Political Forums  

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

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


Thanks Tree110Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 25th, 2016, 11:47 AM   #81
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
And yet, multiple studies which have developed paleoclimate temperature reconstructions reveal the same basic "hockey stick"-looking graph and conclusion that the current temperature anomaly is unprecedented when compared with the past 1000 years.:



The X and Y axis are clearly shown in the graph which are the base lines. Global Warming has already tipped enough that no matter what Man does this trend is impossible to reverse, Climatologists.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old November 25th, 2016, 12:02 PM   #82
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
The X and Y axis are clearly shown in the graph which are the base lines. Global Warming has already tipped enough that no matter what Man does this trend is impossible to reverse, Climatologists.
I have not heard any climatologist say that. I have heard some say that if we don't change things, a tipping point may occur about 2030 - 2050.
Thanks from Twisted Sister
RNG is offline  
Old November 25th, 2016, 12:06 PM   #83
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
And yet, multiple studies which have developed paleoclimate temperature reconstructions reveal the same basic "hockey stick"-looking graph and conclusion that the current temperature anomaly is unprecedented when compared with the past 1000 years.:



Further, the data from 1000CE to about 1700 show a nice cooling, just as it should as we should be on our way to the next ice age.

Interesting that the industrial revolution is usually considered to have started in 1750.
RNG is offline  
Old November 25th, 2016, 12:13 PM   #84
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I have not heard any climatologist say that. I have heard some say that if we don't change things, a tipping point may occur about 2030 - 2050.
I am a Climatologist by proxy. All I have to do is look out my door and see half of the deciduous trees still have leaves when the branches should be barren. Ospreys from Florida are moving up to Central Ohio. I saw a Scarlet Tanager outside my kitchen window last week. I seriously doubt we get a White Christmas this year.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old November 26th, 2016, 01:51 AM   #85
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
I am a Climatologist by proxy. All I have to do is look out my door and see half of the deciduous trees still have leaves when the branches should be barren. Ospreys from Florida are moving up to Central Ohio. I saw a Scarlet Tanager outside my kitchen window last week. I seriously doubt we get a White Christmas this year.
Something tells me you are a natural-born scientist, TS.

Just like the song says, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Indeed, anyone without any formal education at all can still do basic acts of science. And they can become degree-less climate scientists all on their own if they want, just as long as they apply themselves by coming up to speed on their own with what has already been established in climate science and, more importantly, if they have an open (yet skeptical), inquisitive, and a driven to self-learn mindset.

Most certainly, a college degree in a field of science (or engineering) helps them to get part of the way to that goal, since that means that they already have an understanding of the basic building blocks (such as physics, chemistry, calculus, etc.) that have already been established. But, if you ask me, someone's lack of a degree should never, ever act as a means to discourage them from expanding their knowledgebase and understanding the science. And even the simplest of observations like you have stated above are, quite arguably, acts of science.

Thus, like Mark Twain had once said, a person should never let their schooling ever interfere with their education nor, I would add, their ability to be a scientist.

Last edited by baloney_detector; November 26th, 2016 at 02:14 AM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old November 26th, 2016, 02:31 AM   #86
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
The X and Y axis are clearly shown in the graph which are the base lines. Global Warming has already tipped enough that no matter what Man does this trend is impossible to reverse, Climatologists.
To yourself, TS, and RNG...

The EPA has a good website which neatly summarizes the estimated projected emissions scenarios and resulting temperature anomalies, along with other projected climate change-related information, of which can be found here.:

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-s...climate-change

And here are the emissions scenarios, in graphic form:



And here are the estimated projected global temperature anomalies.:



And here is what is estimated for the US.:

Quote:

Key U.S. projections

By 2100, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by about 3°F to 12°F, depending on emissions scenario and climate model.[1]

An increase in average temperatures worldwide implies more frequent and intense extreme heat events, or heat waves. The number of days with high temperatures above 90°F is expected to increase throughout the United States, especially toward the end of the century.[1] Climate models project that if global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to grow, summertime temperatures in the United States that ranked among the hottest 5% in 1950-1979 will occur at least 70% of the time by 2035-2064.[1]

Last edited by baloney_detector; November 26th, 2016 at 02:39 AM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old November 26th, 2016, 03:14 AM   #87
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,901
An interesting article:

Quote:
Trump or NASA – who’s really politicising climate science?

November 24, 2016 11.37pm EST


Climate research conducted at NASA had been “heavily politicised”, said Robert Walker, a senior adviser to US President-elect Donald Trump.

This has led him to recommend stripping funding for climate research at NASA.

Walker’s claim comes with a great deal of irony. Over the past few decades, climate science has indeed become heavily politicised. But it is ideological partisans cut from the same cloth as Walker who engineered such a polarised situation.

Believe it or not, climate change used to be a bipartisan issue. In 1988, Republican George H.W. Bush pledged to “fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect”.

Since those idealistic days when conservatives and liberals marched hand-in-hand towards a safer climate future, the level of public discourse has deteriorated.

Surveys of the US public over the past few decades show Democrats and Republicans growing further apart in their attitudes and beliefs about climate change.

For example, when asked whether most scientists agree on global warming, perceived consensus among Democrats has steadily increased over the last two decades. In contrast, perceived consensus among Republicans has been in stasis at around 50%.



How is it that party affiliation has become such a strong driver of people’s views about scientific topics?

In the early 1990s, conservative think-tanks sprang to life on this issue. These are organisations promoting conservative ideals such as unregulated free markets and limited government.

Their goal was to delay government regulation of polluting industries such as fossil fuel companies. Their main tactic was to cast doubt on climate science.

Using a constant stream of books, newspaper editorials and media appearances, they generated a glut of misinformation about climate science and scientists.

The conservative think-tanks were assisted by corporate funding from the fossil fuel industry – a partnership that Naomi Oreskes poetically describes as an “unholy alliance”.

Over the past few decades, conservative organisations that receive corporate funding have grown much more prolific in publishing polarising misinformation compared to groups that didn’t receive corporate funding.

...

Continued here:

https://theconversation.com/trump-or...-science-69349
baloney_detector is offline  
Old November 26th, 2016, 03:34 AM   #88
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,901
Another interesting article:

Quote:
Trump’s Plan to Eliminate NASA Climate Research Is Ill-Informed and Dangerous

By Phil Plait

...

If this slashing of NASA Earth science comes to pass, it will be a disaster for humanity. This is no exaggeration: NASA is the leading agency in studying the effects of global warming on the planet, in measuring the changes in our atmosphere, our oceans, the weather, and yes, the climate as temperatures increase. They have a fleet of spacecraft observing the Earth, and plans for more to better understand our environment. That’s all on the chopping block now.

Especially irritating are the details of what Walker said. Calling climate change research “politicized science” is so ironic you could build a battle fleet out of it, because it was the GOP who politicized it. They are the ones who attacked it as a party plank, they are the ones who have been taking millions in fossil fuel money to fund an organized disinformation campaign about it, they are the ones who harass climate scientists.

The specific example that crystallizes all this? Republicans love to claim that progressives started using the phrase “climate change” instead of “global warming” because the Earth wasn’t warming. This is 100 percent pure bull crap. First, the Earth is warming; the “pause” isn’t real. Second—and this is the real kicker—it was Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist, who convinced Republicans to switch phrases because the term “climate change” is less frightening, and therefore easier to downplay.

This is the modern GOP. Scream and wail about what “the left” is doing, when in reality it’s the GOP who are to blame. It’s all very calculated, and downright Orwellian. The hypocrisy is palpable.

Walker also said, “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission” is particularly galling. The best agency for that would be the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which for the past two years has been under relentless attack by the GOP in the form of Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. He has done everything he can to tie NOAA in knots and prevent them from studying global warming, including subpoenaing ridiculous amounts of information and intimidating its administrator, the astronaut and national hero Kathryn Sullivan.

Lamar Smith is the modern day Joseph McCarthy. But we’re still waiting for his at long last sense of decency.

So Walker saying Earth science is better done at NOAA is a lot of malarkey. Worse, NOAA relies heavily on NASA for mission support, including launching satellites. How will that be affected under a Trump presidency?

There’s one other exasperating thing Walker said, and it’s a pants-on-fire doozy:

Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”


That is complete garbage. “Half the climatologists”? In reality, at least 97 percent of climatologists agree that humans cause global warming, and the data show you can’t explain the current rising temperatures without human influence.

The final wail from the ghost of Orwell is that last sentence by Walker. He’s a politician, and he’s interfering with science.

...

Continued here:

Trump adviser says administration will eliminate NASA climate research.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old November 26th, 2016, 03:55 AM   #89
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 33,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Further, the data from 1000CE to about 1700 show a nice cooling, just as it should as we should be on our way to the next ice age.

Interesting that the industrial revolution is usually considered to have started in 1750.
What is this graph telling us.

Warming period 1000 ending in~1300, similar are slightly warmer than the current climate..

~1300 we have a 500 year cooling period (Little Ice Age)... ending 1860-1900.

Warming from a cooling period .. to climate similar slightly cooler than 1000-1300.

with a NUT CASE projection of a hockey stick... that did not occur.
since the warming plateaued 1997-present
Thanks from justoneman
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 26th, 2016, 06:16 AM   #90
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
What is this graph telling us.

Warming period 1000 ending in~1300, similar are slightly warmer than the current climate..

~1300 we have a 500 year cooling period (Little Ice Age)... ending 1860-1900.

Warming from a cooling period .. to climate similar slightly cooler than 1000-1300.

with a NUT CASE projection of a hockey stick... that did not occur.
since the warming plateaued 1997-present
The rather steep red colored line and gray colored line at the far right end in the graph you are referring to aren't each a "projection." Rather, they are based upon instrument data.

(The red line is from the CRU instrument record and the gray line is from the HAD instrument record)




And, a more recent set of temperature anamoly graphs that is also comprised of instrument-based data is here:



Figure 3.6. Global and hemispheric annual combined land-surface air temperature and SST anomalies (°C) (red) for 1850 to 2006 relative to the 1961 to 1990 mean, along with 5 to 95% error bar ranges, from HadCRUT3 (adapted from Brohan et al., 2006). The smooth blue curves show decadal variations (see Appendix 3.A).

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...3s3-2-2-4.html

And, there is hardly any "plateau" in the temperature anomaly from 1997 to the end of the time period of these graphs that can be recognized in this set of graphs for either the northern hemisphere temperature anomaly or even the global temperature anomaly.

Thanks from imaginethat and Daws77

Last edited by baloney_detector; November 26th, 2016 at 06:29 AM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
climate, crackdown, nasa, research, science’, scrap, trump, ‘politicized



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA Says 2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records imaginethat Environment 53 February 23rd, 2017 10:37 AM
Ted Cruz Challenged Science At His Climate Change Hearing. Science Won. LongWinded Current Events 27 December 12th, 2015 10:04 AM
Ted Cruz, Longtime Foe Of NASA And Science, Will Oversee NASA And Science In New Cong LongWinded Current Events 7 January 13th, 2015 11:12 AM
Stifling Climate Research excalibur Current Events 1 August 21st, 2013 07:22 PM
Research Shows Strong Renewable Energy Laws Reduce Climate Change Pollution intangible child Current Events 13 May 5th, 2013 06:02 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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