• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The media got it all wrong on the new US climate report

BrainNebula

Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Sadly, accurate science doesn’t make for good television; predicting the end of times does.

“Drought statistics over the entire contiguous US have declined,” the report finds, reminding us that “the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event.”

On flooding, the assessment accepts the IPCC’s finding, which “did not attribute changes in flooding to anthropogenic [human] influence nor report detectable changes in flooding magnitude, duration or frequency.”

Actually, the UN’s climate scenarios envision US GDP per capita will more than triple by the end of this century, so this 10 percent reduction would come from an economy 300 percent larger than it is today. A slightly smaller bonanza, in other words.

But the 10 percent figure is itself dodgy. It assumes that temperatures will increase about 14 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This is unlikely. The US climate assessment itself estimates that, with no significant climate action, American temperatures will increase by between 5 and 8.7 degrees. Using the high estimate of 8.7 degrees, the damage would be only half as big, at 5 percent.

But even the 8.7-degree warming estimate is unrealistically pessimistic. This stems from an extreme high-emission scenario that expects almost the entire world to revert to using massive amounts of coal: a five-fold increase from today.

There's a bunch of good stuff in this article that shows why you can't trust the climate alarmism.

Source
 

Sampson Simpson

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
5,137
Reaction score
2,795
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Its an opinion piece from a borderline tabloid paper. It only brings up good points to people who have been brainwashed to think climate change is bogus, in spite of the consensus scientific opinions, and own experience with extreme weather, storms, etc.

It boggles my mind how dumb people who buy this nonsense are. There is nothing negative about not polluting the air, dumping chemicals water ways and the land, poisoning the oceans. it's unreal what brainwashed sheep. Corporate interestswho would **** over their own mother to make more profits are pushing this ****.

Meanwhile, we see what happens when regulations are reduced, we get poisoned lettuce from dirty water run-off. Every single time.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's get this right: I don't care what the news says about NOAA's report. I care what the report says. AFAIC, all the news need do is tell me the report has been released. From there, I'm good; I can read the report and its referenced docments on my own.

I wonder how many people here have bothered to read the full report, or even the whole of the executive summary.....I've thus far engaged with several people who, from their remarks, clearly have not, yet deign to deride the report.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the rubric article:
Drought statistics over the entire contiguous US have declined,” the report finds, reminding us that “the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event.”

Lomborg, like anyone, is able to uncontextually cull and connect remarks from an entire chapter about drought and, in turn, duplicitously apply the excerpt to discount or miscast the nature and extent of what an author wrote. To wit, the "red" and "blue" passage above come from the historical background portion of the "drought chapter" in NOAA's report.

  • Of the "Dust Bowl, NOAA writes:
    • The “Dust Bowl” drought of the 1930s is still the most significant meteorological and agricultural drought experienced in the United States in terms of its geographic and temporal extent. However, even though it happened prior to most of the current global warming, human activities exacerbated the dryness of the soil by the farming practices of the time. [A research reference accompanies the preceding passage and passage is followed with additional supporting information.]
  • Of drought incidence decrements, NOAA writes:
    • Western North America was noted as a region where determining if observed recent droughts were unusual compared to natural variability was particularly difficult [because] evidence from paleoclimate proxies of cases of central US droughts during the past 1K years that were longer and more intense than historical droughts.

      Drought is, of course, directly connected to seasonal precipitation totals, and, in fact, the increases in observed summer and fall precipitation [contradict] the projections in Fig. 7.5. This increased precipitation [increased] drought statistics over the entire CONUS. Furthermore,there is no detectable change in meteorological drought at the global scale; however, [multiple discrete] event attribution studies suggest...if a drought occurs, anthropogenic temperature increases can exacerbate soil moisture deficits. Future projections of the anthropogenic contribution to changes in drought risk and severity must be considered in the context of the significant role of natural variability.

What are the key findings NOAA asserts regarding drought?

  • Recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached record intensity in some regions of the United States; however, by geographical scale and duration, the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event in the historical record (Very high confidence).

    While by some measures drought has decreased over much of the continental United States in association with long-term increases in precipitation, neither the precipitation increases nor inferred drought decreases have been confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing.
  • The human effect on recent major U.S. droughts is complicated. Little evidence is found for a human influence on observed precipitation deficits, but much evidence is found for a human influence on surface soil moisture deficits due to increased evapotranspiration caused by higher temperatures. (High Confidence)
  • Future decreases in surface (top 10 cm) soil moisture from anthropogenic forcing over most of the United States are likely as the climate warms under higher scenarios. (Medium confidence)
  • Substantial reductions in western U.S. winter and spring snowpack are projected as the climate warms. Earlier spring melt and reduced snow water equivalent have been formally attributed to human-induced warming (high confidence) and will very likely be exacerbated as the climate continues to warm (very high confidence). Under higher scenarios, and assuming no change to current water resources management, chronic, long-duration hydrological drought is increasingly possible by the end of this century (very high confidence).
  • Detectable changes in some classes of flood frequency have occurred in parts of the United States andare a mix of increases and decreases. Extreme precipitation, one of the controlling factors in flood statistics,is observed to have generally increased and is projected to continue to do so across the United States in a warming atmosphere. However, formal attribution approaches have not established a significant connection of increased riverine flooding to human-induced climate change, and the timing of any emergence of a future detectable anthropogenic change in flooding is unclear. (Medium confidence)
  • The incidence of large forest fires in the western United States and Alaska has increased since the early 1980s (high confidence) and is projected to further increase in those regions as the climate warms, with profound changes to certain ecosystems (medium confidence)
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,237
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I guess you get what you pay for.

[FONT=&quot] National Climate Assessment Report[/FONT]
[h=1]Research From Latest US Climate Report Tied to 2 Major Democratic Donors[/h][FONT=&quot]From The Daily Signal Michael Bastasch / @MikeBastasch / November 26, 2018 / Michael Bastasch @MikeBastasch Michael Bastasch is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. It’s been repeated throughout the media that global warming could wipe out one-tenth of the U.S. economy by 2100. Now it’s a top-line finding of a major government…
[/FONT]
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,237
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From the rubric article:
Drought statistics over the entire contiguous US have declined,” the report finds, reminding us that “the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event.”

Lomborg, like anyone, is able to uncontextually cull and connect remarks from an entire chapter about drought and, in turn, duplicitously apply the excerpt to discount or miscast the nature and extent of what an author wrote. To wit, the "red" and "blue" passage above come from the historical background portion of the "drought chapter" in NOAA's report. . . .

  • The incidence of large forest fires in the western United States and Alaska has increased since the early 1980s (high confidence) and is projected to further increase in those regions as the climate warms, with profound changes to certain ecosystems (medium confidence)

1. Lomborg is never duplicitous.
2. Forest fires have not increased.


Remember when we were told that wildfires would increase due to global warming? Never mind.

This paper was just published in the Royal Society Biological Sciences journal. The takeaways: “Global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.” Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a…

July 25, 2018 in Wildfires.

[FONT=&quot]Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
wildfire-occurence-720x249.jpg
Figure 2. Wildfire occurrence (a) and corresponding area burnt (b) in the European Mediterranean region for the period 1980–2010. Source: San-Miguel-Ayanz et al. [37].
[/FONT]

Abstract[FONT=&quot]Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.This article is part of themed issue ‘The interaction of fire and mankind’.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The paper: Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Jun 5;371(1696). pii: 20150345. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0345.

[/FONT]
 

BrainNebula

Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
And the crowd goes silent, surprise surprise.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. Lomborg is never duplicitous.
2. Forest fires have not increased.

[FONT=&] [/FONT]
Remember when we were told that wildfires would increase due to global warming? Never mind.

[FONT=&]This paper was just published in the Royal Society Biological Sciences journal. The takeaways: “Global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.” Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a…
[/FONT]

July 25, 2018 in Wildfires.

[FONT="][URL="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1696/20150345"]Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="][IMG]https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/wildfire-occurence-720x249.jpg[/IMG][CENTER][COLOR=#999999][FONT=Arial]Figure 2. Wildfire occurrence (a) and corresponding area burnt (b) in the European Mediterranean region for the period 1980–2010. Source: San-Miguel-Ayanz et al. [37].[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER][/FONT][/COLOR]
[B]Abstract[/B][COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.[/FONT]

[FONT="]Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.This article is part of themed issue ‘The interaction of fire and mankind’.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]The paper: Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Jun 5;371(1696). pii: 20150345. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0345.

[/FONT]

I've posted the links many times on these threads. Wildfire acreage is way up in the US, while the numbers of wildfires are down. This implies that our education at prevention is better, but once a fire starts, they are getting harder and harder to contain.
wILDFIREpIC.jpg
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,237
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've posted the links many times on these threads. Wildfire acreage is way up in the US, while the numbers of wildfires are down. This implies that our education at prevention is better, but once a fire starts, they are getting harder and harder to contain.
View attachment 67245280

From the link in #6: For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement.
 

BrainNebula

Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Its an opinion piece from a borderline tabloid paper. It only brings up good points to people who have been brainwashed to think climate change is bogus, in spite of the consensus scientific opinions, and own experience with extreme weather, storms, etc.

It boggles my mind how dumb people who buy this nonsense are. There is nothing negative about not polluting the air, dumping chemicals water ways and the land, poisoning the oceans. it's unreal what brainwashed sheep. Corporate interestswho would **** over their own mother to make more profits are pushing this ****.

Meanwhile, we see what happens when regulations are reduced, we get poisoned lettuce from dirty water run-off. Every single time.

I'm assuming you believe there is something negative about harming our economic growth, right?
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
26,462
Reaction score
19,087
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There's a bunch of good stuff in this article that shows why you can't trust the climate alarmism.

Source

A lot of the flooding is due because we're idiots that build cities and towns on flood plains.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
48,184
Reaction score
14,094
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A lot of the flooding is due because we're idiots that build cities and towns on flood plains.

Plus, we cap off land and then route storm sewers to waterways. Then on top of that, we restrict natural water flows.

It's antropogenic alright. Just not CO2 related.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
26,462
Reaction score
19,087
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Plus, we cap off land and then route storm sewers to waterways. Then on top of that, we restrict natural water flows.

It's antropogenic alright. Just not CO2 related.

I agree. We're stupid and try to make rivers run where we want them to run instead of where the river wants to. We destroy natural barriers and drainage systems so we can pore concrete and pave over them with asphalt.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,237
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Politics of climate expertise

Posted on December 3, 2018 by curryja | 2 comments
by Judith Curry
“Concerning the inability of expert knowledge to resolve environmental controversy and the pressing need for a pragmatic reframing of policy problems to allow for solutions based on bipartisan values.”
Continue reading

. . . Given the publication of the U.S. National Climate Assessment almost two weeks ago, and the massive amount of publicity that the authors and the usual advocates have received, it is worth reflecting on why political and public support for the Paris agreement actually seems to be declining. Peter Tangney’s paper provides some insights and recommendations for the way forward that are aligned with the Hartwell Paper.

 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So what? Should we dismiss all media outlets because they all have some sort of bias?

Some are worse than others. There are ratings out there. Try NPR, Bloomberg, CBS - all were shown least biased.
 

BrainNebula

Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Some are worse than others. There are ratings out there. Try NPR, Bloomberg, CBS - all were shown least biased.

Oh, well if it's rated (and those who rate clearly can't be biased) then okay...smh.
 
Top Bottom