Tech Support Guy banner

Global Warming/Climate Change

44K views 795 replies 18 participants last post by  SeanLaurence 
#1 ·
Even though global warming is real and observed, it's still a political football to be exaggerated by some and denied by others.
These distortions didn't start with Trump or the current liberal left, the players of extremes have been at it since at least the beginning of the GW Bush administrations.

Unfortunately for humanity, science and reality are moving the projected scenarios closer and closer to some of those early gloom and doom projections.

And the same usual suspects on the conservative right are spreading lies to support denial.
A 1656 page National Climate Assessment ( https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ ) came out of the Trump administration recently only to be denied by Trump and the usual denier suspects.

Interesting article by Joseph McCarthy, an associate editor at weather.com discussing the immediate reaction and distortions from the denier camp.

https://features.weather.com/major-national-climate-report-came-deniers-got-tv/

The fact that Trump is a global warming denier is just cause to be skeptical of the denier mentality.
Science and reality is just cause to call them out on their lies.

(in my humble opinion, of course :D )
 
See less See more
#42 ·
The link you posted is valid, but not in the context you are trying to claim.

From the link, these two paragraphs obviously were ignored as to their context:

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."
What you also forget, or ignore, is when relative humidity reaches a certain point, water vapor precipitates. CO2 conversion is dependent upon biological activity which has a limitation.
Anthropogenic processes exceed the natural balance of CO2 in our environment, causing an increase in concentrations over and above what nature provides.
And scientific data shows a rate of increasing concentrations.

Precipitation maintains a balance of water vapor but since there is no natural means to balance excessive CO2, concentrations increase as does it's ability to increase warming.

And a note ( off topic ) about the water vapor fallacy, it's also used by extreme fundamentalists of a young earth creationist persuasion in claiming a 6000 year old Earth.
 
#44 ·
What you also forget, or ignore, is when relative humidity reaches a certain point, water vapor precipitates. CO2 conversion is dependent upon biological activity which has a limitation.
Anthropogenic processes exceed the natural balance of CO2 in our environment, causing an increase in concentrations over and above what nature provides.
And scientific data shows a rate of increasing concentrations.

Precipitation maintains a balance of water vapor but since there is no natural means to balance excessive CO2, concentrations increase as does it's ability to increase warming.
Now this is really good information Johnny, and I pondered over those findings for awhile myself. My concern is that the findings do not take into account the cyclic nature of the Earth's warming/cooling cycles. If I recall correctly, there was a significant, and more drastic, warming period during the Medieval Period, which cannot be attributed to the massive introduction of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere that we are seeing today.
 
#45 · (Edited)
Chawbacon

That may be true; but, the presumed "tipping point" is based upon a man-made data set that is entered into a computer to develop a "computer model." Additionally, the data sets supporting the model seems to change every year, or so, making the "tipping point" a moving target. Furthermore, the models and reports concerning climate change have been found to use questionable tactics where data appears to have been cherry-picked, actively omitted, and/or manipulated to not contradict with the global warming theory. Here are a few articles on that topic:
https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/
A theorized tipping point is determined by computer modeling.
Models do get better and more accurate as more is known of climatic dynamics.
Of course.
But that does not deny the concept of tipping points.
But you do through sophistry.

As far as Friedrich Karl Ewert goes, there is plenty of rebuttal showing how he cherry picked weather cycles, ignored data smoothing, and adjustment for calibration by calling it 'tampering'.
And it should be noted, Ewert was a geologist, not a climatologist. But even as such, he should have known that limiting events with in narrow time frames was intellectually dishonest.
The graphed increase of global temperatures is not a straight line slope .
Taking cherry picked 'snapshots' is not representative of climate. Only the short term variations within a time reference.
All said, one only has to observe that there has been accelerated melt in most glaciers, high mountains, the Arctic and now the Antarctic.

Need more? To the credibility of Ewert, which becomes more apparent in my last comment on him, It was the biased alt-right, fascist media of Breitbart introducing Ewert while a majority of scientists acknowledge the concept and activity of global warming.
'Ewert' was commentary suitable for denial usuary.
There are others doing the same.

One or two people, promoting an agenda seldom provide much more than their own bias.

That Goddard/NASA and NOAA have faked data is an old argument. Nothing new about it.
And explained in the past.

Not a pertinent point; but, deserving of a response.

My original post in this thread simply noted some of the objections overheard from many individuals that do not give credence to the global warming theory. I never stated that these were my beliefs and openly stated that the viewpoints were made with varying levels of thought processes. .
But you posted it anyway as a representation of denial.

As a bit of personal advice, you may want to avoid speaking on the behalf of individuals that does not share your viewpoint, as that practice is neither becoming, nor professional
I think you are confused.

" You are only getting whiny as your lack of constructive participation becomes obvious. "

That was my comment. I see nothing about implying it's an opinion of anyone else's.
But it is rather obvious from time t time, Jack.
You seem to be doing right now.

BTW....Ewert is well known in Germany for his association with the
European Institute for Climate and Energy.
It was difficult checking out this guy because he's not very prolific in the scientific community.

I had to get this info from a translation into English from the German Wikipedia site.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europäisches_Institut_für_Klima_und_Energie

Note: European Institute for Climate and Energy is not a scientific entity, it's a political entity.
an association that is described by independent voices from science and the press as the center of the politically active, organized Klimaleugnerszene ( translation: Denial of Manmade Global Warming ) in Germany.
You just posted commentary of a denier as if it was a search for truth.



Trumptonian logic. Fake facts are facts. A lie is as good as the truth.

You've done this before.
 
#57 ·
Liberals like to focus on the last several hundred years of climate, that is the time span where man has had more influence.
The 'Rightwingers' like to extend the time frame to periods where the global environment was different to today, expecting and demanding the physical attributes of current climate change are the same.

But what has really happened in the geological past?

A bit of 'history' .
( I suspect the usual cast of 'characters' will cherry pick to prove their position, but this is they way legitimate scientists describe Earth's climate history. Is it complete? Not likely, but good summations. )

What's the hottest Earth's ever been?
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

What's the hottest Earth has been "lately"?
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

Too much to copy and paste all of those links.

But this stands out in the last link:

Natural variability can explain much of the temperature variation since the end of the last ice age, resulting from factors such as changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis. Over the past century, though, global average temperatures have "risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels" in the past 11,300 years, the 2013 study authors explain. Over this same period, emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have increased.

Given the uncertainty inherent in estimating ancient temperatures, the scientists conservatively concluded that the last decade has brought global average temperatures higher than they have been for at least 75 percent of the last 11,300 years. The recent increase in global average temperature is so abrupt compared to the rest of the time period that when the scientists make a graph of the data, the end of the line is nearly vertical.
 
#59 ·
Climate change is real however the cause of climate change is not what is portrayed in the popular media. The Earth has been both much hotter AND much colder in the past. The hottest known period was approx 65 million years ago. Sea levels were much higher [the Middle East was a rain forest that is why there is so much oil under ground]
When I discuss this subject, I always ask what caused that climate change since there was no one burning any fossil fuel??? The answer is the exact same thing causing this climate change; variations in the output of the Sun. The insolation [incoming solar radiation] ebbs and flows; the Sun does not output a constant amount of energy. When the Sun's output increases, seas warm, polar ice caps retreat, sea levels rise, etc. When the out put decreases, the opposite occurs; sea levels fall, the polar ice caps extend, etc.

This is a natural process and the idea that we should be messing with it is [IMO] the epitome of arrogance.

BTW I learned this when studying astronomy in college [back in the mid 1970s]
At the same time, other so called experts were telling us that the increase in CO2 gas would cause global cooling. Not kidding they really said that.
 
#61 ·
.............
When I discuss this subject, I always ask what caused that climate change since there was no one burning any fossil fuel??? The answer is the exact same thing causing this climate change; variations in the output of the Sun....................
That is only one element.
The change in the biosphere ( especially the coming of plants) over geologic periods is another variable.
Volcanic activity another.

Man's activities are a small addition, but that addition is enough, as shown in current temp records, to slowly speed up chemical/physical reactions involved in climate change.
 
#60 ·
Of interest, a way scientists can determine relative CO2 levels in the geologic past and climatic change at the same time.

Ancient fossils and modern climate change: The work of Jennifer McElwain

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mcelwain_01

There is much to read and continues on for 4 pages.

And note, this is not the work of bloggers quoting bloggers.
 
