Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:29 am

robertk wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:17 am
chownah wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:12 am
[quote=robertk post_id=46
It is not clear which venerable scientists you are refering to.....and it is not clear who wrote the secret report.....it is not clear what all was included in the report...it is not clear if the obviously off the mark predictions were best guess scenarios or if they were the worst case scenarios.

Not much is clear about this.....could you clarify your understanding about this?
chownah
p.s. Notice that the report was suppressed by the pentagon....maybe they thought the predictions were off the mark.....but it was obtained by the Observer who of course made what they could of it.
chownah
there are three highly credentialed scientists cited in the article;
"Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored"
Those three comments (italics) are all political rather than scientific but stand the test of time ... although I think Trump needs more persuasion than mere words can provide. :rolleye:
As for the 2004 predictions ... by the time they've been through the "secret report" and The Observer there's no knowing how they were originally framed. Chownah's questions about them are relevant but unanswerable, IMO.

:namaste:
Kim

edit - typo :embarassed:

Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Virgo » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:27 pm

robertk wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:00 am
Hi Kim and virgo
what is your read on this from the Guardian.
Hi Rob,

As Kim rightfully pointed out we have 14 more years of data and science now. This has allowed climatologists (who are legitimate scientists) to tweak their predictions.

Kevin

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by robertk » Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:30 pm

Virgo wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:27 pm
robertk wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:00 am
Hi Kim and virgo
what is your read on this from the Guardian.
Hi Rob,

As Kim rightfully pointed out we have 14 more years of data and science now. This has allowed climatologists (who are legitimate scientists) to tweak their predictions.

Kevin
dear kevin (and kim)
nice to hear of your long roadtrip - hope it was in a V8!

You and Kim are saying, if I am paraphrasing right, that 14 years ago scientific predictions about global warming were an embarrassing joke.
But we can trust them now, so don't worry?

Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Virgo » Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:43 pm

robertk wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:30 pm
Virgo wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:27 pm
Hi Rob,

As Kim rightfully pointed out we have 14 more years of data and science now. This has allowed climatologists (who are legitimate scientists) to tweak their predictions.

Kevin
dear kevin (and kim)
nice to hear of your long roadtrip - hope it was in a V8!

You and Kim are saying, if I am paraphrasing right, that 14 years ago scientific predictions about global warming were an embarrassing joke.
But we can trust them now, so don't worry?
Hi Rob, it was not in a V8 vehicle. The most important factor in reducing Global Climate Change is policy, particularly dealing with energy. Energy production far outweighs personal lifestyle choices in its impacts, meat production is also a big one but again that needs to be dealt with by policy as we go into the future. Just as many Climate Change believers 14 yrs ago thought riding bicycles was going to have a great impact, but they were wrong, scientists predictions about the effects of Climate Change were off. The current predictions are that by 2100 (82 years from now of course) the minimum sea level rise with be 2 feet and the maximum 8 feet. Science has advanced quite a bit in the past 14 years on earth.

Kevin

chownah
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:13 am

robertk wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:30 pm
Virgo wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:27 pm
robertk wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:00 am
Hi Kim and virgo
what is your read on this from the Guardian.
Hi Rob,

As Kim rightfully pointed out we have 14 more years of data and science now. This has allowed climatologists (who are legitimate scientists) to tweak their predictions.

Kevin
dear kevin (and kim)
nice to hear of your long roadtrip - hope it was in a V8!

You and Kim are saying, if I am paraphrasing right, that 14 years ago scientific predictions about global warming were an embarrassing joke.
But we can trust them now, so don't worry?
Please note that the three venerable scientists you refer to did not write the secret report....the tone of your posting seems to imply that they did. We don't know who made those predictions. You are taking predictions made by an unknown source and using it to besmirtch the entirety of global warming science!!!! :jawdrop: If you think that doing this makes sense then perhaps you should stop making sense (just a suggestion).

chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:36 am

robertk wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:30 pm
... You and Kim are saying, if I am paraphrasing right, that 14 years ago scientific predictions about global warming were an embarrassing joke.
But we can trust them now, so don't worry?
No, that's not fair at all - either to us or to the climate scientists of fourteen years ago.
In 2004 all the basics were very well known and core predictions haven't changed much since then: CO2 and other greenhouse gases are raising the average temperature of the atmosphere, which will lead (has already led) to more extreme weather, to loss of agricultural production, and to sea level rise. The last 14 years have reduced uncertainties in the plausible extremes, while what has happened in the last 14 years has also changed our likely futures.
You produced a newspaper article containing a few poorly sourced and fairly extreme claims - even by 2004 knowledge - and the names of a few climate scientists, and want to say that shows "scientific predictions about global warming were an embarrassing joke" and use that, in turn to discredit current climate science.
Is either part of that process reasonable? Let alone fair?
No.
Try this instead: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-mo ... ediate.htm
Or this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen ... iction.htm
Or, of course, both.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by robertk » Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:50 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:36 am

You produced a newspaper article containing a few poorly sourced and fairly extreme claims - even by 2004 knowledge - and the names of a few climate scientists, and want to say that shows "scientific predictions about global warming were an embarrassing joke" and use that, in turn to discredit current climate science.
Last month when I gave a mention about the Australian newspaper you suggested " trusting it was dumb" and advised using the Guardian (which is where this article came from
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment ... heobserver ).
"Kim OHara" :The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/au is the best of the "newspapers" IMO
. viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29492&p=454646&hil ... an#p454646
Has your opinion of its accuracy dropped since then?

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:12 am

robertk wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:50 am
Kim OHara wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:36 am

You produced a newspaper article containing a few poorly sourced and fairly extreme claims - even by 2004 knowledge - and the names of a few climate scientists, and want to say that shows "scientific predictions about global warming were an embarrassing joke" and use that, in turn to discredit current climate science.
Last month when I gave a mention about the Australian newspaper you suggested " trusting it was dumb" and advised using the Guardian (which is where this article came from
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment ... heobserver ).
"Kim OHara" :The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/au is the best of the "newspapers" IMO
. viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29492&p=454646&hil ... an#p454646
Has your opinion of its accuracy dropped since then?
No. I still think the Guardian is better (more accurate, more often) than any of Murdoch's rags - especially on climate science and policy. :toilet:
But I didn't and wouldn't say you should trust any newspaper all the time, or that any newspaper is the best source of information on climate science. Going to the source or to specialist publications will usually be better. Try NASA, NOAA, Australia's BOM http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/, Climate Progress (especially good on policy), Desmog Blog https://www.desmogblog.com ... there are more but those are all well informed without getting too technical.
Staying up to date is usually better, too. Again, that's especially true for climate science, but this time because the field is still changing pretty fast. (Not as fast as renewable energy, though, where anything more than a year old is out of date.)

:reading:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:18 am

robertk wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:50 am
Kim OHara wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:36 am

You produced a newspaper article containing a few poorly sourced and fairly extreme claims - even by 2004 knowledge - and the names of a few climate scientists, and want to say that shows "scientific predictions about global warming were an embarrassing joke" and use that, in turn to discredit current climate science.
Last month when I gave a mention about the Australian newspaper you suggested " trusting it was dumb" and advised using the Guardian (which is where this article came from
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment ... heobserver ).
Has your opinion of its accuracy dropped since then?
It seems that the guardian was reporting events. I didn't read the entire article carefully because I kept looking for where the guardian was misrepreseting something or making factual errors.....I didn't find either after quite a bit of looking so I got bored with looking for them without reading every single paragraph carefully. Can you bring exactly the thing which you think the guardian has misrepresented?
It seems that you disagree with the things that people are reported as saying which should reflect on those people saying them and not on the guardians reporting of their having been said......maybe I am missing something and I hope that if I am you will point me to the offending paragraph(s).

chownah

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by robertk » Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:39 am

Can you bring exactly the thing which you think the guardian has misrepresented
where did I suggest the Guardian misrepresented?

chownah
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:22 am

robertk wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:39 am
Can you bring exactly the thing which you think the guardian has misrepresented
where did I suggest the Guardian misrepresented?
Sorry if I misrepresented your position inre the guardian.
Why should kim ohara's opinion of its accuracy have dropped? The guardian seems to be just reporting what happened. It seems from the article that there was a secret report generate for the pentagon (and the authors of that report are unknown to us).....the article said that there was a presentation made containing at least some of the things from that report (but exactly how much of the report was presented is unknown to us). Some excerpts containing some predictions were allegged to be in that special report (but whether those predictions were included in the presentation is unknown to us). Three venerable scientists who attended the presentation (if I remember correctly) made general comments about the contents of the presentation (but just what information they acquired at that presentation is unknown to us). Exactly what their reported quips were in reference to is unknown to us.

With so little known and so much unknown I think the question should not be whether kim ohara's opinion of its accuracy has dropped but whether our opinion of your ability to read an article and draw a reasonable conclusion has dropped.
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:19 am

Brilliant animation from NASA -




:namaste:

Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:49 am

manas wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:44 pm
A question for those who believe in 'Global Warming' is, why the extremely cold Winters, when one of our own esteemed Aussie scientists predicted 'cold Winters will become a thing of the past?" Boy has he been proven wrong in the last few years. Right now across Europe, people are digging their homes out of all the snow and ice.

I simply don't trust computer modelling, over actual, on the ground observations. ACTUAL conditions mean much more, that predictions based on a computer program. The Earth is a complex, living system, infinitely more complex than a computer model alone can describe.
The cold winters are a demonstration of the complex patterns of weather that lead to climate. It is a mistake IMO to rely too much on climate predictions especially regional climate predictions. There is broad agreement that regional climate predictions leave a lot to be desired. It's a also big mistake to speak of predictions and estimates as if they were facts.

Local temperature is often influenced by wind patterns which carry warmer or cooler air. Wind patterns in turn are driven by differences in temperature. So among the several influences on weather and regional climate it's possible that the cold winter weather events are partly (or largely) driven by larger scale warming.

SNOW. Snow can form when it's below freezing. So a warming of say 1 degree C, from -10 C to -9 C, still supports the formation of snow and it's persistence on the ground.

Scientists are human beings and we like to think that we have something important and interesting to say. That is a constant source of temptation to speak a bit recklessly especially when speaking to the public.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:38 am

Capsule Summary
While United States landfalling hurricane frequency or intensity shows no significant trend since 1900, growth in coastal population and wealth have led to increasing hurricane-related damage along the United States coastline.
That is the capsule summary of a paper recently accepted for publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

Although that finding is not without some controversy it reflects mainstream climate science.

Continental United States Hurricane Landfall Frequency and Associated Damage: Observations and Future Risks
Philip J. Klotzbach et. al. 2018
https://t.co/6P7VBFkqaW


Growth in coastal population and regional wealth are the overwhelming drivers of observed increases in hurricane-related damage. As the population and wealth of the US has increased in coastal locations, it has invariably led to the growth in exposure and vulnerability of coastal property along the US Gulf and East Coasts. Unfortunately, the risks associated with more people and vulnerable exposure came to fruition in Texas and Florida during the 2017 season following the landfalls of hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Total economic damage from those two storms exceeded $125 billion.

Growth in coastal population and exposure is likely to continue in the future, and when hurricane landfalls do occur, this will likely lead to greater damage costs than previously seen. Such a statement is made recognizing that the vast scope of damage from hurricanes often highlight the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of building codes, flood maps, infrastructure, and insurance in at-risk communities.

Final Thought:
" ... this will likely lead to greater damage costs than previously seen" -- that is true of the climate we already have. No climate change required.
There is much that we could do to respond to the climate that we have lived in for the last 100 years. Responses to possible future climate change might productively start with responding better to the climate we already have. Everyone who speaks of "inconvenient truths" about climate should add that to their list.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:12 am

Ontario Canada - 95 percent non-greenhouse gas emitting thanks to Nuclear and Hydro Electric
This information from the not-for-profit corporate entity under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Minister of Energy confirms what I have been writing about regarding CO2 reduction.
Preliminary generation data showed over 95 percent of electricity generated in Ontario Canada came from non-greenhouse gas emitting* resources (nuclear, hydro, wind and solar). Nuclear power continued to be a significant form of generation for the province, making up 35 percent of installed capacity on the transmission system and representing 63 percent of the energy produced in 2017.
... gas generation use went down in 2017 to four percent. Even though its use was down overall, gas continued to provide important operating flexibility to the system.
http://www.ieso.ca/en/corporate-ieso/me ... r-end-data
Note the drastic difference between installed capacity and energy actually produced. For nuclear, electricity produced is much greater than the rated "nameplate" or installed capacity. For wind and solar the relationship works in the other direction.

Most countries that are over %90 of the way towards zero greenhouse gas emissions for electricity, such as Norway, have a similar profile. A generous amount of hydro electric with most of the rest coming from nuclear.


Image


Political comment: It's seems to many of us that you can't really be too concerned about a climate crisis if you stand in the way of nuclear electric.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests