Slashdot Mirror

For some evidence of global warming. It's been decades now, and everything they've shown us as evidence has turned out not to be the case.

The increasing global mean surface temperature.

The rising sea level

It carried on a lot longer than that, according to LIVING HERE.

We can see the temperatures ourselves, moron. Two days. Three if you want to pretend that 28 F is some sort of barn-burning cold. Only four days that didn't go above 32.

It's only a few days after the bomb cyclone we've started actually approaching average temperatures.

Own-goal. March 3rd to March 7th is indeed a "few days" from bomb cyclone to average high temperature. Also, not something that supports your point.

So how do we have more melting that normal with below average tertmpetures?

You misspelled "temperatures." I'd let it slide, but you have a spelling fetish it seems. How do you have more melting? Something about greater snowpack, which you admit, and daytime temperatures routinely above freezing, which we can see for ourselves. But wait, it gets better, because for some reason you want to only talk about Denver.

You can dance around it all you like, but the fact is you and your scientifically, data starved ignorant friends are simply wrong about what is happening now, and you base your forecasts on this fundamentally mistaken view of the world... sad.

You're appearing to confuse Denver with the predicted flooding areas, and then the world.

You can't locate Denver on a map. SAD. The rest of us can. It's in one of those square states full of white.

You misspelled decreasing. Just like a climate alarmists to confuse weather for climate.

No, I really didn't.

Pretty telling that I am the only one providing real data while you try to spread fear and panic by totally ignoring what the weather is actually doing.

You can't click on a hyperlink to NWS temperatures? SAD.
You should try clicking on these links. But you won't. SAD.
You think that I have the sole responsibility to provide "real data" that is being published constantly yet you actively ignore? SAD.

I'll let you have the last response, since at this point everyone is onto your game of deception... everyone except for you it would seem.

You won't. You'll come back and post some nonsense, including that fact that "everyone" (except for every single reply to your post) agrees with your delusional position.

Actually, the number is 570 billion hours per year (see the full chapter 19) though the slashdot wording, taken from the CNN worded, which paraphrases the executive summary of chapter 19, does not make that clear.

Economic specifics in text above Figure 19.21 at US Southeast chapter 19

The figure is interesting as it has a heat map of annual % hours lost because of climate change over the US.

The base figure US Hours lost heatmap

Economic specifics in text above Figure 19.21 at US Southeast chapter 19

The figure is interesting as it has a heat map of annual % hours lost because of climate change over the US.

The base figure US Hours lost heatmap

https://nca2018.globalchange.g...

Maybe this is a more useful picture, rather than a single cherry-picked datapoint.

The good news is, as expected we're getting more rainfall overall, as humidity rises with temperature. The bad news is, some important specific areas are getting quite a lot less. Sucks to be a farmer living there.

You need to engage your brain...

There is no point in advocating killing anyone or doing anything at this point.

It's too late. It's too fucking late. It's too late by almost three decades.

Requested Cite:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100.
https://blog.iiasa.ac.at/2014/...
Demographers from the United Nations Population Division and several universities published a paper in Science last week that argues the world population is unlikely to stop growing this century. They calculate that there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100, with the median at 10.9 billion. ...
These projections indicate that there is little prospect of an end to world population growth this century without unprecedented fertility declines in most parts of Sub-Saharan Africa still experiencing fast population growth."

Every prior projection projection of maximum human population has turned out to be on the low side. Just during my lifetime, the prior projected "maximum" has risen a billion at a time every decade.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...
U.N. Raises âoeLowâ Population Projection for 2050

http://www.globalchange.gov/si...
Population Projections: Reasons for Uncertainty

I actually agree on the logarithic growth but it's not asymptotic as has been projected.

We are already well past overshoot territory. Read limits to growth, then the updated one, and then do some research on chromium and other metal reserves. Oil isn't the only non-renewable. We are going to have to find replacements for every industrial metal at roughly the same time.

It's like Global Warming. It's also too late on global warming. Tropical diseases and pests range will definitely increase by thousands of miles over the next 100 years. The north west passage will open. And the sea is going to rise by at least a foot by 2100.

We are on a train with no way to stop it and the bridge is out a mile ahead.

People actively try to avoid thinking about this because it's so horrible.

Assuming that we claim that Los Angeles was unbearable all the time (and it was considerably cooler in the first half of the century) then we are primarily the higher lands inland from Los Angeles which were reasonable and are now hot. See the US temperature increase map online.

It is probably in our best interests that the climates we live in are compatible with us.

Well, then global warming should be good news,

And for some, after adjustment, it will be good news. For others? a catastrophe. This is the part that so many do not get. Canada so far has had an extension of the term between killing frosts, so the frost free season is lengthening. - also the Western US. Here is some interesting US data.

http://nca2014.globalchange.go....

Then again, some places might not be so fortunate. Some may even become colder. As the Greenland ice melts, the Weather in England might get a little frosty. This might happen if the gulf stream gets interrupted by the cold fresh water influx from Greenland.

At present in Ireland, they grow cabbage palm at the same latitude as Newfoundland - the warming effects of the gulf stream are so dominant, all may go away.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... And some areas that are now verdant, may become arid. All sort of the luck of the draw.

I always like to put discussions in the manner in which others can relate. Strategically, is it wise to gamble that the US will always be blessed by climate? If large portions of the country turn into desert - is that a good formula for continued role as the world's superpower.

And that petrofuel. Is it patriotic and smart burning huge amounts of that portable energy dense fuel in gas guzzlers that we may some day need for our jet fighters?

Not the most glamorous web page, but interesting: http://vanrcook.tripod.com/Ger... Oddly enough, many people who consider themselves more patriotic, and love their country more than others, are happy to burn as much fossil fuel and use as much of the energy dense petrofuel, that they may have a leading role in our diminished power. All by foolishly believing people who are not at all patriotic, but have money as the central theme of their lives, but are smart enough to enlist them.

Me? I consider it my patriotic duty to enable the warfighters the best chance of fulfilling their missions.

So I'm going to drive, but I'm also going to conserve. I'm also going to attempt to have my country in good shape as long as possible.

No they weren't. As for various assertions about scientists supposedly saying the climate was getting colder, the report on climate change debunks all that. http://nca2014.globalchange.go...

Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful, no private interest would hire them — they are all in government's employ.

I hadn't noticed that. Do you have a source on these two facts?

We, the taxpayers, fund it, but we don't get to decide, whether we want the practice to continue.

About two thirds of it, in the case of Rutgers, yes, if you live in New Jersey. I personally didn't fund any of it.
But I question your ability to make sensible choices about what a good line of research for a university should be merely because you pay tax. Surely the university board would be better informed and able to make these decisions?

And these folk realize — even if just instinctively — that for them to remain employed, they need bigger government.

Why not the same size? Or smaller with fewer prisons?

Consequently, any and all measures proposed to fight the climate will lead to the further expansion of government.

Because university postdocs "instinctively" realize that without more prisons and military spending, they will lose their jobs?
I'm don't think you've thought this through rationally.

As for how these "scientists" actually help, here is one funny tidbit for you... Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity.

Sounds important to know.

Why, this very site featured a "scientific article" about the matter with "insightful" posts like yours under it.

Like mine above? Pointing out that the OP was about the glaciation of the northern hemisphere 2.7million years ago, not current climate change?
Wonderful

It was all very scientific and convincing — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite [weather.com] to the prediction.

Florida's not a very large sample space.
The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. - apparently.

In real science, a theory gets discarded, when its predictions fail to materialize.

What do you think needs to be discarded. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? The fact that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 concentration? The fact that increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas will increase the greenhouse effect?
You're talking like these aren't well proven points with a century of optics and thermodynamics behind them.

I agree, we should stick to the science. Here you go:

• The peer-reviewed Journal "Nature Climate Change" includes and references thousands of scientific papers on the subject.
• The IPCC's 1,500-page "Physical Science Basis" report cites hundreds of references and is authored by hundreds of experts. It clearly states what we know, don't know, and how we know it. It reviews its past predictions, notes where its models have errored, and takes into account an incredible wealth and scope of scientific observations over 150 years.
• The IPCC also makes all of its data and models available for review. So you can see for yourself.
• The US Government also recently updated its regularly scheduled report written by over 300 experts.
• The USGS has a Climate Model Browser that lets you try out all the different simulated predictions for Global Warming. You'll notice the specifics vary widely, but they all predict dramatic temperature rises.
• The NOAA has a National Climate Data Center where you can watch the temperature trends. Here's a visualization based on the data.
• The United States Defense department has several reports on the risks posed by Global Warming (see here, here, here, and here).
• The Center for Coastal Resources Management (CCRM) has produced some excellent reports on sea level rise due to Climate Change to inform local communities like Norfolk VA, where flooding is already a major issue, what to expect in the near future due to Global Warming.
• You can also watch the sea levels rise at the NOAA's Sea-Level Trends website.
• If you don't trust the government, then I recommend The Berkely Earth Project. It was funded by the liberal's favorite bad guys, the Koch Brothers, but its results were so compelling that the lead Climatologist, Richard A. Muller, wrote a piece for the New York Times announcing he was no longer a skeptic.
• Of course, it's always good to have a contrarian viewpoint in the mix, and for that, I recommend AGW skeptic Judith Curry, who presents valid challenges to the consensus with her strong scientific background. I don't find her convincing, but her challenges make for good food for thought.

If you dispute this science, then I recommend publishing your own peer-reviewed papers, your own models, and your own alternative hypotheses in the scientific journals. I see a lot of skeptics nit-picking the science, but not many actually taking the effort to publish in the scientific forums.

I eagerly await one of the skeptics out there to please post an equally substantive list of references to "balance" my citations, so everyone can review and compare them.

So the fuel just built up everywhere and then when something happens to ignite it, be it lightening or a cigarette, the little fires have a greater probability of becoming bigger fires. Time means more fuel, greater risk. Tick tick tick. So then after awhile we get these huge fires. What do those smart intellectuals do? Do they review their suggestions of the past? Take into account the bureaucratic BS that contributed to these fires? No! First, they smoke a bowl and later .... they say "Let's help that farmer who lost his ranch. Let's help those people who lost there homes. Let's explain to them that it is all mankind's fault." They then go on to explain BS like carbon foot prints and how that is why fires are worse. It is also why flooding is worse or droughts or pretty much anything, and the only way to fix it is to accept global collectivism. Yup, only with global collectivism can we prevent forest fires.

Leaving aside your rabid ad hominem remarks about collectivism, your claim that increased fires are due to increased fire load has in fact been studied and discounted . In other words, those of us in the "reality-based community" (i.e. "libtards") are a lot more self-critical than you. Which is why we do science and you do politics.

If you're interested in the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming, I suggest you read the science, not blog posts. I've read both WattsUp and SkepticalScience, and they are both very poorly written and lack rigorousness. If you are reading these two blogs, you are reading the work of bias amateurs.

Here's what you should be reading:

• the peer-reviewed Journal "Nature Climate Change," which includes and references thousands of scientific papers on the subject.
• he IPCC's 1,500-page "Physical Science Basis" report, clearly states what we know, don't know, and how we know it. It reviews its past predictions, notes where its models have errored, and takes into account an incredible wealth and scope of scientific observations over 150 years. I highly recommend downloading this 0.5 GIG report and at least skimming it. I consider it the model of good science.
• The IPCC also makes all of its data and models available for review. So you can see for yourself. Take this data and give it to a machine-learning algorithm. The science of AGW is actually shockingly simple.
• The US Government also recently updated it regularly scheduled report written by over 300 experts.
• If you don't trust the government, then I recommend The Berkely Earth Project. It was funded by the liberal's favorite bad guys, the Koch Brothers, but its results were so compelling that the lead Climatologist, Richard A. Muller, wrote a piece for the New York Times announcing he no longer a skeptic.
• Of course, it's always good to have a contrarian viewpoint in the mix, and for that, I recommend AGW skeptic Judith Curry, who presents valid challenges to the consensus with her strong scientific background. I don't find her convincing, but her challenges make for good food for thought.

Science, published peer-reviewed science, not blogs, is where we should keep this discussion.

Heh, now you accuse me of not providing links to support the claims I didn't make :-)

But if you like. A couple of studies (of many) predicting increases in wildfires due to climate change:

* Gonzalez et al 2010: Global patterns in the vulnerability of ecosystems to vegetation shifts due to climate change

* Moritz et al 2012: Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity

And a study (one of many) showing that climate is the dominant factor in the size of the wildfires we've been seeing:

* Littell et al 2009 Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces:

We demonstrate that wildfire area burned (WFAB) in the American West was controlled by climate during the 20th century (1916-2003)....For 1977-2003, a few climate variables explain 33-87% (mean = 64%) of WFAB, indicating strong linkages between climate and area burned.

By contrast, Mr Watts' "facts" are also nothing more than unsubstantiated declarations and assumptions, just like yours. A few random examples from your link:

* "This [CO2] percentage increase means nothing. Human CO2 emissions didn’t begin to rise significantly until after 1945": Keyword is 'significantly' - he claims the rise is not significant, but provides no justifications for this assumption, other than that the atmospheric percentage is "about as close to nothing as you can get" (it's a really small-looking number). No citations given.

* "...there is no way that this miniscule amount [of atmospheric CO2] can have any significant effect on climate." Another unsubstantiated declaration in his "facts" list. No citations given for this claim.

* "CO2 also lags short-term warming [historical graph] showing that warming causes rise in CO2, not the other way around if CO2 was the cause." - Incorrectly assumes that CO2 must either be a cause or an effect, but could never be both. No citations given for this "fact", either.

* "...global climate marches in lock step with sun spots, length of the sun spot cycle, and intensity of the solar magnetic field... total solar insolation (TSI) correlates very well with climate". Once more, he just claims this as a fact, with (wait for it) no citations given.

* "HadCRUT4 temperature curve showing that 56% of the warming since 1895 occurred prior to 1945"... according to his arbitrarily-drawn red lines. The HadCRUT4 temperature graph may well be accurate, but (of course) he provides no citation for any peer-reviewed source for his claimed "56% of warming" cut-off point (looks to me like the red line that claims to show this is just drawn to the peak of the biggest short-term fluctuation he can find, without regard to averages or trends or anything).

I could easily go on, but I have work to do. If Watts' unbacked assertions are what you consider "facts", then it's no wonder you usually don't bother to link to them.

There was no "global cooling" phenomenon being widely touted in the 1970's. That's a myth. The climate change report recently issued http://nca2014.globalchange.go... addresses that among other things. Global warming and this particular problem of glacier melting in Antarctica were both called out in the 1970's though. According to the NY Time reporting the second case - Antarctica is related to a variety of factors in addition to global warming. There are no big bucks to be made being an environmentalist. Provide some names of a few folks who became billionaires from pushing environmental protection. There are trillions being made producing fossil fuels.

You're deeply confused about what a glacier's advancement or retreat means. Glaciers advance on a thin layer of (wait for it) melted ice. This is not necessarily strongly correlated to global warming one way or another, depending on the glacier. Antarctic sea ice is not glacial in the sense that any of your ignorance might apply to it. To make the obvious point, Antarctica receives very little precipitation, whereas glaciers are usually the product of snowfall.

Ocean temperatures, by the way, are increasing in the Antarctic. And your argument totally ignores that the Arctic is, in fact, melting like gangbusters. We were losing 52 cubic kilometers of glacier ice per year in Alaska from 1950 until 1990, when the rate doubled. Arctic ice extent has been plummeting with barely a pause during that same time. The number of frost-free days has increased by half in Fairbanks. Again during that same time, average annual temperature has increased by an average of 3.4 degrees across the state. Winter temperatures have risen by 6 degrees. Overall warming rate is roughly double the global average, and the global average is not good. A possibly counterintuitive effect is that precipitation (including snowfall) is increasing, but this should actually be obvious with a little thought: warmer air holds more moisture, and increasing evaporation in warm Pacific waters will of course result in increased precipitation when that air slams into the Chugach Mountains. Deny what you will, but that the Arctic is melting at an incredible rate is incontrovertible, and glaciers are merely the most visible symptom.

Beyond this, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas can be confirmed by schoolchildren. That we are currently dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate equaled only by the most violent periods of volcanism that the planet has seen should have some pretty obvious effects. Like the Arctic melting. Like we have observed. Sure, there may be some non-intuitive results, as in any other physical field -- the universe is a strange, strange place -- but it is purest stupidity and hubris to think that every phenomenon should be intuitively comprehensible. The only dishonesty here is that you don't choose to seek out the answers to your questions.

Of course, we haven't seen an increase in such warming-caused warping.

Are you in a position to know if we did? I'm not and I'm doubt the people who are (railway operators) have a compelling reason to publish that data.

Back in the heat wave of 2010, the German ICE system had to cancel some trips because heat warped the tracks...

It seems like your first and second statements may not be based on the same set of facts.

When I looked for information on whether there was an increase, I did find a blog post about speeds being dropped near Washington in March of last year due to unseasonable weather related to an effect of global warming (the blocking pattern in the Arctic). It is an expected effect of gobal warming. I'm just not sure if anyone is actively monitoring that effect.

Ok. I get frustrated by those sites designed to be a fixed width. They end up squished up in the upper left hand corner of my browser. I run a number of government-related WWW sites (on Linux boxes of course!) and would appreciated (constructive) feedback.

What do you think of globalchange.gov?

GlobalChangeGeek