#62 ·
Anyone not believing man contributes to global warming / environment / climate change, no matter how infinitesimal that contribution may be, is full of Trump. You would think they would try not to take a dump on it. I'm thinkin' we need to be gobsmacked by a meteor to rectify the situation, cause apparently, too many dips believe we need do nothing. Karma will win out over stupidity.
 
#63 ·
Karma doesnt figure into this currently but science sure does. At the current levels of CO2 in the atmposhpere we may jusr be along for the ride now regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny b
#66 ·
holding you to that Johnny....you had best be back. hope you feel better.




(shakes fist at cloud)

DAMN YOU TRUMP!!!! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wino
#76 ·
holding you to that Johnny....you had best be back. hope you feel better.

;)
Thanks, Tim.

It's that old problem come back but from a new vector.
I'll be going into radiation therapy in the near future.
Nerves are playing havoc.

I'll be in and out of TSG for a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: valis
#69 ·
Where on Earth is this coming from? Where in Johnny's post that you quoted were liberals, or ANY politics whatsoever? He just called you out on an obviously biased BLOGGER you had cited.

There are no liberals or politics in his statement.

For what it is worth, people who doubt anthropilogical climate change ARE idiots, but at least, as I stated earlier, it is more or less moot

It is what it is. All the denying and ignoring wont make it go away. Low laying nations are evacuating; people that grew rice last year now grow shrimp. Ignoring the science never makes it go away.
 
#71 ·
Hey Valis,

I was simply noting the obvious bias that academia and many liberals have for anyone that disagrees with their opinions. This bias regularly manifests as character assignations in the media (legacy or social). As Johnny noted, the source is biased; however, bias manifests in both directions.

I agree that science should not be ignored; but, the science on man-made global warming is still a hypothesis. If it were settled science, there would not be such a push back on said science (minus the flat earth supporters). :)
 
#73 ·
Hey Valis,

I was simply noting the obvious bias that academia and many liberals have for anyone that disagrees with their opinions. This bias regularly manifests as character assignations in the media (legacy or social). As Johnny noted, the source is biased; however, bias manifests in both directions.

I agree that science should not be ignored; but, the science on man-made global warming is still a hypothesis. If it were settled science, there would not be such a push back on said science (minus the flat earth supporters). :)
stating that a fact is a hypothesis is, literally, lunacy. 2 and 2 still equal four regardless of how much I believe they equal Buick. The facts are there; find them and take the blinders off.

yes, there are biases. but always, ALWAYS, science trumps those biases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny b
#85 ·
Since energy production is an issue that runs parallel to the problems of global warming, here is an example of political ethics run amok when scientific advancement is curtailed by a President bent on maintaining inefficient usage of coal along with supporting trade wars.
And it should be noted that Obama probably wouldn't have supported it in the US either, being anti-nuclear himself.

Bill Gates' nuclear venture hits snag amid U.S. restrictions on China deals: WSJ

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...restrictions-on-china-deals-wsj-idUSKCN1OV1S5

So....what is lost at this time?
This:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower

This allows the benefits of a closed fuel cycle without the expense and proliferation-risk of enrichment and reprocessing plants typically required to get them. Enough fuel for between 40 and 60 years of operation could be in the reactor from the beginning. The reactor could be buried below ground, where it could run for an estimated 100 years.[5] TerraPower described the concept of its main reactor design as a "Generation IV, liquid sodium-cooled fast reactor".[6]

By using depleted uranium as fuel, the new reactor type could reduce stockpiles from uranium enrichment.[7] TerraPower notes that the US hosts 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium and that 8 metric tons could power 2.5 million homes for a year.[8] Some reports claim that the high fuel efficiency of TWRs, combined with the ability to use uranium recovered from river or sea water, means enough fuel is available to generate electricity for 10 billion people at US per capita consumption levels for million-year time-scales.[9]
To make America great, we need to innovate and be involved in doing great things, not just signing ball caps and pretending solutions exist in polarized politics and it's extremists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wino
#86 ·
I recommend N. Korea or Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Venezuela or Mexico or Russia or Saudi Arabia, or Taiwan (that should go over bigly with China) or Mar-a-Largo .:rolleyes: 2019 is the year Orange Puke will show just how crazy he can be - buckle up, it's going to be turbulent.
 
#88 ·
Top