Climate change revisited

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 26th, 2019, 5:46 am

I wonder if we will ever have a scientist as a president. We have a real estate mogul/reality tv star, so stranger things have happened.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 26th, 2019, 9:53 am

The two links below pertain to current 2019 comments made by climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry. Compare Dr. Curry’s comments with those made by climate scientist Dr. Katharine Hayhoe as contained in the link posted by Bryan Hamilton.

It is viewing the divergence in positions by such climate scientists that has me remaining ‘on the fence’ with respect to the issue of climate change.

Richard F. Hoyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Climate Assessment: A crisis of epistemic overconfidence ... (Judith Curry, Jan. 2019)
[PDF] testimony - The House Committee on Natural Resources (Judith Curry, Feb. 2019)

(copy and past to Google to access links.)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 26th, 2019, 10:03 am

Below are abstracts of two current research papers contained in the journal ‘Nature Climate Change’. Note that one author claims Antarctic sea ice is declining while the other author mentions Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Such conflicting positions in published research leaves me with not knowing which position is likely to be flawed and which position is likely to be closer to reality.

This is yet another example as to why have not adopted a firm position on the issue of climate change.

Richard F. Hoyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article | Published: 03 December 2018 Natural variability of Southern Ocean convection as a driver of observed climate trends
Liping Zhang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1122-89271 ,2 , Thomas L. Delworth1 ,2 , William Cooke2 ,3 & […] Xiaosong Yang2 ,3 9, pages59–65 (2019) | Download Citation
Abstract
Observed Southern Ocean surface cooling and sea-ice expansion over the past several decades are inconsistent with many historical simulations from climate models. Here we show that natural multidecadal variability involving Southern Ocean convection may have contributed strongly to the observed temperature and sea-ice trends. These observed trends are consistent with a particular phase of natural variability of the Southern Ocean as derived from climate model simulations. Ensembles of simulations are conducted starting from differing phases of this variability. The observed spatial pattern of trends is reproduced in simulations that start from an active phase of Southern Ocean convection. Simulations starting from a neutral phase do not reproduce the observed changes, similarly to the multimodel mean results of CMIP5 models. The long timescales associated with this natural variability show potential for skilful decadal prediction.

======================================================================================
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets under 1.5 °C global warming
Frank Pattyn ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4805-56361 Nature Climate Changevolume 8, pages1053–1061 (2018) | Download Citation
Abstract
Even if anthropogenic warming were constrained to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will continue to lose mass this century, with rates similar to those observed over the past decade. However, nonlinear responses cannot be excluded, which may lead to larger rates of mass loss. Furthermore, large uncertainties in future projections still remain, pertaining to knowledge gaps in atmospheric (Greenland) and oceanic (Antarctica) forcing. On millennial timescales, both ice sheets have tipping points at or slightly above the 1.5–2.0 °C threshold; for Greenland, this may lead to irreversible mass loss due to the surface mass balance–elevation feedback, whereas for Antarctica, this could result in a collapse of major drainage basins due to ice-shelf weakening.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 26th, 2019, 12:19 pm

The thing that kind of bugs is stating repeatedly that you are 'On the fence" when clearly you are not.

As usual we have received the inside gears, hard-matter info, in this and tangential stuff from Jimi while you seem to be scouring google for every speck of contrarian material - or items of contention which is fine but its better to be honest about the obvious. Dont underestimate your audience.


My input is limited as I am aware of my own bias that humans pretty much f* up everything we 'like' on this magnificent, beautiful planet.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 26th, 2019, 1:08 pm

I think you have the right to say publicly that you dont believe the dominant consensus.

I have a different opinion about some things too that are widely accepted, things not as important as climate change though.

Im adding this because I know what its like to have a compelling mental pull in the opposite direction of the major view.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 26th, 2019, 1:53 pm

Below are abstracts of two current research papers contained in the journal ‘Nature Climate Change’. Note that one author claims Antarctic sea ice is declining while the other author mentions Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Such conflicting positions in published research leaves me with not knowing which position is likely to be flawed and which position is likely to be closer to reality.
Richard, look again. One discusses sea ice (East or West Antarctic? they differ...) and the other discusses ice sheets, which are terrestrial. What changes scientifically is the degree to which we understand local dynamics and mechanisms, and how much or little they contribute to 'the whole shebang". Speaking of which - also recall, it's global warming (the planet is heating up) or global climate change (few local climates will remain unchanged); however specific, local experiences will vary, with some areas getting more (e.g. much of Antarctica, as well as the NE & midwest USA) or less (e.g. SW USA, much of N Africa, most of Australia) precipitation. Most places are warming, but some regions - e.g., the poles - are heating much more than others. A pole is a pole, they're going to be cold in winter, but how warm they get in summer is changing drastically.

Also with the Zhang paper, note the upshot of the abstract - by starting at the right place or phase i.e., the active, not neutral phase - in the natural, background SOC cycle, the model predictions fit observed recent climate ("data") pretty well. Let me use their words:
These observed trends are consistent with a particular phase of natural variability of the Southern Ocean as derived from climate model simulations.
My interpretation of what they are saying is, the reason the observations weren't correctly predicted by the older model runs, is that the earlier modelers were "off" when it came to understanding what phase of the SOC we were in at the time. Zhang et al think they're figured it out. The fact that their paper was accepted for publication in a top-shelf journal suggests others agree with them.


It is viewing the divergence in positions by such climate scientists that has me remaining ‘on the fence’ with respect to the issue of climate change.
For every Curry there are about 49 (literally, about 49) other exceptionally-qualified people who disagree. All 50 have their reasons for believing what they believe; I don't think ANY of them are liars, or completely right, or completely wrong. It just amazes me that you're not swayed by the other 49, you'd rather go with the one. I mean, what are the consequences to life on Earth if the 49 are wrong and we take action as if they were right, versus the consequences if the one is wrong and we take action as if they were right? Or, the consequences if we took no action, because we can't agree that waiting to take action until we have 100% confidence is a very, very, very bad idea? I'm good with the 49, I say let's get a move on.


Jimi: I am not like that guy, or any other guy. I am me.
All people have opinions. I think more can be gained by listening rather that ridiculing.

By the way I have two research Biologists as my sons. One Ph.D, the other soon to be Ph.d.
I listen to them and others ...

I go back to my original thought. This thread encourages discussion.
If we can avoid the personal attacks, we might learn something (or at least enjoy the mental exercise).
Craig, I did not mean to ridicule or attack you, and I apologize for the hurt if that is how it seemed to you.

What are your boys' opinions on publicity, justification, "honesty" etc as you laid out yours? Would they disagree greatly with what I laid out in my response? Did you have your opinions before they embarked on their educations, or as a result of their experiences as they related them to you?

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 26th, 2019, 3:01 pm

Myth #2: The main requirement for faculty scientists to be successful is working hard at research!

Completely outdated and utterly wrong! In the past, academic institutions were centers for hard work with scholarship, scientific research, and advanced teaching. Today, everything in modern academia depends on dollars. Academic institutions have become business entities where profits are the chief goal; that transformation changes almost everything in the working atmosphere. Faculty scientists now are businessmen and businesswomen. The real purpose of hiring them is not to get more research done, but to acquire more research grant awards, since those dollars are business profits; this means that instead of working hard at research to advance knowledge and its applications, they are working to acquire more and bigger research grants. For science faculty, the number of publications produced in science journals now has limited importance, while the number of dollars in research grant awards is first and foremost. The truth of my statements is perversely emphasized by the increasing number of faculty scientists who cheat at their research in order to try to get more research grant dollars Dr Monsrs

Dr.Monsrs is a basic scientist with several doctoral degrees, including a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. He loves doing laboratory research and has performed hands-on experimental studies in biomedical science during over 35 years as a member of the faculty at 3 academic institutions and one government laboratory center in the USA.
It's a shame too few scientists have the courage and integrity to speak out about what really goes on in their chosen profession, and what measures need to be taken to at least try and curve the steady decline in credibility.

Ernie Eison

craigb
Posts: 625
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by craigb » April 26th, 2019, 7:36 pm

Jimi: Thank you nuff' said.
Unfortunately my sons are busy trying to put food on the table, getting married and just trying to get someplace they want to be.
I do spend a week or so each year with each of them in the field when our schedules work out. They are 31 year old twins.
I learn about their current opinions of research while hiking and road cruising in AZ. One is in Oklahoma and the other Thailand.
They are not definite about global warming, but do see research on climate change. They do not jump on band wagons.
Scientific method and all. There is still much research to be done to form conclusions.

We are told to think "globally" yet are given specific research repeated in a few specific areas of the globe.
Too many questions unanswered as yet (in my opinion, not theirs).

Let's keep plowing through :mrgreen:

craigb
Posts: 625
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by craigb » April 27th, 2019, 9:32 am

I found this today... the topic broken down by one person.
A brief 5 minute testimony...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 27th, 2019, 6:56 pm

Craig,
Welcome on board and I see you are a teacher. Before retiring in 1991, my last profession was as a secondary school science teacher.

I have never been the best at written communications. So when some individuals have expressed their opinion that they know which side of the climate debate I have taken, I am unsure if the problem is my lack of communication skills, individuals haven’t really reviewed what I have written, have misinterpreted what I have written, or they are prone to reaching a flawed position based on subjective feelings or whatever.

In past posts, I have indicated that the large majority of links support the position that humans are the primary cause of global warming / climate change. So I have tried to find, and identify links dealing with information and research that presents the other side. I have been pretty much overwhelmed by the volume of information.

Jimi was correct in that in reviewing the different links I had sent myself, I mixed apples with oranges. That is, sea ice and land ice in Antarctica are two different issues.

With respect to the issue of ice in Antarctica, here are some (not all) of the entries I searched in Google. ‘Antarctic sea ice’, ‘Publications on Antarctic sea ice’, ‘Is Antarctic sea ice decreasing or increasing?’ ‘Antarctic continent ice shield’, ‘Publication on Antarctic continent ice shield’, ‘Is the Antarctic continent ice shield decreasing or increasing?’

A good number of links that show up are repeats yet each entry produces different links as well. And as has been the case with my other searches involving various aspects of climate change, there exists conflicting information.

One of the problems is that many links or blogs are written second hand by journalists and others and not by the scientists that published their findings. Thus you often get slanted accounts that reflect the bias or position of the writer. I have found a few, very few accounts that were written in an impartial and objective manner.

I have never been impressed by, nor swayed by the opinions of a majority as too frequently such positions have been in error. In a prior thread that was removed by the administrator, I believe I referred to a few instances in which the consensus of scientific opinion was in error. I also mentioned that just about all herpetologists in the past, both professional and amateur, have considered the species I study, the Rubber Boa, to be rare. And all of them have been totally wrong.

So with respect to the issue of’ consensus’, scientific inquiry should never boil down to a ‘popularity contest’, Instead, it should only deal with the application of basic principles, examination of valid evidence, and results of scientific inquiry in published format.

As for the link you posted of a woman testifying, my hearing is so poor (aircraft engine noise when a pilot in the USAF), that I really couldn’t make out most of what was said. I heard Georgia Tech mentioned so am I correct the video was that of Dr. Judith Curry? At any rate, as mentioned
previously, I will wait to see what transpires with the accumulation of more evidence and the results of additional research.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 27th, 2019, 9:14 pm

TBH, I'm more interested in the psychological ecology on this loamy rich and fecund thread, than Climate Change - The Subject.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 28th, 2019, 5:15 am

When people become zombified in repetition, and blithe in self awareness something else in going on and I think its time to head out to healthier places.

Have fun

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 28th, 2019, 4:51 pm

[quote
For every Curry there are about 49 (literally, about 49) other exceptionally-qualified people who disagree. All 50 have their reasons for believing what they believe; I don't think ANY of them are liars, or completely right, or completely wrong. It just amazes me that you're not swayed by the other 49, you'd rather go with the one. I mean, what are the consequences to life on Earth if the 49 are wrong and we take action as if they were right, versus the consequences if the one is wrong and we take action as if they were right? Or, the consequences if we took no action, because we can't agree that waiting to take action until we have 100% confidence is a very, very, very bad idea? I'm good with the 49, I say let's get a move on.




^^The above view rings out as the most responsible position, not as a valiant to align with a political agenda that meshes with other personal desires and goals. (please pardon the mishap of quote frame)


Ah the unselfish thing.. sounds like work and behavior modification. what a drag huh.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 29th, 2019, 9:42 am

Craig B. provided a video of Dr. Judith Curry’s testimony before a Congressional committee. I played the video twice more and despite my extremely poor hearing, I was able to make out a fair amount of her testimony. At one point, she mentions an article published about her in Scientific American labeling her as a ‘climate heretic’.

I then entered the following in Google: “Scientific American climate heretic”.

A number of link then appear. I urge everyone to read the narrative by Dr. Curry in the following link dated Dec. 5, 2016.
'Climate Heretic: to be or not to be? | Climate Etc.'

Within her narrative, Dr. Curry quotes two scientists. The information in those two accounts should prove informative.

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 29th, 2019, 12:29 pm

Climate etc, read specious, with broad inflammatory strokes that referred to "It" (the scientific "establishment" shying away from names or specifics, unconfidently.

It wasn't convincing enough because of that. Sample reader here. I dont see much other commentary so perhaps you should heed what ya got as far as impressions go.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 29th, 2019, 12:39 pm

It did make me wonder if "Carbon Tax" is an influential feature in some peoples viewpoint selections.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » July 13th, 2019, 9:20 am

In a search, I entered, ‘Finnish study on climate change’. I have copied one of the links below. It can be noted that two independent studies, one in Finland and the other in Japan, seem to have come up with the same results and conclusions.

According to the reporter in this link, these studies are at complete odds with the UN IPCC position that humans have caused the current global warming.

It now remains to be seen if further research will tend to support these two studies or they too may not be the final word on the issue of climate change.

"Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't"

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » July 13th, 2019, 4:22 pm

The link copied below produced the paper by the Finnish scientists. (see abstract) I have not been able to find a link to the Japanese paper that as I understand, it produced similar results. These results support the positions (and some published research) taken by a fair number of scientists that have been skeptical and critical of the UN’s IPCC position that humans have been the major cause of global warming / climate change.

Either the latest results by the climate scientist from Finland and Japan are real and verifiable or perhaps others will find flaws. I have the sense that these latest results could possibly be the beginning of the end for the UN's IPCC models.

Richard F. Hoyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Paper–NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT

J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » July 15th, 2019, 9:55 am

Sorry Richard, your attempt to provide a link didn't work. See the toolbar icon that looks (to me...) like a pair of dice. Between the "picture" and the "drop of liquid" icons. You want to insert a URL.

Here's a link:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview ... BljE9VZo-c

Its title:
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
Its summary (emphasis mine - wow, really, the ocean puked up all that CO2? Talk about blaming the victim. Wow, a new low.):
DETAILS
Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.
KEY TAKE AWAY
Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature.
So - no data, no methods, and no mechanism.
These results support the positions
No, they in fact do not.

As for the Japanese paper, here's a link:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » July 15th, 2019, 10:35 am

The problem with making searches through Google, Norton Safe Search, etc., is that the information is second hand. That is, it has been ‘filtered’ through, and includes interpretations of the writer.

In trying to find a reference to the claim that a recent Japanese study produced similar result to the Finnish study, I was not successful. But I did find a site (“Skeptical Science”) that provides a different perspective. (Copied below). This is the reason I have urged everyone to examine all sides of issues before adopting a firm position one way or the other.

At the bottom it mentions “Read more...” I suggest that should be done. But here again, you need to keep in mind that the author, Scott Johnson, only has presented one side.

Richard F. Hoyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From “Skeptical Science”
Debunk of the Week...
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
CLAIM: "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice... During the last hundred years the temperature is increased [sic] about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."

Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new study. In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility.

If the blogs that covered this as a new study had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility.

As the scientists who examined this claim explained, the document relies on circular reasoning to claim that cloud cover and relative humidity have caused the change in global temperature, and ignores many additional factors affecting global temperature—including aerosol pollution, volcanic eruptions, and natural ocean oscillations. The published, peer-reviewed scientific research on this topic clearly shows that human activities are responsible for climate change.

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming, Claims Review Edited by Scott Johnson, Climate Feedback, July 12, 2019


Read more...

AEthelred
Posts: 15
Joined: July 16th, 2019, 9:56 am
Location: North Adams,Massachusetts

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by AEthelred » July 18th, 2019, 7:34 am

It has not been getting warmer where I live.The last two years have been colder if anything.last fall we had snow on October and we had snow in May this spring.not usual for Massachusetts

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » July 19th, 2019, 8:19 am

It has not been getting warmer where I live.
Sorry bud. Data say otherwise, for Boston this spring (I didn't look at more periods - have a look for yourself and come back & try to convince me the pattern falls apart? Or, change your beliefs based on the acquisition of additional knowledge?).

Mean max and min temps, daily, are 1.4F above 30-yr average:
https://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=box

...THE BOSTON MA CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE SEASON...
...FROM 3/1/2019 TO 5/31/2019...

CLIMATE NORMAL PERIOD 1981 TO 2010
CLIMATE RECORD PERIOD 1872 TO 2019

WEATHER OBSERVED NORMAL DEPART LAST YEAR`S
VALUE DATE(S) VALUE FROM VALUE DATE(S)
NORMAL
................................................................
TEMPERATURE (F)
RECORD
HIGH 97 05/26/1880
LOW -8 03/06/1872
HIGHEST 89 05/26
LOWEST 15 03/07
AVG. MAXIMUM 57.1 55.7 1.4
AVG. MINIMUM 41.9 40.5 1.4

MEAN 49.5 48.1 1.4
DAYS MAX >= 90 0 0.4 -0.4
DAYS MAX <= 32 3 1.9 1.1
DAYS MIN <= 32 18 17.4 0.6
DAYS MIN <= 0 0 0.0 0.0



Also - note, it's climate change, not only warming. The big story in the NE is increased frequency of extreme precip events, as well as an increase in seasonal and annual totals. You guys are getting WET.

AEthelred
Posts: 15
Joined: July 16th, 2019, 9:56 am
Location: North Adams,Massachusetts

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by AEthelred » July 19th, 2019, 10:12 pm

I live in the far Western part of the state,not near Boston.its been cold here

User avatar
BillMcGighan
Posts: 2309
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:23 am
Location: Unicoi, TN

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by BillMcGighan » July 21st, 2019, 12:59 pm

I have an opinion like everyone, but it's just that, opinion. I just can't beleive that such a potentially serious issue has become political.

I understand the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in certain political and even ideological movements, but how did we get here, where people confuse weather with climate, believe what they want to believe, and "closed mindedness" permeates on all sides of the issue.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » July 22nd, 2019, 3:33 pm

Anything that challenges status quo allocations of costs and benefits, wins and losses is going to get "political". Even in an autocratic system, you're going to have cronies and sycophants jockeying for favor. In a republic, all that human drama is literally institutionalized. It's neither good nor bad, it just is. The game is the same old timeless game, the only question being, what shall the rules be?

I think that's what is different now - the rules in this republic have changed. Money is equated with speech, corporations have personhood, and apparently if you say it loudly and often enough, two plus two equals a hundred and forty seven. Or anything you like. Perhaps even "four".

So the problem iIMO sn't that "what to do about climate change" is political, it's that people feel free to have different sets of facts. Different preferences, different priorities, different preferences - that's all fine and well and normal. But different facts? That way madness lies...

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » September 7th, 2019, 8:24 am

I recently found that my son Ryan in Utah has investigated the issue global warming / climate change. Ryan is highly skeptical of the UN IPCC’s position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In one of his messages, he included the following link pertaining to Chinese climate research. https://electroverse.net/chinese-scient ... l-cooling/

Information in that link along with information in my recent web search indicates the UN’s AGW scenario is likely to end up in shambles. I suggest reviewing the information on the affects of the sun (sun spots) in relation to the earth’s climate.

Also, some names to review on the web are climatologists Vijay Jayaraj, Dr. Patrick Moore, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Heinz Lycklama.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » September 7th, 2019, 9:24 am

Here is a must read link. UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvalils, Oregon)

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » September 9th, 2019, 10:41 am

People tend to repeat themselves when they feel they aren't being heard. I said this in April, I'll say it again:
Post by Jimi » April 11th, 2019, 3:23 pm
Richard, I sense that you have some heartburn with the UN and the IPCC. How about a domestic assessment, done here, by us, for us.

Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, B. DeAngelo, S. Doherty, K. Hayhoe, R. Horton, J.P. Kossin, P.C. Taylor, A.M. Waple, and C.P. Weaver, 2017: Executive summary. In: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 12-34, doi: 10.7930/J0DJ5CTG.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ch ... e-summary/

Here's the source:

Climate Science Special Report
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

So that GCRA thing - that's a US law, passed by Congress, signed by the President. It created a national research program, with scientists, and they do stuff. Ask real questions, find real answers, that kind of stuff.

This kind of stuff:

The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 93%–123% of the observed 1951-2010 change. It is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate (high confidence). The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence).


Don't fall prey to sophistry.


As for this:
the UN’s AGW scenario is likely to end up in shambles
In all honesty, nothing would give me - and literally billions of other people - more relief. Do I believe you're right? Absolutely not. Do I hope and wish you were? Hell yes. But so what? Hopes and wishes don't mean squat in the real world.
I suggest reviewing the information on the affects of the sun (sun spots) in relation to the earth’s climate.
Richard, tell me truly now - did you ever go look at the link I sent, to the "objections debunking" site? The sun spots objection is covered, along with many others. I'm sorry, but sun spots have no important role in observed & forecasted climate change. The point I'm trying to make here is,

NOBODY HAS YET BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO EXPLAIN OBSERVED WARMING, THAT IS EVEN REMOTELY CREDIBLY-COMPETITIVE WITH THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS OF ANTHROPOGENIC FORCING.

Nobody. Period. I'm not even talking about modeled futures. How do you get credibility in modeling futures? But first having your models correctly "predict" the past.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » September 13th, 2019, 4:50 pm

With respect to the issue of global warming / climate change, I have been exchanging messages with my son Ryan in Utah. For those on the form still open to the prospect of possibly learning something, I have copied my recent message to Ryan which provides a small number of links I recently accessed in my web searches.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon
============================================================================================

Ryan,
Yesterday, I did more searching on the web. Below I have copied some of the links I read that are of interest. When you find time, I suggest you start with reading the blog (essay) by David Siegel which is a type of ‘Review’ article.

There are reputable scientists on both sides of the issue. I am now leaning toward the skeptical side but still of the opinion that future ‘evidence’ will likely settle the controversy. That evidence can be of two forms. 1) More up to date, conclusive research on either side of the issue, and 2) seeing just what occurs with the earth’s climate (temperature) in future years.

Love, Dad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not ...
(Read firstp; type of ‘review’ essay; 2015 but some spots updated as of 2017 and 2018)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How a liberal vegan environmentalist made the switch from ... (2015, pertains to above author)

You Don't Need To Be A Scientist To Know That The Global ... (July 15, 2019)

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made ... (As of 2013)

UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea (Feb., 2019; another IPCC scientists resigns)

Former IPCC Scientist Refutes New Climate Change Report (Oct. 2018)
Published on Oct 29, 2018 Former expert reviewer for IPCC, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, denounces man-made climate change scare narrative, says "warming due to human activity is minimal at best."

Michael Mann "Hockey Stick" Definitively Established To Be Fraud (Recent)

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case | Power

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » September 13th, 2019, 6:32 pm

To potentially get forum members interested in reading the the essay by David Siegel, below I have copied his introductory remarks which I hope should be of interest.

Richard F. Hoyer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS ESSAY, written in 2015 (with a few updated links), has had over 220,000 views. Please link to ClimateCurious.com. Welcome new readers from my Interview with Barack Obama. Enjoy!

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » September 16th, 2019, 12:40 pm

Researchers have identified telltale techniques of climate science denial, as illustrated in a graphic from the climate website, Skeptical Science, below.
Source: SkepticalScience.com

These were discussed in an article at CBC by John Cook, who does research on the topic of climate science denial at the University of Queensland, and created the website SkepticalScience.com. The most common techniques are:

Fake experts. One technique commonly used is that of calling on fake experts. David Siegel’s article is replete with links to articles on websites dedicated to rejecting climate science, and which contain wrong information mostly written by people with no expertise in climate science.
Logical fallacies. Articles which dispute climate science are often full of logical fallacies, and David Siegel’s article is no exception.
Impossible expectations. When people are arguing against mainstream climate science, in addition to building straw men (a type of logical fallacy), they will often set unrealistic expectations and argue that they haven’t been met.
Cherry-picking. This is a technique that is also commonly used by people who argue that climate experts are wrong. David Siegel wrongly claims that scientists have cherry picked data. In fact, it is he who has done so.
Conspiracy theories. As a fallback position, people who reject climate science will claim that scientists around the world are engaged in some sort of giant global hoax. This may include allegations, such as the ones made by David Siegel, that scientists have fudged data, to make it appear that the world is getting hotter. Such a conspiracy would mean that all scientists were “in” on it. Not only scientists, but staff of scientific journals, governments of all types around the world, and mainstream media. Science from all relevant disciplines from research teams all around the world, over many decades, all point to the fact that global warming is real and happening now, and that our actions are causing it.

Before addressing the other points in David Siegel’s article, let’s consider what climate change means.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » September 17th, 2019, 10:19 am

Try this, it might be interesting:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/unfr ... ket-newtab

Some excerpts:
“A thermometer is not Democrat or Republican, and when we look around this world, it’s not about trusting what our thirty-year-old satellites say. It’s about looking at 26,500 indicators of a warming planet, many of them we can see in our own backyards,” she said. The climate was not changing because of orbital cycles, which bring about ice ages, Hayhoe maintained. “The Earth’s temperature peaked eight thousand years ago and was in a long, slow slide into the next ice age until the Industrial Revolution,” she said. Instead of being in this cooling period, the planet had seen its average temperature steadily rise. The sun was also not the culprit: “If the climate were changing because of the sun, we’d be getting cooler, because energy from the sun has been going down over the last forty years,” she said.
...
Over the past fifteen years, climate change has emerged as one of the most polarizing issues in the country, ahead of guns, the death penalty, and abortion. And there is no group that is more unconvinced of climate change’s reality than evangelical Christians, who primarily identify as conservative Republicans. As Brian Webb, the founder of the faith-based Climate Caretakers, recently told Religion News Service: “The United States is the only industrialized country in the world where denial of climate change has become inextricably linked to a dominant political party.”

All of which puts Hayhoe in a unique position. A co-author of the last two National Climate Assessments and a reviewer on the Nobel Prize–winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hayhoe—the daughter of missionaries and the wife of a pastor—is herself an evangelical Christian. In her talks, she uses the Bible to explain to Christians why they should care about climate change and how it affects other people, from a poor family on the island nation of Kiribati who will be displaced by rising sea levels to an elderly couple in Beaumont who can’t afford to pay for air-conditioning in Texas’s increasingly sweltering summers. As she puts it, “The poor, the disenfranchised, those already living on the edge, and those who contributed least to this problem are also those at greatest risk to be harmed by it. That’s not a scientific issue; that’s a moral issue.”
“Many people view having climate science at Texas Tech as similar to having a Department of Astrology. But we don’t use crystal balls, we use supercomputers; we rely on physics, not brain waves.”

The study of climate science dates to 1824, when French physicist Joseph Fourier discovered what would become known as the greenhouse effect, in which gases trapped in the atmosphere absorb heat and raise the temperature of the planet. It took 35 more years for John Tyndall, an Irish chemist, to pinpoint carbon dioxide as one of the heat-trapping gases in the earth’s atmosphere. And in 1896, a Swedish chemist named Svante Arrhenius declared that burning coal contributed to the greenhouse effect, after spending almost 2 years calculating (by hand!) how increasing carbon dioxide concentrations raised the earth’s temperature. So the basic science, as Hayhoe often points out, has been settled since before the start of the twentieth century. Today, there is robust scientific consensus that global warming is “real, caused by humans, and dangerous”
Ultimately, she does not care whether people agree with the science, so long as they take action. She compares this to a battle waged in the mid-1800’s, before the germ theory of disease gained widespread acceptance, when a Hungarian physician urged other doctors to wash their hands and instruments before delivering babies. As doctors changed their habits, fewer and fewer women died from “childbed fever.” “I don’t care if they thought germs are imaginary, so long as they washed their hands,” she said. The same is true for climate change, in Hayhoe’s mind. If people start using more-efficient light bulbs or driving more-fuel-friendly cars, it doesn’t matter what they think about the science.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » October 28th, 2019, 3:24 pm

For those on this forum who still have an open mind, here are some links you can enter in a web search that should be informative with respect the issue of climate change.

And after reading them, you have the choice of believing the United Nation IPCC organization’s narratives (mimicked by the main stream media), or the alternative information contained in these links. A third option is to wait for more research, see what happens to the earth’s temperature in subsequent years, etc.

Climatologist Exposes Climate Model Miscalculations (Jan. 4, 2019)
Dr. Duane Thresher - Real Climatologists
https://www.therightclimatestuff.com/
NASA's Magnificent Record Tainted by its Climate Activists (by Dr. John Happs)

In the last link, you will note Dr. Happs contains comments by a Tony Heller. So I wished to know just who is Tony Heller and came up with the following link: Who Is Tony Heller? | Real Climate Science

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » October 28th, 2019, 9:59 pm

If you have an open mind, doesn't that mean you respond to the other persons items of examination?

all I read is a kind of relentless repetition prefacing the latest stuff you have googled holding up the "fence" you say you are on, and have ignored dozens of good points directed right to you.

it is more of a brick tower than a fence you sprinkle links and names from.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » October 29th, 2019, 2:37 pm

In the last link, you will note Dr. Happs contains comments by a Tony Heller. So I wished to know just who is Tony Heller...
I took a look too, and found this compendium of his "emissions":

https://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

Just go the references, and dig in. It's better with popcorn, trust me.

Changing gears -
A third option is to wait for more research, see what happens to the earth’s temperature in subsequent years, etc.
Well Richard, actually that's exactly what humanity has done for the last 2 decades: instead of taking action in the late 90s, when it was pretty well-agreed that there was a problem, we stupidly allowed the alternative-facts guys to actively, deliberately obfuscate matters, and as a self-governing society, we punted. (Actually, in football terms I'd say we fumbled at our own 2-yard line.)

Can you go find some observed-temperature data for the last 20 years? How would you describe what we saw happening? Let me save you some time searching.

Why don't you read this, titled "The Modern Temperature Trend", from the American Institute of Physics:

https://history.aip.org/climate/20ctrend.htm

It really covers pretty well the history of the scientific understanding of our situation. (I really hope you don't try to discredit the American Institute of Physics. That would be pitiable.)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » October 31st, 2019, 8:55 pm

For forum participates that are open to leaning, below I suggest a path to such potential learning.

In a web search, enter the following link : https://www.therightclimatestuff.com/
Then at the left side column, click on ‘TRCS Reports’
Then click on item #1 ‘Anthropogenic Climate Warming Science Assessment Report, 2013’

If you do not wish to read the entire report, I suggest reading ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’ on page 19. Or, at the left hand column, click on “Conclusions and Recommendations”.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » November 1st, 2019, 5:08 am

Its game-ish and childish to disrespect the time and discourse of another person so flagrantly.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » November 1st, 2019, 7:45 am

When denial and paranoia mix we get conspiratorial soup in a microwave bowl ala internet.

Interesting to explore, there is a psychology to climate change denial and though my foray has been casual so far - unlike the spokesmen deniers, the experts are not self appointed.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » November 1st, 2019, 5:34 pm

My son Ryan in Utah has been researching the issue of climate change which in turn has spurred me into becoming better informed. It was Ryan that provided me with the link in my previous post. Yesterday, he provided me with the following link: https://www.friendsofscience.org/ Then later he sent me an attachment that consists of a letter the above organization sent to the U.N.

The this morning I entered the above link in my Norton Safe Search and came up with a host of other links. I have copied three of those links and the introduction that came with the third link.

Richard F. Hoyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Myths and Facts of Global Warming - Friends of Science Sea Level Rise - Friends of Science

Climate Change Science Essay - Friends of Science
Introduction

A goal of the Friends of Science Society is to educate the public about climate science and the scientific merits of the hypothesis of human induced global warming. The science of climate change is complex. Unfortunately, politics and the media has affected the science. Climate research institutions know that they must present scary climate forecasts to receive continued funding - no crisis means no funding. The media presents stories of climate disaster to sell their products. Scientific research that suggests climate change is mostly natural does not receive much if any media coverage. These factors have caused the general public to be seriously misled on climate issues resulting in wasteful expenditures of billions of dollars in an ineffective attempt to control climate. This document gives an overview of climate change issues as determined by a comprehensive review of the state of climate science.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » November 1st, 2019, 6:54 pm

The Friends of Science Society are funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Actually I think that makes FSS, BFF with those guys not Science.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » November 1st, 2019, 8:51 pm

Check out this link. Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims ...

Richard F. Hoyer

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » November 4th, 2019, 10:42 am

Sorry Richard, it seems you're still having problems inserting links. Did you not attempt to follow my instructions to you on that topic? (I'm not sure why I ask, since there's no evidence you read anything I share with you. I'd love to see some evidence, e.g. a functioning link posted by you. Better yet, some acknowledgement of my content.)

From the American Physical Society, in a 2007 policy statement (https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm):
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.


Their more recent policy statements are more prescriptive, e.g. (https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_3.cfm):
The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activities. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.
and (https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/17_1.cfm)
The Council of the American Physical Society strongly advocates that the United States: 1) implement policies that promote conservation, efficiency, sustainability, resilience and innovation throughout the global energy system; 2) make sustained and broad-based investments in research and development of long-lasting reduced-carbon and carbon-neutral energy cycles and technologies; and 3) support research into means of reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases and heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere. Such policies and investments are essential to ensure our national security and to provide an adequate range of options that will protect the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as called for in the APS Statement on Earth's Changing Climate.


About APS policy statements:
APS Statements

APS Statements are public policy statements that undergo a meticulous process of draft and review, including receiving comments from APS members, before being voted on by APS Council at one of its semiannual meetings.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » November 20th, 2019, 1:04 pm

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
November 1st, 2019, 5:34 pm
My son Ryan in Utah has been researching the issue of climate change which in turn has spurred me into becoming better informed. It was Ryan that provided me with the link in my previous post. Yesterday, he provided me with the following link: https://www.friendsofscience.org/
How generous of him . Instead of fueling your fires from distance, why doesnt he emerge from his compound and take a seat.

Coward.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » November 26th, 2019, 9:53 am

This is worth considering:

https://www.unenvironment.org/resources ... eport-2019

Here's an excerpt from the Executive Summary:
This is the tenth edition of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report. It provides
the latest assessment of scientific studies on current and
estimated future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
compares these with the emission levels permissible for
the world to progress on a least-cost pathway to achieve
the goals of the Paris Agreement. This difference between
“where we are likely to be and where we need to be” has
become known as the ‘emissions gap’.

Reflecting on the ten-year anniversary, a summary
report, entitled Lessons from a decade of emissions gap
assessments, was published in September for the Secretary-
General’s Climate Action Summit.

The summary findings are bleak. Countries collectively failed
to stop the growth in global GHG emissions, meaning that
deeper and faster cuts are now required. However, behind
the grim headlines, a more differentiated message emerges
from the ten-year summary. A number of encouraging
developments have taken place and the political focus on
the climate crisis is growing in several countries, with voters
and protestors, particularly youth, making it clear that it is
their number one issue. In addition, the technologies for
rapid and cost-effective emission reductions have improved
significantly.

As in previous years, this report explores some of the
most promising and applicable options available for
countries to bridge the gap, with a focus on how to create
transformational change and just transitions. Reflecting on
the report’s overall conclusions, it is evident that incremental
changes will not be enough and there is a need for rapid and
transformational action.


As for this, I think it is in quite bad taste and should be retracted - as I think we should strive to behave better than this:
How generous of him . Instead of fueling your fires from distance, why doesnt he emerge from his compound and take a seat.

Coward.

Dog whistles and name calling? That is way too "Ernie" for us. Wouldn't you agree, on sober reflection?

cheers

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » November 26th, 2019, 12:22 pm

Im pretty sure Ryan knows what is happening on this thread. He obviously spends alot of time online.

As someone who no longer has my father in the world, if I were to more deeply reflect, what I wrote is pretty mitigated in comparison to what could have been said.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » November 26th, 2019, 3:02 pm

▶ The ratchet mechanism of the Paris Agreement
foresees strengthening of NDCs (nationally-determined contributions to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions) every five years. Parties
to the Paris Agreement identified 2020 as a critical next
step in this process, inviting countries to communicate
or update their NDCs by this time. Given the time lag
between policy decisions and associated emission
reductions, waiting until 2025 to strengthen NDCs will
be too late to close the large 2030 emissions gap.


▶ The challenge is clear. The recent IPCC special reports
clearly describe the dire consequences of inaction
and are backed by record temperatures worldwide
along with enhanced extreme events.

▶ Had serious climate action begun in 2010, the cuts
required per year to meet the projected emissions
levels for 2°C and 1.5°C would only have been 0.7 per
cent and 3.3 per cent per year on average. However,
since this did not happen, the required cuts in
emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 for
the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for
the 1.5°C goal. Evidently, greater cuts will be required
the longer that action is delayed.


▶ Further delaying the reductions needed to meet
the goals would imply future emission reductions
and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere at such a
magnitude that it would result in a serious deviation
from current available pathways. This, together
with necessary adaptation actions, risks seriously
damaging the global economy and undermining food
security and biodiversity.
This is the price of horseshit.

User avatar
regalringneck
Posts: 563
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:20 am

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by regalringneck » November 28th, 2019, 12:57 pm

... 3 such distinguished foro contributors; beating this carboniferous equine into ...eerr.. complexcarbon chains ...rouse me from my digital slumber ...
... so 1stly happy t-day (im 1 of those bastard socialists chump sez is trying to kill christian thanksgiving)[and save democracy : } ] Down here on the frontera, i kinda like the feliz su dia de guajalote ... better.
Pity the forum has been so departed by so many ... it hopefully will be cyclic, I want our Scott to be the next barringer... me, i've been too busy learning to fly ... oh-oh ... bucket list time :p
So w/o benefit of wallowing thru reams of posts ... surely the discussion has progressed to where we all agree the earth is warming, ... just how much of that & how much of the rate of change is anthropogenic should be the argument.
As tropical critters & herp afficonados .... if we were rethugliCONs...we'd simply say "i'm good" & rock on ... as progressives ... we worry about the arctic, global currents ... methane melting ... b-cuz we also know ... as does mr bottae ... its all connected ... and so are we.
Jimi a special thnx for the continued injections of sanity, Richard may your hawk be flying, & Kelly may you & your's be sheltered from this wonderful storm iioi has brought us ... i give all thnx to that.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » December 1st, 2019, 10:06 am

rouse me from my digital slumber ...
Yo, what up JG? You guys just got a super soaker, huh? Nice. Especially on the heels of a failed monsoon. That was not helpful.


beating this carboniferous equine into ...eerr.. complexcarbon chains ...
Yeah. But I just can't let horseshit be the last word.

Post Reply