• 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!

US Govt Report on Impact of Climate Change Leaked

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
26,917
Reaction score
24,210
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Possibly due to fears that the Trump Administration is going to try and bar the word "climate change" across the board, a massive document discussing the concrete effects of climate change was leaked.

NYT Article
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

PDF of the report
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf

Most of the authors work for NOAA or top universities (Columbia, Texas Tech, Berkeley etc).

It's over 500 pages, so I haven't gotten much into it yet. Basic summary includes:

• Temperature and precipitation extremes have become more common (this btw is also forcing the UK's Met to update its forecast system)
• Up to 17% increase in extreme precipitation events in the Northeast
• Global changes affect the US
• Oceans are rising, warming, becoming more acidic
• Flooding has increased in the US
• Arctic is warming faster
• Lots of possibility for unanticipated changes
 

Take that Scott Pruitt.

What scientist wouldn't want to become a hero by releasing suppressed research to the public?
 

Another nail in the climate deniers' coffins. But, we'll probably see the usual suspects come into this thread to deny it anyway. :lol:
 
calamity said:
Another nail in the climate deniers' coffins. But, we'll probably see the usual suspects come into this thread to deny it anyway. :lol:
Click to expand...

As soon as they discover this thread it's:

"Scientists can't be trusted because they are big government queens sucking off the tax-payer. These scientists are just big green shills, whose reputations and livelihoods are riding on their research, lest the government turn the money faucet off. Fringe right conspiracy blogs citing think tanks funded by the Koch brothers have it right. Silly liberals, independents, centrists, and rest of the world."
 

The 17 percent number is new to me. "Considerable" was, what I remembered from earlier. Was there anything else that might be "new"? Neither Huffington Post nor nyt mentioned anything new and actually some scientist was quoted in one of the articles to say there was nothing new. But I have seen much more mentiin of the fear of scientists that the report could be suppressed. And of course, a lot of jammering about how horrible Trump is.
 
Fake news

Scientists are biased and just trying to get more grant money

People without significant science education know far better than biased scientists

Nothing to see here

Move along
 
joG said:
The 17 percent number is new to me. "Considerable" was, what I remembered from earlier. Was there anything else that might be "new"?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, I won't have time to read the whole thing right now. It's also apparently written for scientists, rather than the general public or policy makers.

That claim is on page 18, and compares 1901-1960 to 1981-2015.
 

Warmists say sky is falling.

Left wingers drool.

Dog bites man.

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
KLATTU said:
Warmists say sky is falling.

Left wingers drool.

Dog bites man.

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Click to expand...
Scientists try to enumerate the effects of human activities on the environment.

Critics completely ignore the evidence.

Deniers deny.

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
Yes ,well- there is this little story about a boy who cried wolf.
this thing is nothing buthe zillionth iteration of the SOS.
YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN
 
KLATTU said:
Yes ,well- there is this little story about a boy who cried wolf.
this thing is nothing buthe zillionth iteration of the SOS.
YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN
Click to expand...
So basically, you have nothing to add, and can't even engage the science. Good to know.
 
NYT is saying the report puts Trump between science and his climate change denial base. I think that is incorrect. His base is subservient to whatever Trump tells them up to a fairly stretched point. If the man says its time to believe in climate change, minds will change. And it may be that much of his base has seen enough terrible weather in recent years to be on to climate change
already.
 

Trump will have to discuss his Science Advisory Committee - Tillerson and Pruitt.
 
again nothing suggests that none of this stuff isn't supposed to occur.
the climate is supposed to change people need to get over it.

these alarmist papers are just that alarmist papers. nothing can be done about it changing either.
earth climate has been changing since it was formed.

however if you look at the data it is all minimum changes.
however scream on chicken little's the sky is falling.
 

:fart
 
Media_Truth said:
:fart
Click to expand...

Yep that pretty much sums up this thread. Glad you agree.

An alarmist organization releases an alarmist paper no different than the other alarmist papers
Hey have released. Good thing al gore is here to save us.

The ice sheets still exist. The ocean isn't rising as fast and neither is earth temperature.
Unfortunately for al gore 10 years later we are still here not dead yet.

The catastrophic events that they are talking about you would not see the effects of until co2 concentration were probably 10x or 100x what they are today.
 
Last edited:

Many extreme weather events have increased, but Climate Scientists aren't correlating the trends directly.

Extreme weather events increasing - Business Insider

Still, there remain uncertainties about human influence on some natural events. For example, there appears to be a correlation between the increase in the number of floods and the rise in temperatures — but the AMS found that anthropogenic influence on the strength and likelihood of floods is unclear.

 
NYT has an article with 9 takeaways from the report. These include:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/08/climate/nine-takeaways-climate-report.html

• Western states are warming faster than the rest of the US (though it's not as bad as the Dust Bowl)

• Hurricanes are getting wetter

• Despite slight increases in precipitation in the West, California is likely to see more droughts (as snowpacks, which constitute most of CA's water supply, recede due to warming)

• Precipitation is getting more extreme, mostly in the Northeast

• Flooding due to sea level rise is already a problem (e.g. Miami, duh)

• Human activity is definitely having a major influence on climate

• We're likely in for surprises, such as simultaneous extreme weather events, or crossing tipping points
 
Media_Truth said:
Many extreme weather events have increased, but Climate Scientists aren't correlating the trends directly.
Click to expand...
Or, you're cherry-picking from the article.

There are uncertainties -- almost every major report acknowledges this. E.g. the new report uses both a Confidence Level and a Likelihood rating for its claims. E.g. the new report discusses an overview of flooding as:

Annual occurrences of daily tidal flooding—exceeding local thresholds for minor impacts
to infrastructure—have increased 5- to 10-fold since the 1960s in several U.S. coastal
cities (very high confidence). The changes in flood frequency over time are greatest where
elevation is lower, local RSL rise is higher, or extreme variability is less (very high
confidence). Tidal flooding will continue increasing in depth and frequency in similar
manners this century (very high confidence).​


Meanwhile, the report discussed in that BI article links half the extreme weather events in 2014 to AGW, and that its authors expect to see more flooding and droughts. The actual HSBC report wasn't linked in the article, and may be behind a paywall or require registration -- it seems like the sort of equity research that banks usually sell to customers.

And of course, HSBC is (at least publicly) accepting the reality of climate change. E.g. their October 2016 report starts with "Climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet, a threat recognised by the 184 countries that have signed the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. If unchecked, climate change threatens the customers, the communities and the environment on which HSBC’s business has been built over 150 years." So... there's that.
 

Seems to me that you are ignorant of the report. Not a real shocker, there.

Let me enlighten you a bit:

The top-line conclusion is that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” There is, the report says, “no convincing alternative explanation” for that warming.

By definition, “extremely likely” means 95 to 100 percent probable. That is an extraordinary degree of confidence in science, especially about a complex phenomenon.

So yeah.... something suggests that 'this stuff isnt supposed to occur' naturally.

 

You didn't read the paragraph you posted I suggest you read it again.
It doesn't say what you claim.
 
[h=1]NYT Caught Switching Out Documents To Fix Botched Climate Change Article[/h] From The Daily Caller Energy Michael Bastasch 2:31 PM 08/08/2017 The New York Times has quietly updated its Tuesday front page article on a “sweeping” global warming report some scientists fear “would be suppressed” by the Trump administration. TheNYT reported they had obtained an unreleased draft copy of the National Climate Assessment (NCA), which…
Continue reading →
 

Well since earth has experienced similar warming trends and has had even greater amount of co2
Then yes it is very possible that it would indeed occur naturally.

You seem to want to disregard historical data.

That is because they haven't looked for anything else.
The primary goal of the iPcc is to only look at human impact on climate.

So right off the bat they have an inherent bias in their mission statement.
The warming trend can easily be explained as a any other warming trend.
It is similar is size and trend.
In fact prior warming trends have been hotter.

Earth climate is supposed to change.
 

You can't trust anything that comes out of the NYT. they have lost all point of credibility.
About as much as the climate scientists have in doctoring temperatures.
 
calamity said:
Another nail in the climate deniers' coffins. But, we'll probably see the usual suspects come into this thread to deny it anyway. :lol:
Click to expand...

Exactly. Climate-science deniers always ignore scientific facts from real science bodies, and instead only accept the statements of a handful of people paid off by Big Oil. Then, they brag about how everyone else, but them, is gullible for not believing in people who have been bought and paid for by Big Oil, when Big Oil has an obvious biased interest in denying the science, while NASA scientists don't. It's hard to find a more comical situation than science-deniers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…