• 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

This National Climate Assessment focuses on wildfires much more-so than the 2014 report. I live in the Mountain West, and this is so evident here.

Climatic changes, including warmer springs, longer summer dry seasons, and drier soils and vegetation, have already lengthened the wildfire season (see Ch. 6: Forests) and increased the frequency of large wildfires. Human-caused climate change is estimated to have doubled the area of forest burned in the western United States from 1984 to 2015. Projections indicate that the wildfire frequency and burned area in North America will continue to increase over the 21st century due to climate change.
 
Another big concern in the Mountain West is ozone pollution. Western cities are always among the worst in air quality, from ozone (American Lung Association). It should also be noted that the West has warmed more than the East and Midwest - almost 2 deg C, versus less than 1 deg C elsewhere.

Unless offset by additional reductions of ozone precursor emissions, there is high confidence that climate change will increase ozone levels over most of the United States, particularly over already polluted areas, thereby worsening the detrimental health and environmental effects due to ozone. Although competing meteorological effects determine local ozone levels, temperature is often the largest single driver. The climate penalty results from changes in local weather conditions, including temperature and atmospheric circulation patterns, as well as changes in ozone precursor emissions that are influenced by meteorology. Climate change has already had an influence on ozone concentrations over the United States, offsetting some of the expected ozone benefit from reduced precursor emissions.
 
Quaestio said:
How would you even know? You haven't even read it. As Usual.
Click to expand...

I read the first part, and went straight to the references because it looked familiar. And it was. Many of the references were chapters in the AR5. Other references were from other reports linked over the years. Few actual papers.

Regurgitated material.
 
Media_Truth said:
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?"
Click to expand...
The start period is an earlier warm period, the climate assessment is related to impacts from warming at a national level.
 
longview said:
The start period is an earlier warm period, the climate assessment is related to impacts from warming at a national level.
Click to expand...

Still didn't answer the gentleman's question. But I guess this is to be expected.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Alarmists Will NOT Like This Part of the Recently Published U.S. Climate Science Special Report[/h][FONT=&quot]Chapter 6 – Temperature Changes in the United States of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s recently published Climate Science Special Report (2017) clearly shows and discusses, under the heading of “6.1.2 Temperature Extremes”, how temperature extremes for the contiguous United States have become more moderate over the last 118 years, with the coldest daily…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Alarmism / Climate Communications
President Trump Admin Claims Fourth National Climate Assessment Was Rigged To Produce Bad Outcomes

Guest essay by Eric Worrall President Trump’s administration has struck back at the Fourth National Climate Assessment, claiming that the report was rigged to disregard reasonable responses to warmer temperatures. Clashing with Trump, U.S. government report says climate change will batter economy (Reuters) – Climate change will cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of…
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&]Alarmism / Climate Communications[/FONT]
President Trump Admin Claims Fourth National Climate Assessment Was Rigged To Produce Bad Outcomes

[FONT=&]Guest essay by Eric Worrall President Trump’s administration has struck back at the Fourth National Climate Assessment, claiming that the report was rigged to disregard reasonable responses to warmer temperatures. Clashing with Trump, U.S. government report says climate change will batter economy (Reuters) – Climate change will cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Well, one has to admit he pushes consistent themes: He claims the 2016 election was rigged... and we certainly got a bad outcome.

Baddabing!
 
Media_Truth said:
Still didn't answer the gentleman's question. But I guess this is to be expected.
Click to expand...
The maximum temperatures are the basis for the concern in the report, the average temperature is mostly changes in minimum temperatures.
The baseline was related to the posted graph.
 
longview said:
The maximum temperatures are the basis for the concern in the report, the average temperature is mostly changes in minimum temperatures.
The baseline was related to the posted graph.
Click to expand...

If warming is effecting minimum temperatures more than maximum temperatures over your time frame, what's the difference? Do you think it's better if minimum temperatures are higher than if maximum temperatures are higher?
 
Media_Truth said:
If warming is effecting minimum temperatures more than maximum temperatures over your time frame, what's the difference? Do you think it's better if minimum temperatures are higher than if maximum temperatures are higher?
Click to expand...
Not better, but different and of a lot less concern.
Chill hour crops might be affected, but at a rate of less than the plants natural cycle time.
Winters not being so cold, is not a problem for most things.
 
Media_Truth said:
If warming is effecting minimum temperatures more than maximum temperatures over your time frame, what's the difference? Do you think it's better if minimum temperatures are higher than if maximum temperatures are higher?
Click to expand...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
Near as I can tell, these USGCRP reports are cobbled together by a bunch of Government agencies to describe the inevitable harm to the planet caused by humans.
Yet, they do say "It analyzes trends in climate change, both human-induced and natural,".
But to be sure those many Government agencies don't actually do the research to confirm such damaging warming would necessarily occur or by who's hand.
Did they use sources, like the IPCC. I presume they did.
So like the IPCC and their reports themselves, did they start with the assumption that all warming is caused by humans and then they lay out their predictions based on that assumption.
If so, it's really a what-if report.
That should be made clear to the reader.
 
longview said:
Not better, but different and of a lot less concern.
Chill hour crops might be affected, but at a rate of less than the plants natural cycle time.
Winters not being so cold, is not a problem for most things.
Click to expand...

Higher minimum temps could be much worse. Did it occur to you that certain species of insects could proliferate much more, in regions, if there is a much shorter frost season. Funguses could be much worse. It could be an agriculutural nightmare.

You use "might be's" as your backup. I can come up with as many "could-be's" as you can come up with "might be's", and probably a lot more. We know what we're facing today. We don't know what we'll be facing with the changes.
 
Media_Truth said:
If warming is effecting minimum temperatures more than maximum temperatures over your time frame, what's the difference? Do you think it's better if minimum temperatures are higher than if maximum temperatures are higher?
Click to expand...

He still didn't answer my questions.
 
Media_Truth said:
Higher minimum temps could be much worse. Did it occur to you that certain species of insects could proliferate much more, in regions, if there is a much shorter frost season. Funguses could be much worse. It could be an agriculutural nightmare.

You use "might be's" as your backup. I can come up with as many "could-be's" as you can come up with "might be's", and probably a lot more. We know what we're facing today. We don't know what we'll be facing with the changes.
Click to expand...
It does not change the fact that the maximum temperatures are not the area of main concern.
increasing minimum temperature is something, but not the same level as increasing maximum temperatures.
 
bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...


No. I think they’ve got a pretty good handle on it.


5dd76a9fd8f6818c13066f1b4fc582b9.jpg
 
longview said:
It does not change the fact that the maximum temperatures are not the area of main concern.
increasing minimum temperature is something, but not the same level as increasing maximum temperatures.
Click to expand...

You are really displaying your lack of scientific knowledge and credibility with these statements.
 
Jack Hays said:
Unlinked.
When was the graph published?
Click to expand...
Hey Jack, can you tell us the origin of Tim Ball's "graph" in this blog post from WUWT that you posted? And any information regarding how it was created? And please tell us when it was published? Also, please also let us know how you knew it was 'powerfully relevant' and 'accurate'?

I'm curious because it's obviously partially based on the GISP2 Greenland data set which actually ended in 1855, not the 'present' time. Also, he's got a label of 'present global warming' but the Y axis shows it about the ~MINUS 32C mark. How is that possible that the global average temperature is MINUS 32C? Have you looked out your window? Are there mile high sheets of ice?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...76-holocene-poses-difficulty-agw-concept.html

clip_image006_thumb3.jpg

There's a couple more questions I'd like to ask about some peculiarities of that "graph", but those questions above are enough for the moment.
Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
I see that the deniers continue to deny
 
Media_Truth said:
You are really displaying your lack of scientific knowledge and credibility with these statements.
Click to expand...
So you think changes in the minimum temperatures will have a greater effect than changes in the maximum temperature?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom