Global Warming 2

Discussion on science, nature and technology across the globe.
Post Reply
User avatar
hhfarang
Hero
Hero
Posts: 10856
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:27 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by hhfarang » Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:37 pm

"Thaw could release Cold War-era U.S. toxic waste buried under Greenland's ice"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/thaw-could-r ... 28267.html
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?

User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by STEVE G » Sun Aug 07, 2016 1:17 pm

hhfarang wrote:"Thaw could release Cold War-era U.S. toxic waste buried under Greenland's ice"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/thaw-could-r ... 28267.html
And anthrax in Siberia:
https://psmag.com/for-climate-scientist ... .s8c5basim

Homer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2587
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:11 pm

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by Homer » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:07 am

As if we needed another reason to ignore those who cite scientists who say human activity is causing global warning:

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. And the majority says climate science is real and we need to do something about it. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. Ask the experts who used to say marijuana was a gateway drug. Ask the experts who used to say sexual orientation is just a choice. Ask the experts who said alcoholism is a moral failure and not a matter of genetics.

There are plenty of examples where the majority of experts were wrong. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong. Let’s dig into that question.

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.

5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.

6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.


http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1540824160 ... ge-science

User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by STEVE G » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:21 pm


Homer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2587
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:11 pm

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by Homer » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:03 pm

STEVE G wrote:Trump has been talking to Al Gore!
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/trump ... -1.3882657
Who said they talked about climate alarmism? Gore was Secretary of State. Maybe that's why President-elect Trump called the meeting. Gore didn't disclose what was discussed:
"It was a sincere search for areas of common ground," Gore told reporters, adding, "I found it an extremely interesting conversation and, to be continued."

President-elect Trump may have lured Gore to the meeting the same way he's lured presstitutes to meetings: tell them the reason for meeting, once they show up, tell them the real reason for the meeting.

With all the fake news spewed by the left partisan media since the campaign begin, and will no doubt continue for the next 8 years, it's never too late to keep one's guard up.

User avatar
hhfarang
Hero
Hero
Posts: 10856
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:27 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by hhfarang » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:02 pm

"Take Back Al Gore's Nobel And Give It To The Fracking Industry

Climate Change: U.S. output of so-called greenhouse gases continues to decline, a new report shows. Even so, global warming activists are likely to be disappointed. The drop has nothing to do with their pet cause, alternative energy.

That's right. The Environmental Protection Agency's yearly greenhouse gas emissions report noted that after rising slightly in 2013 and 2014, greenhouse gas output fell in 2015 — the most recent full year for which data are available.

OK, but maybe it was a one-year fluke? Hardly.

First off, the drop was significant in size — 2.2% on an annual basis, far too big to be a fluke or statistical anomaly.

Second, as the folks at The American Interest helpfully point out, "U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions hit a 25-year low over the first six months of 2016, continuing the progress that the EPA says we made in 2015."

So it's continuing. More important, The Hill reminds, "The EPA attributed the overall decline to lower carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, which itself came about because of less coal consumption in favor of natural gas, warmer winter weather that decreased heating fuel demand and lower electricity demand overall."

This continues a long-term trend for the U.S. of lower greenhouse gas emissions. Ironically, while the U.S. was pilloried for not ratifying the Tokyo Accord (though then-Vice President Al Gore ostentatiously signed it, despite knowing that the Senate wouldn't ratify it) to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, it is the only major industrial nation actually slashing its output.

Since the Kyoto Accord was struck in 1997, Energy Department data show, U.S. output of greenhouse gases plunged 7.3%, even though real U.S. GDP over that time has grown a whopping 52%. We're greener today than we have been in decades.

Go figure.

For all this progress, we can thank the fracking business, which has given U.S. industry and homes access to massive amounts of cheap, relatively clean natural gas. It may yet make possible a U.S. industrial renaissance — and bring back jobs now done overseas, not by government trade protectionism but by pursuing free-market energy policies that will lead to ever more energy at lower prices.

Global warming crusader Al Gore won a Nobel Prize merely for his profit-making activities as a green activist. Here's an idea: If the Nobel committee geniuses really want to reward those who've done the most to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they should give Gore's Nobel to the U.S. fracking industry."

http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... -industry/
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?

Homer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2587
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:11 pm

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by Homer » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:13 pm

How can scientists and global warming alarmists convince deniers that warming is a real problem? Some excerpts from one take on the problem:

I think scientists are right (because I play the odds), but I am puzzled by why they can’t put together a convincing argument, whereas the skeptics can, and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
...
hindcasting is a necessary check-off for knowing your models are rational and worthy of testing in the future. But it tells you nothing of their ability to predict the future. If scientists were honest about that point, they would be more credible.
...
Tell me what percentage of warming is caused by humans versus natural causes. If humans are 10% of the cause, I am not so worried. If we are 90%, you have my attention. And if you leave out the percentage caused by humans, I have to assume the omission is intentional. And why would you leave out the most important number if you were being straight with people?
...
Tell me how many climate models have ever been created, since we started doing this sort of thing, and tell me how many have now been discarded because they didn’t predict correctly. If the answer is “All of the old ones failed and we were totally surprised because they were good at hindcasting,” then why would I trust the new ones?
...
Stop conflating the basic science and the measurements with the models. Each has its own credibility. The basic science and even the measurements are credible. The models are less so. If you don’t make that distinction, I see the message as manipulation, not an honest transfer of knowledge


http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1581596135 ... hange-is-a

User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by STEVE G » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:28 pm

I think scientists are right (because I play the odds), but I am puzzled by why they can’t put together a convincing argument, whereas the skeptics can, and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Perhaps because they're scientists and not politicians corrupted by billions of dollars of fossil fuel wealth.

Felipesed1
Specialist
Specialist
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:44 am

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by Felipesed1 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:12 pm

You jest surely, or are very naive?

User avatar
hhfarang
Hero
Hero
Posts: 10856
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:27 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by hhfarang » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:56 pm

Here's the two latest headlines from within the last 24 hours... :?

"Humans Caused 100% of the Past Century’s Global Warming"

https://futurism.com/humans-caused-100- ... l-warming/

"EPA chief says carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming"

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... story.html
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?

User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by STEVE G » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:01 am

Felipesed1 wrote:
Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:12 pm
You jest surely, or are very naive?
For big oil, climate change looms large even in Trump era
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busines ... 993607.php

User avatar
laphanphon
Specialist
Specialist
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:15 am
Location: udon thani

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by laphanphon » Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:54 am

#2..... I don't believe humans contribute to warming or climate change. Especially CO2, as essential for plants,if want 'O'.

It's a natural thing. They should concentrate on the ice age that's going to follow the end of the historical warming trends.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness ... Mark Twain

Thank God for Atheists

User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by STEVE G » Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:20 pm

Exxonmobil appoints climate scientist to board:
https://www.ft.com/content/d87ce444-e38 ... 5580d6e5fb

User avatar
hhfarang
Hero
Hero
Posts: 10856
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:27 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by hhfarang » Mon May 01, 2017 8:56 pm

"A Massive Lake Of Molten Carbon The Size Of Mexico Was Just Discovered Under The US

Image

A recent scientific discovery has drastically changed our view of the global carbon cycle and identified a new significant risk. Researchers have discovered a giant lake or reservoir made up of molten carbon sitting below the western US.

The molten carbon (primarily in the form of carbonate) reservoir could drastically and immediately change the global climate for over a decade if it were to be released. Thankfully there is little risk in the near future of this happening. The carbon sits 217 miles beneath the surface of the Earth in the upper mantle and has no immediate pathway to the surface. In total the lake covers approximately 700,000 square miles, approximately the size of Mexico. This has redefined how much carbon scientists believe sits locked away in the Earth's mantle and its interaction with surface and atmospheric carbon.
...

The molten carbonate sits beneath Yellowstone National Park, which in and of itself is a super volcano with the power of a massive eruption. The last major eruption was 640,000 years ago at Yellowstone, however if the super volcano did erupt it could cause the US to go into a nuclear winter. The eruption, when it does occur, would be on the order of 1,000 times more powerful than the 1980's Mount St. Helens eruption.

In part due to this research, scientists now believe the Earth's upper mantle may hold up to 100 trillion metric tons of carbon. To put this into perspective, the US EPA estimated that in total 10 billion metric tons of carbon was emitted in 2011, or approximately 0.01% of the carbon sitting in Earth's mantle. Thankfully the release of the mantle's carbon happens very slowly over time primarily through volcanic eruptions. However, paleoclimatic fluctuations in CO2, creating ice ages and greenhouse global conditions are partially linked to dynamic changes in volcanism.

The molten carbonate through thermal decomposition would release carbon dioxide and calcium oxide, however it would need a viable pathway to Earth's surface to inject the CO2 into the atmosphere

Release of just 1 percent of the mantle's carbon would equate to burning 2.3 trillion barrels of oil. This gives some perspective on just how important it is to understand this deep carbon system and how it interacts with and drives the atmospheric carbon system driving climate change."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace ... 3aa6035e69
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?

User avatar
huahin4ever
Professional
Professional
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:07 pm
Location: Hua Hin

Re: Global Warming 2

Post by huahin4ever » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:44 am

Blockbuster Assessment: Humans Likely Responsible For Virtually All Global Warming Since 1950s

A strong answer for climate-science-denying politicians

Ever since the Earth recorded three consecutive warmest years on record—2014, 2015, then 2016—the mantra of climate-science-denying politicians has shifted from “it hasn’t warmed since 1998” to “Earth’s climate has always changed, and we are not sure how much humans are to blame for the current warming.” At least three members of President Trump’s cabinet gave a variation of this message in their Congressional confirmation hearings. Well, we now have a new authoritative range on what the human contribution to global warming is: 93 – 123% of the warming since 1951. Chapter 3, Detection and Attribution of Climate Change (p.160) of the new report states:

“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.”

In other words, Earth might well have cooled slightly during this period if it were not for human activity; this makes Earth’s recent record-high temperatures even more startling. The report adds:

“For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

It is worth noting that this new report is even stronger on the human-caused component of warming than the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, prepared once every six years. The 2013 IPCC report had this to say about the observed warming of Earth since 1950:

“The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.."

Read more at this link:
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/block ... ming-1950s
"Two possibilities exist:
Either we are alone in the universe or we are not.
Both are equally terrifying."
Arthur C. Clarke

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests