- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 6,917
- Reaction score
- 2,930
- Location
- Richmond, VA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Not a report to please the chief; give the administration credit for releasing it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...ifying-across-country/?utm_term=.c34aa9b82739
or
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
No, don't give them credit. This release was required by law.
All the more reason to give these people credit.
Not a report to please the chief; give the administration credit for releasing it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...ifying-across-country/?utm_term=.c34aa9b82739
or
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
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.
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/
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 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.
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.
Not a report to please the chief; give the administration credit for releasing it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...ifying-across-country/?utm_term=.c34aa9b82739
or
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
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.
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.
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.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?
The report can say that, but there is little evidence to back it up.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.”?
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”.
Not a report to please the chief; give the administration credit for releasing it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...ifying-across-country/?utm_term=.c34aa9b82739
or
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?