Biden’s First Climate Actions Include Rejoining Paris Agreement

[Lord of Planar]

UHIE does not cause the overall temperature trends to change. Analyses have been done showing that, without the UHI's included the temperature trends in the USHCN are statistically indifferentiable from the data set with the UHI included.

It does not impose a systemic bias in the overall data set.

Stay misinformed. Not my problem.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Which an urban heat island skewing the data hot WOULD BE.

Thankfully we have actual data showing the UHIE does not skew the data warmer in the overall data set.

That's not true. The papers compare with rural stations, which have the same problem.

 

[istodolez]

That's not true. The papers compare with rural stations, which have the same problem.

Even one of your fave denialists, Anthony Watts' "Surfacestation.org"did a classification of station sitings and NOAA went through and took Watts' data and selected the WORST SITED STATIONS only to find that they gave roughly the same temperature trends as the overall system.

LOL.

(Editted to add, My apologies: they did find a bias due to surface station siting...it induced a slight false COOLING. So there goes your complaint!)

Station Siting and U.S. Surface Temperature Trends (USHCN) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) Station siting and U.S. surface temperature trends.

web.archive.org

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The Biden administration take decisive action on climate change while also creating better society and putting people to work.

"The vision laid out in the actions signed by Biden on Wednesday, however, was transformative. A pathway for oil and gas drilling to be banned from public lands. A third of America’s land and ocean protected. The government ditching the combustion engine from its entire vehicle fleet, offering up a future where battery-powered trucks deliver America’s mail and electric tanks are operated by the US military.

Biden may eschew the politically contentious framing of the Green New Deal but there was even an echo of the original New Deal with his plan for a civilian climate corps to restore public lands and waterways. “The whole approach is classic Biden; working-class values, putting people to work,” said Tim Profeta, an environmental policy expert at Duke University.

The dizzying list of actions demonstrated the breadth and depth of the climate crisis. Biden’s administration will spur new climate-friendly policies for farmers while also devoting resources to the urban communities, typically low-income people of color, disproportionally blighted by pollution from nearby highways and power plants. In all, 21 federal agencies will be part of a new, overarching climate body. “This isn’t time for small measures,” Biden said. “We need to be bold.”

Dizzying pace of Biden's climate action sounds death knell for era of denialism

Analysis: The new president has framed the challenge of global heating as an opportunity for US jobs, saying: ‘We have to be bold’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

Even one of your fave denialists, Anthony Watts' "Surfacestation.org"did a classification of station sitings and NOAA went through and took Watts' data and selected the WORST SITED STATIONS only to find that they gave roughly the same temperature trends as the overall system.

LOL.

(Editted to add, My apologies: they did find a bias due to surface station siting...it induced a slight false COOLING. So there goes your complaint!)

Station Siting and U.S. Surface Temperature Trends (USHCN) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) Station siting and U.S. surface temperature trends.

web.archive.org

Why are you always jumping to conclusions of where I get my information from?

You are obviously beneath me on the scientific level of understanding as you only rely on talking points, and strawman tactics.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Biden administration take decisive action on climate change while also creating better society and putting people to work.

"The vision laid out in the actions signed by Biden on Wednesday, however, was transformative. A pathway for oil and gas drilling to be banned from public lands. A third of America’s land and ocean protected. The government ditching the combustion engine from its entire vehicle fleet, offering up a future where battery-powered trucks deliver America’s mail and electric tanks are operated by the US military.

Biden may eschew the politically contentious framing of the Green New Deal but there was even an echo of the original New Deal with his plan for a civilian climate corps to restore public lands and waterways. “The whole approach is classic Biden; working-class values, putting people to work,” said Tim Profeta, an environmental policy expert at Duke University.

The dizzying list of actions demonstrated the breadth and depth of the climate crisis. Biden’s administration will spur new climate-friendly policies for farmers while also devoting resources to the urban communities, typically low-income people of color, disproportionally blighted by pollution from nearby highways and power plants. In all, 21 federal agencies will be part of a new, overarching climate body. “This isn’t time for small measures,” Biden said. “We need to be bold.”

Dizzying pace of Biden's climate action sounds death knell for era of denialism

Analysis: The new president has framed the challenge of global heating as an opportunity for US jobs, saying: ‘We have to be bold’

www.theguardian.com

Silencing science...

 

[istodolez]

You are obviously beneath me on the scientific level of understanding as you only rely on talking points, and strawman tactics.

Yeah. Sure. If that makes you feel good. (I reference authorities. Apparently that bothers you.)

 

[watsup]

Why are you always jumping to conclusions of where I get my information from?

You are obviously beneath me on the scientific level of understanding as you only rely on talking points, and strawman tactics.

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION BIGTIME!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Buzz]

I think it is worth exploring what the statement by the IPCC that you quoted, actually means.
"Human activities have a high likelihood of accounting for more than half of the observed warming over the last 50 years. IPCC."
Since you did not cite which report that came from, we have to assume it was AR5 with a ending reference period of 2011,
which puts 50 years at 1961.
Wood for Trees is a good way to gather data quick.
In this case I got the 120 month mean from 1961 to 2011 for BEST, GISS, and HadCrut4,
Wood for Trees(raw data)
With a decade average, they show the following warming, between 1961 and 2011
BEST .644C
GISS .672C
HadCrut4 .572C
One interesting thing right off is the .1C range between the highest and lowest data set,
but we can treat it like the IPCC's assumptions, and say that the best estimate is the average of high and the low, or .622C.
So the statement says that Human activity over the last 50 years accounted for somewhere between .311C and .622C of warming.
Let's see what forcing also happened in that same time window, NOAA's AGGI shows most of the greenhouse gasses as CO2 equivalents.
NOAA AGGI
The graph is a bit subjective but it looks like 350 ppm in 1961 and 471 ppm in 2011.
5.35 X ln(471/350) X.3=.47C.
Yep, that looks like more than half, at .311C, but it does not really say anything alarming!
By the time you add in the other factors that can cause warming and cooling, there is no room left in the "observed"
temperature increase, for any significant amplified feedbacks.
Without the strong positive feedbacks, AGW is just an interesting atmospheric footnote.
And we should be seeing the feedbacks by now!
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission

Why do you keep doing this? You are again forgetting about and not accounting for the negative forcing from aerosols. When you don't account for the negative forcing it makes them look like they are negative feedbacks when they are not.

Here is the conclusion from a recent global warming attribution study:

Here we use climate model simulations from the Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project, as well as regularized optimal fingerprinting, to show that anthropogenic forcings caused 0.9 to 1.3 °C of warming in global mean near-surface air temperature in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900, compared with an observed warming of 1.1 °C. Greenhouse gases and aerosols contributed changes of 1.2 to 1.9 °C and −0.7 to −0.1 °C, respectively, and natural forcings contributed negligibly. These results demonstrate the substantial human influence on climate so far and the urgency of action needed to meet the Paris Agreement goals.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00965-9

So... about +1.5 C from GHG and -0.4 from aerosols to give a total of about 1.1C. That leaves plenty of room for positive feedbacks.

Even more about this study over at Sceptical Science.

 

[Threegoofs]

Why are you always jumping to conclusions of where I get my information from?

You are obviously beneath me on the scientific level of understanding as you only rely on talking points, and strawman tactics.

 

[istodolez]

You are obviously beneath me on the scientific level of understanding as you only rely on talking points, and strawman tactics.

You expend a LOT of time trying to debase others and proclaim your superiority. You must be a great asset to your workplace. I'm sure EVERYONE is impressed by you all the time.

 

[Lord of Planar]

One cherry picked work...

Brilliant!

You must think we all fall for such tricks huh?

Did you read the associated bulletin of the AMS that it referenced?

I did... It speak of the difference being caused by a change of equipment.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You expend a LOT of time trying to debase others and proclaim your superiority. You must be a great asset to your workplace. I'm sure EVERYONE is impressed by you all the time.

Maybe if you would debate me in a civil manner, I would do the same. You are always flinging "denier" or something else out.

You must really get along well with your fellow employees... You would be fired in the places I have worked actijng like you do here.

 

[Lord of Planar]

One more thing. You reference doesn't even mention the UHI effect.

I wish you would stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[istodolez]

Maybe if you would debate me in a civil manner,

AH HAHAHAHAHA! YOU? Why would I do that? You don't debate in a civil manner!

I would do the same. You are always flinging "denier" or something else out.

LOL. TRIGGER WARNING FOR LORD OF PLANAR! TRIGGER! TRIGGER!

You must really get along well with your fellow employees... You would be fired in the places I have worked actijng like you do here.

And you would likewise be fired from most of the level jobs you probably get if YOU acted as you do on here. But I doubt you act IRL like you do here (IRL = "In real life" since you hate internet jargon so much and you can't use Google apparently)

LOL.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wow.

Things you said were common, I have found less than a dozen examples of from a search of several thousand papers.

I do "google" terms at time.

You continue to fail with your accusations that are false.

Why do you do that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Look at what you do. You disagree with what I say about the skewing of monitoring stations from the UHI effect, and then you present a document tat doesn't address your disagreement at all. It appears you are incapable of debating the topic, so you try to change it.

Does that tactic work with your coworkers?

 

[istodolez]

One more thing. You reference doesn't even mention the UHI effect.

I wish you would stop wasting everyone's time.

LOLOL! This is priceless. Maybe you SHOULD familiarize yourself with denialist literature! Surfacestation.org was a site run by Watts et al. related to finding temperature stations that were sited badly and they rated the siting by how much it would be impacted by things like heat islands or placement that might make them bias warmer.

You think you are some sort of expert on this topic yet you don't even know about these things? Hell, NOAA knew enough about it to take the analyses seriously! LOL!

Guess you are too educated on all this to actually worry about knowing any of it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOLOL! This is priceless. Maybe you SHOULD familiarize yourself with denialist literature! Surfacestation.org was a site run by Watts et al. related to finding temperature stations that were sited badly and they rated the siting by how much it would be impacted by things like heat islands or placement that might make them bias warmer.

You think you are some sort of expert on this topic yet you don't even know about these things? Hell, NOAA knew enough about it to take the analyses seriously! LOL!

Guess you are too educated on all this to actually worry about knowing any of it.

You are impossible.

You are arguing against a strawman again.

I don't read the stuff you are arguing against. I have no common reference.

Why are you incapable of debating the points I make, and have to go off on tangents?

What does that say about you...

 

[longview]

Why do you keep doing this? You are again forgetting about and not accounting for the negative forcing from aerosols. When you don't account for the negative forcing it makes them look like they are negative feedbacks when they are not.

Here is the conclusion from a recent global warming attribution study:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00965-9

So... about +1.5 C from GHG and -0.4 from aerosols to give a total of about 1.1C. That leaves plenty of room for positive feedbacks.

Even more about this study over at Sceptical Science.

The problem with such statements is there is almost zero lag in forcing, so if 1.2c in forcing had occurred
We would see 1.2 c of warming.

 

[Buzz]

The problem with such statements is there is almost zero lag in forcing, so if 1.2c in forcing had occurred
We would see 1.2 c of warming.

Not if there are also negative forcings as well. Admit it long... you are blowing off aerosols again because you can get the result you want.

 

[istodolez]

You are impossible.

You are arguing against a strawman again.

I don't read the stuff you are arguing against. I have no common reference.

Why are you incapable of debating the points I make, and have to go off on tangents?

What does that say about you...

I don't understand why you think heat island effects are an issue, urban or otherwise. But it is telling that you don't know anything about surface station siting topics which are in discussion even by NOAA on this topic.

 

[longview]

Not if there are also negative forcings as well. Admit it long... you are blowing off aerosols again because you can get the result you want.

The statement was that there were net positive forcing, and I think that is correct, but the warming would already be here.
In addition the forcing from clearing aerosols have been positive since the mid 80’s

 

[Buzz]

The statement was that there were net positive forcing, and I think that is correct, but the warming would already be here.

Where did you ever say anything about net positive forcing? You didn't. Admit it long... you blew off aerosols again.

In addition the forcing from clearing aerosols have been positive since the mid 80’s

Positive forcing from aerosols?? That's ridiculous.

That study I provided says that aerosols have actually been fairly steady for the last 3 decades or so. Check out figures 1b and extended figure 1

I think you should hold off on submitting that study of yours for a while.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Silencing science...

All the world's leading scientific organizations are acknowledging the urgent need for action. Like for example these 31 American organizations.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

www.esa.org

Federal agencies was also under the control and scrutiny by the Trump administration and an Republican controlled senate for four years. There the result was that federal agencies continued to acknowledge the urgent need for action because the evidence was so overwhelming.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

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

nca2018.globalchange.gov