Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree3Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 17th, 2015, 07:26 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,168
Any Way You Look at It, This Government Report on Climate Change Is Really Bad News

How much longer will the deniers keep denying?

Quote:
Any Way You Look at It, This Government Report on Climate Change Is Really Bad News

Humans may decide to curb the greenhouse gasses that are changing Earth's climate, but the ocean will warm and rise for centuries regardless, US government scientists said in a new report released Thursday.

The State of the Climate 2014 report, which brings together the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), synthesized the research of more than 400 scientists from 58 countries. It's "more than your annual physical," NOAA climate monitoring chief Derek Arndt, who co-edited the report, told VICE News. It's "like the complete work-up of the climate system coming back from the lab," he said.

The results, simply put, aren't good.

In many ways, the findings simply reinforced what we already know, but those trends are alarming. Glaciers have continued shrinking, Alaska's permafrost is quickly thawing, and Arctic sea ice remains in decline. The seas are rising at a steady pace and more heat in the ocean, the scientists reported, has contributed to more intense storms.

"It was the warmest year on record for the globe and the oceans; it was the year with the highest sea level we've seen on average around the globe," Arndt told VICE News. "Those are easy to latch on to statistics, but more importantly they reconfirm — and they put an exclamation point on — the trends that we've seen for years and decades. Different pieces of the climate system will surge and fall back from year to year, but across the board we're living in a world that's changing and in most cases changing really rapidly."

The agencies reported that the oceans are sucking up 90 percent of the excess heat caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and that the surface and upper layers of the oceans showed record warming — including a patch in the Pacific Ocean off the US coast, hundreds of miles across, that's 4-5 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than normal. University of Washington researcher Nick Bond nicknamed the patch "the blob."

Greg Johnson, an oceanographer at NOAA, compared the heat-trapping quality of the oceans to a freight train.

"It takes a big push to get it going but it is moving now and will continue to move long after we continue to pushing it," Johnson told reports during a Thursday conference. "Even if we were to freeze greenhouse gases at current levels, the sea would actually continue to warm for centuries and millennia, and as they continue to warm and expand the sea levels will continue to rise."

Last week, a separate paper published in the journal Science found that seas are on track to eventually rise at least 20 feet, even if global warming is limited to 2 degrees Celsius — swamping the land on which 375 million people now live.

More than 20 European countries saw record warmth last year. In other areas, like Africa and Australia, 2014 nearly topped the charts. Only one spot remained stubbornly cooler than average, they found — North America's east coast, where, incidentally, some the world's most vociferous deniers of man-made climate change go to work.

The 2014 report focused especially on the impacts to the ocean. With El Niño conditions strengthening in the Pacific Ocean and likely to exacerbate changing conditions, Arndt expects next year's report will focus on oceans, too.

"Many foundational elements of the ecosystems, life forms that support larger and larger life like coral reefs and plankton, they're stressed. And either migration and adaptation in living things can keep up with the changes, or they can't," Arndt told VICE News. "Those are the consequences of those seemingly obscure changes in salinity and currents of the ocean. They do have impacts on living things, which have impacts on larger living things, which have impacts on fish and big living things."

Big livings things, in others words, like us.
https://news.vice.com/article/any-wa...eally-bad-news
imaginethat is online now  
Old July 17th, 2015, 07:28 PM   #2
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Yeah........

Meanwhile, the RSS and the UAH say otherwise.

As has been pointed out, the don't even have temperature stations in vast swaths of the land masses. So they just make it up as they go along. Recall the gray areas? The gray areas with no data? The gray areas with no data that they managed to place temperatures in?






Last edited by excalibur; July 17th, 2015 at 07:33 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Old July 18th, 2015, 09:15 AM   #3
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,694
I thought we were heading for a mini-ice age starting in 2020.
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old July 18th, 2015, 10:04 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
Yeah........

Meanwhile, the RSS and the UAH say otherwise.

As has been pointed out, the don't even have temperature stations in vast swaths of the land masses. So they just make it up as they go along. Recall the gray areas? The gray areas with no data? The gray areas with no data that they managed to place temperatures in?





Thanks for demonstrating that the debate on climate change is over, and only complete morons remain in the denialist camp...
goober is offline  
Old July 18th, 2015, 10:05 AM   #5
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman View Post
I thought we were heading for a mini-ice age starting in 2020.
Only according to the Daily Fail and the Exxon/Koch sucking brigade.
Thanks from Camelot
RNG is offline  
Old July 18th, 2015, 02:43 PM   #6
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,380
Those that believe the science will take your article seriously. Those that don't, won't even take the time to read it. It's a pride thing at this point IT.
Camelot is offline  
Old July 18th, 2015, 02:47 PM   #7
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
Those that believe the science will take your article seriously. Those that don't, won't even take the time to read it. It's a pride thing at this point IT.
Why don't you address the predictions that we are heading for a mini ice age in 2020? Is that all bullshit?
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old July 18th, 2015, 03:27 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman View Post
Why don't you address the predictions that we are heading for a mini ice age in 2020? Is that all bullshit?
Why yes PN. Yes it is.

Global cooling: No, were not headed for a mini?ice age..
skews13 is offline  
Old July 18th, 2015, 04:24 PM   #9
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman View Post
Why don't you address the predictions that we are heading for a mini ice age in 2020? Is that all bullshit?
That was not what the scientist said, it was how the Daily Fail reporter interpreted it. And the reporter was wrong. The first misconception is that a Maunder Minimum was the cause of what was incorrectly called the Little Ice Age or the Mini Ice Age. That is one of the possibilities. The aftermath of a large volcanic eruption is another. The term Maunder Minimum just refers to a low in solar sunspots. Whether or not that leads to the earth cooling isn't known.

Next, even if it does, the paper as presented doesn't even try to guess the potential magnitude of the change in earths climate that could cause if it makes any difference at all.

And lastly, this prediction of a Maunder Minimum is the result of a computer model. Are you going to believe this one but not all the others?
Thanks from Camelot
RNG is offline  
Old July 18th, 2015, 05:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
Yeah........

Meanwhile, the RSS and the UAH say otherwise.

As has been pointed out, the don't even have temperature stations in vast swaths of the land masses. So they just make it up as they go along. Recall the gray areas? The gray areas with no data? The gray areas with no data that they managed to place temperatures in?






What are you saying? That a blogger knows more than over 400 scientists from 58 countries?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

His crap has already been debunked.

Nothing False About Temperature Data

Quote:
The “report” to which Palmer referred was actually a series of blog posts, written by climate change denier Paul Homewood, which were then highly publicized in two stories by Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph in London. Both writers focused on the adjustments made to temperature readings at certain monitoring stations around the world, and claimed that those adjustments throw the entire science of global warming into question. This is not at all the case, and those adjustments are a normal and important part of climate science.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for monitoring national and global temperature trends, has addressed these types of adjustments several times before. NOAA addresses the subject in a Q&A on its website:

Q: What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?

Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.

NOAA maintains about 1,500 monitoring stations, and accumulates data from more than a thousand other stations in countries around the world (many national and international organizations share this type of data freely). There are actually fewer monitoring stations today than there used to be; modern stations have better technology and are accessible in real time, unlike some older outposts no longer in use. The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others.

SciCHECKinsertAs the years go by, all those stations undergo various types of changes: This can include shifts in how monitoring is done, improvements in technology, or even just the addition or subtraction of nearby buildings.

For example, a new building constructed next to a monitoring station could cast a shadow over a station, or change wind patterns, in such ways that could affect the readings. Also, the timing of temperature measurements has varied over time. And in the 1980s, most U.S. stations switched from liquid-in-glass to electronic resistance thermometers, which could both cool maximum temperature readings and warm minimum readings.

Monitoring organizations like NOAA use data from other stations nearby to try and adjust for these types of issues, either raising or lowering the temperature readings for a given station. This is known as homogenization. The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.

The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed. For example, a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirmed the effectiveness of the homogenization processes for NOAA’s network of stations, and even noted that “it is likely that maximum temperature trends have been underestimated.” In other words, there may have actually been more warming than NOAA has reported.

Your boi, Paul Homewood, who created that false image, is well known as a climate denier.

Who is Paul Homewood? | John Canning

Quote:
Who is Paul Homewood?
February 10, 2015climate change, Sustainable development

Homewood is a climate change ‘sceptic’ whose claims that climate data is being manipulated made headlines in yesterday’s Telegraph. He has a blog called notalotofpeopleknowthat. My post-Christmas binge on Ben Goldacre’s latest book “I think you'll find it is a bit more complicated than that” set off my spidey sense. So who is Paul Homewood, what are his credentials and how is he viewed in his field of study?
To date my web search has not yielded any answers. Interestingly his own website contains no biographical details or why he is interested in disproving climate change. This is not to say he is wrong of course, but it all seems rather odd, especially for someone who is computer literate enough to run his own blog. I would have thought that a key part of the website would be about establishing his expertise. After all, even a journeyman academic (such as me) has a substantial digital footprint and I have never been lauded by the press as any kind of expert.
Ben Goldacre’s work has heightened my awareness of the sort of people quoted as experts in the press. Ad hominin attacks are out of order, but so-called ‘experts’ are often people who are selling things or have vested business interests. Is Paul Homewood as academic, a businessman, an oil company employee, a conspiracy theorist? The truth is I have no idea. That makes his expert profile even more intriguing than most of the people Goldacre cites in his work.
Seems ol Paul could be an oil man employee.
LongWinded is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
accelerating, agw, bad, change, climate, government, hottest, months, news, record, report, years



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Republicans React to Climate Change Report With Denial and Hatred klaatu Current Events 9 August 9th, 2014 07:35 PM
White House Report: The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change The White House The White House 0 July 29th, 2014 07:01 AM
Murdoch on climate change. roastpork Environment 11 July 24th, 2014 07:00 AM
White House Release Report on the Health Impacts of Climate Change on Americans The White House The White House 0 June 6th, 2014 12:00 PM
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report tyreay Environment 1 February 6th, 2007 01:41 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.