• 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!

Trump Admin: Climate Change Becoming Deadly

Rogue Valley

Exordium and Terminus
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
66,043
Reaction score
50,381
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Expect heads to roll. Science is a taboo in this backward administration.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,763
Reaction score
10,378
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Rather that cite articles about a report, why not cite the report itself, and the title.
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States.
Now if one were charged with writing such a report, then the assumptions are implied that the Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation are based on IF
the predicted warming actually happens, but not only occur but at the higher end of the prediction.
Since the National climate assessment is based on the National risk, we should look at the national temperatures.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1932&lasttrendyear=2014
Wow from 1934 to 2014, the maximum temperatures only increased by .09F per decade., way less than the predicted .21 C per decade of the predictions.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
47,626
Reaction score
13,964
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Rather that cite articles about a report, why not cite the report itself, and the title.
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States.
Now if one were charged with writing such a report, then the assumptions are implied that the Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation are based on IF
the predicted warming actually happens, but not only occur but at the higher end of the prediction.
Since the National climate assessment is based on the National risk, we should look at the national temperatures.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1932&lasttrendyear=2014
Wow from 1934 to 2014, the maximum temperatures only increased by .09F per decade., way less than the predicted .21 C per decade of the predictions.

Because they don't read such things. They read the two papers cited as sources, not realizing how biased they are.
 

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because they don't read such things. They read the two papers cited as sources, not realizing how biased they are.

You haven't even read the Summary of the ~1000 page report yet, or any of the thousands of research papers it was based on, but you felt perfectly free to make your usual nonsensical conspiracy/pseudoscience pronouncements in the Breaking News forum:

All that means is that AGW is real. It still doesn't say AGW is most of the warming.
I read it. Words have meaning. "Many lines of evidence."

Well, if there are only 10 lines of evidence, it would probably take a majority of them to qualify as "many." If there are 10,000 lines of evidence, 10-20 that are cherry picked, qualify as "many."

Scientists are smarter than you. They carefully choose the word for best effect. If they could have actually shown that "most" lines of evidence show we are the dominant cause, they would have used the word "most."

When will you ever learn, that "words have meaning?" They don't mean what you wish them to.

He claims he 'read it', so how did miss the paragraphs directly below? 'Words have meaning'. Perhaps he has a different meaning for the word "read" than most people?



"Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and land-use change, are primarily responsible for the climate changes observed in the industrial era, especially over the last six decades. Observed warming over the period 1951–2010 was 1.2°F (0.65°C), and formal detection and attribution studies conclude that the likely range of the human contribution to the global average temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1°F to 1.4°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C;15 see Knutson et al. 201716 for more on detection and attribution).

Human activities affect Earth’s climate by altering factors that control the amount of energy from the sun that enters and leaves the atmosphere. These factors, known as radiative forcings, include changes in greenhouse gases, small airborne soot and dust particles known as aerosols, and the reflectivity (or albedo) of Earth’s surface through land-use and land-cover changes (see Ch. 5: Land Changes).17 ,18 Increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere due to emissions from human activities are the largest of these radiative forcings. By absorbing the heat emitted by Earth and reradiating it equally in all directions, greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained inside the climate system, warming the planet. Aerosols produced by burning fossil fuels and by other human activities affect climate both directly, by scattering and absorbing sunlight, as well as indirectly, through their impact on cloud formation and cloud properties. Over the industrial era, the net effect of the combined direct and indirect effects of aerosols has been to cool the planet, partially offsetting greenhouse gas warming at the global scale.17 ,18

Over the last century, changes in solar output, volcanic emissions, and natural variability have only contributed marginally to the observed changes in climate (Figure 2.1).15 ,17 No natural cycles are found in the observational record that can explain the observed increases in the heat content of the atmosphere, the ocean, or the cryosphere since the industrial era.11 ,19 ,20 ,21 Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence.10 ,22"

Source:
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/


It's so funny that you are so completely unaware of how crazy and biased you come across.
 

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rather that cite articles about a report, why not cite the report itself, and the title.
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States.
Now if one were charged with writing such a report, then the assumptions are implied that the Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation are based on IF
the predicted warming actually happens, but not only occur but at the higher end of the prediction.
Since the National climate assessment is based on the National risk, we should look at the national temperatures.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1932&lasttrendyear=2014
Wow from 1934 to 2014, the maximum temperatures only increased by .09F per decade., way less than the predicted .21 C per decade of the predictions.

Would you care to explain why you chose your particular start and end years, why you chose Maximum Temp instead of Average temperatures, why you chose your particular baseline period and why you then compared it with the global average temp projections?

Or did you just copy the dishonest cherry-picking and false comparisons from the fake Steve Goddard's conspiracy pseudoscience blog?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
47,626
Reaction score
13,964
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You haven't even read the Summary of the ~1000 page report yet, or any of the thousands of research papers it was based on, but you felt perfectly free to make your usual nonsensical conspiracy/pseudoscience pronouncements in the Breaking News forum:






It's so funny that you are so completely unaware of how crazy and biased you come across.

I suggest you look into the source material cited.
 

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I suggest you look into the source material cited.

I've been reading the just released 2018 NCA Report all day- it's going to take awhile. You apparently haven't even got through a couple of paragraphs of the Summary even though you claimed to have 'read it'.

Here you go. I suggest you start reading it instead of ranting and raving about something you haven't even read yet:

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
 
Last edited:

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
47,626
Reaction score
13,964
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I've been reading the just released 2018 NCA Report all day- it's going to take awhile. You apparently haven't even got through a couple of paragraphs of the Summary even though you claimed to have 'read it'.

Here you go. I suggest you start reading it instead of ranting and raving about something you haven't even read yet:

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

It isn't source material. It's a regurgitation of information already pout out. They cherry pick what they want and misrepresent the source material too.
 

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It isn't source material. It's a regurgitation of information already pout out. They cherry pick what they want and misrepresent the source material too.

How would you even know? You haven't even read it. As Usual.

But please go ahead and show where they 'cherry pick what they want and misrepresent the source material'. You never seem to be able to back up that oft used false claim of yours.

Cue the pompous chest-beating self-aggrandizing rant in 3,2,1.....
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

JackA

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
6,917
Reaction score
2,930
Location
Richmond, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Rather that cite articles about a report, why not cite the report itself, and the title.
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States.
Now if one were charged with writing such a report, then the assumptions are implied that the Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation are based on IF
the predicted warming actually happens, but not only occur but at the higher end of the prediction.
Since the National climate assessment is based on the National risk, we should look at the national temperatures.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1932&lasttrendyear=2014
Wow from 1934 to 2014, the maximum temperatures only increased by .09F per decade., way less than the predicted .21 C per decade of the predictions.

You mean cite the report when it says this, for example: “Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.”?
 
Last edited:

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From Chapter 2

"Over the last century, changes in solar output, volcanic emissions, and natural variability have only contributed marginally to the observed changes in climate (Figure 2.1).15 ,17 No natural cycles are found in the observational record that can explain the observed increases in the heat content of the atmosphere, the ocean, or the cryosphere since the industrial era.11 ,19 ,20 ,21 Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence.10 ,22"

Figure 2.1: Human and Natural Influences on Global Temperature
View attachment 67244840

Ref:
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

But hey, the climate truthers here "know" better: It's the sun...or....soot on ice.....or all the scientists are lying or stupid....or there's a globalist lefty gubmint conspiracy to take all our money.... or something....anything.... anything but the fricken' obvious that even the fossil fuel industry paid scientists have known for decades.... increasing greenhouse gases, specifically CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,763
Reaction score
10,378
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Would you care to explain why you chose your particular start and end years, why you chose Maximum Temp instead of Average temperatures, why you chose your particular baseline period and why you then compared it with the global average temp projections?

Or did you just copy the dishonest cherry-picking and false comparisons from the fake Steve Goddard's conspiracy pseudoscience blog?
I am simply showing that National maximum temperatures, as defined by a national climate assessment, have not moved at nearly the predicted rate, for many decades.
As for choosing 2014 as and end date, would you have the climate data contaminated by a known El Nino weather event?
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,763
Reaction score
10,378
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You mean cite the report when it says this, for example: “Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.”?
The report can say that, but there is little evidence to back it up.
Consider that one of the often cited references to that statement is a paper called Marcott et al 2013
https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_Global_Temperature_for_the_Past_11300_Years
The 73 globally distributed temperature re-cords used in our analysis are based on a variety of paleo temperature
proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a median resolution of 120 years (5).
Now the recent warming that is considered unusual is between 1978 and 1998, 20 years, but with an average resolution of 120 years,
the paleo temperature proxies, might not show if that 20 year period was unusual.
If you read some of the historical references from the 1500's Earth's climate changed pretty fast the other way also.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor.../glacial-advance-during-the-little-ice-age-2/
Between 1627 and 1633 Chamonix lost a third if its land through avalanches, snow, glaciers and flooding, and the remaining hectares were under constant threat. In 1642 the Des Bois glacier advanced “over a musket shot every day, even in August”.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Bad science
[h=1]The Froth of the Fourth[/h]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach I see that the Fourth US National Climate Assessment has just been published. It’s here, and it should be required reading for those masochists who like overblown claims, flimsy justifications, and ridiculous pretensions. The fun thing about each of the Climate Assessments is that after an initial flurry of media…
 

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's really fascinating when Climate Truthers automatically and un-skeptically believe pseudoscience blog posts by retired accountants, massage therapists and house painters with no background in any field of science, yet completely disregard the laws of physics, hundreds of thousands of evidence-based research papers by well qualified experienced scientists who are experts in their various fields, and every single major science organization in the world.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
156,648
Reaction score
55,163
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Deniers are a dangerous lot. Maybe long jail terms are in order for those promoting lies and fables which put the rest of humanity in danger. I'd be all for it.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
18,834
Reaction score
5,706
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deniers are a dangerous lot. Maybe long jail terms are in order for those promoting lies and fables which put the rest of humanity in danger. I'd be all for it.

Somehow I don’t think you can have a warning about fascism and a suggestion of jail terms for liars on the same post.

That said, it seems we need to commission a study which will examine evidence and produce a report. Oh, we did? Again? My impression is that even oil companies are on board with the science, and are investing accordingly. So the question becomes, what is in it for Trump for him to make his ridiculous statement that cold days after Thanksgiving debunk the theory? Will he display a snowball in the White House to help make his point?
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
31,179
Reaction score
15,944
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AP suggested that the report probably anticipated folks wondering how come they ain't feeling any of that warmth so they produced this quote from the report ...
“Over shorter timescales and smaller geographic regions, the influence of natural variability can be larger than the influence of human activity ... Over climate timescales of multiple decades, however, global temperature continues to steadily increase.”​

Several things should occur to anyone reading that.
1 - It means nature trumps humans.
2 - I doubt you can find anyone who doesn't agree that it has warmed overall over the past several centuries. Hell, it started to recover after a natural "Little Ice Age"
3 - It should be obvious that the centuries long warming couldn't have been caused by humans.
4 - If the forecasting by models used by reports such as this are to be considered reliable they should be able to be programmed for such natural variability.
That brings us back to that pesky nature again. We know the modelers admit they just ain't got a handle on all the forcings.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am simply showing that National maximum temperatures, as defined by a national climate assessment, have not moved at nearly the predicted rate, for many decades.
As for choosing 2014 as and end date, would you have the climate data contaminated by a known El Nino weather event?

And why didn't you answer the posed question? I was also curious about this...

"Would you care to explain why you chose your particular start and end years, why you chose Maximum Temp instead of Average temperatures, why you chose your particular baseline period and why you then compared it with the global average temp projections?"
 
Top Bottom