models but also land and satellite measurements. And his methods were unquestionably better science than those used previously. It wasn't about poor buoy placement or recalibrations, and it isn't an example of climatologists not doing "real science."

Now luckily, I knew exactly the story you were referring to and could expand on it. But what happens when someone talks off the top of their head and it never gets corrected? A game of telephone, where dozens or even hundreds of people hear a false version of the story with editorialized facts and accept the conclusion they were given.

I wasn't trying to spread misinformation. I didn't get my news from Rush. I read the articles published by those that used the new data set. I'm perfectly happy that you "shed additional light" on the story. Let people decide for themselves. I stand by my statement that making predictive models can be useful, but it shouldn't be confused with scientific method.

[pinstripers]

http://bb4sp.com/paris-wealth-redistribution-us-paid-1b/

[SB Shock]

Totally agree with your take on good stewardship and incentivizing! There is strong evidence that the climate has increased in temperature between 0.5 and 1 C over the past 150 years.

Global temperature have been increasing for the last 400 years since the last ice age.

There is also strong evidence that carbon emissions have increased due to human impact since the industrial revolution at roughly the same time. Thats pretty much it when it comes to warming.

So how do you explain the warming in 1100 B.C.? What about 200-400 A.D.?

What caused the cooling in 250 B.C., 600-800 A.D.? 1600 A.D.?

Most scientists and nearly all climatologists believe that these two things are related despite the fact that historically CO2 has been a several hundred year lagging indicator caused by tree decay once it's too cold to sustain growth.

What bad things happen when global temperature increases? Regional droughts. Probably several other regional inconveniences. What bad things happen when countries go into recessions?

Frequency of droughts have been going down for the last 100 years in the U.S.

Taken from the peer review of the Climate Science Report fro The National Academic Press.

While some specific regions have experienced recent droughts of record intensity, analysis of global and
continental-scale trends indicates that drought severity and other statistics have actually declined
(e.g., Sheffield et al., 2012; Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006; and Mo and Lettenmaier, 2015).
Recent research finds that over about the previous 100 years, slight increases in precipitation
(which are noted in Chapter 7) have overcome increased evapotranspiration (ET), resulting in
generally increased soil moisture (Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006). Also, low flows (another
indicator of drought) have become less common across much of the country, as documented in references such as Lins and Slack (1999 and 2005), as well as other U.S. Geological Survey
publications which could be cited and discussed.

I did a quick look at precipitation trends for Wichita and Dodge City (data is available back to 1895). I plot the yearly, 10, 25 and 50 year average. The trend is for increasing precipitation and less severe periods of low precip.

[wufan]

Global temperature have been increasing for the last 400 years since the last ice age.



So how do you explain the warming in 1100 B.C.? What about 200-400 A.D.?

What caused the cooling in 250 B.C., 600-800 A.D.? 1600 A.D.?





Frequency of droughts have been going down for the last 100 years in the U.S.

Taken from the peer review of the Climate Science Report fro The National Academic Press.



I did a quick look at precipitation trends for Wichita and Dodge City (data is available back to 1895). I plot the yearly, 10, 25 and 50 year average. The trend is for increasing precipitation and less severe periods of low precip.

I totally agree with this.

[CBB_Fan]

I wasn't trying to spread misinformation. I didn't get my news from Rush. I read the articles published by those that used the new data set. I'm perfectly happy that you "shed additional light" on the story. Let people decide for themselves. I stand by my statement that making predictive models can be useful, but it shouldn't be confused with scientific method.

Alright, I apologize for being brusque. I've seen that same story used before in a very negative, misrepresentative context so I reacted quite negatively.

Global temperature have been increasing for the last 400 years since the last ice age.
So how do you explain the warming in 1100 B.C.? What about 200-400 A.D.?
What caused the cooling in 250 B.C., 600-800 A.D.? 1600 A.D.?
Frequency of droughts have been going down for the last 100 years in the U.S.

1. Climate changes. If it changes slowly, life adapts. It is changing extremely right now, comparably on track with the other large-scale extinction events related to warming events. These events have been linked fairly conclusion to the expulsion of large amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from large igneous provinces. The rate of change is much faster (not intended to be particularly scientific) than 3100 years ago, much faster than 200-400 years ago, much faster than the cooling 2250 or 1400 years ago.
2. Global warming is global warming. Localized climates are localized. It is entirely possible for climate change to bring less droughts in the USA and more in other places, or it could produce fewer droughts here but increase the severity of those that do appear. Global aridity has decreased, mostly over Africa, southern Europe, East and South Asia, and eastern Australia. But again, not every area will have higher aridity.

To expand on number 1, the fastest temperature increase we've seen happened at the end of the Permian era. That end of era event is known as "The Great Dying" and is the closest we've come to a total extinction of complex life on the planet. We've narrowed that event down to a time period of 2,000 - 18,000 years, which brings the total rate of increase in CO2 and CH4 to within the levels we are producing today. The cause of that extinction event was an overloading of the ocean's ability to store carbon as carbonate, forcing the carbon into the atmosphere and ocean. This in turn accelerated the warming and turns the ocean acidic. At a lower rate of injection the CO2 can be absorbed as carbonate in vast quantities, so the real question is not the volume of CO2 produces but the rate over a short period of time.

Oceans have become 25% more acidic over the past 200 years, with that increase accelerating. Based on what know from the increase, we believe it will become acidic far more quickly than that over the next few years. Worse, part of the reason why the Permian event released so much CO2 and CH4 over such a long time is that the initial temperature spike melted the methane at the bottom of the ocean floor and caused a positive loop. Estimates are that roughly 8% of the ocean's methane is vulnerable to a melting event which would cause 50 billion tons to be released, causing a 0.6°C spike in as short as a decade.

Basically, the point of 1 is that we aren't worried just because it is warming. We are worried because we are warming WAY faster than in the past, on track with multiple extinction events. Those events self-perpetuated by forcing positive loops, and we already can see some of the same effects in the ocean that can be observed in the mineral records tracking such events (ocean acidification). Our past warming events were at much lower rates, which allowed the ocean's carbonate process to contain the short-term spike in CO2.