What World Under Climate Change

[Tyger]

Don't get me wrong Pixel, nobody is saying to close the thread or delete posts or play nice etc - I think Tyger has you on ignore so you two are not even interacting.

Exactly so. No interaction is taking place.

I was just commenting on the fact I am surprised this thread is still going on.

The thread is an exploration of what the world will look like under climate change. It's an on-going study and exploration.

The main participants are in deeply entrenched positions with zero chance of changing their views, yet continuously post argument after counter-argument with a little bit of slagging off thrown in for good measure.

Who are you talking about? This is a thread that has been created particularly not to engage in 'argument and counter-argument'. That's for all the other threads on this site - of which there are a great many. But just an aside - climate change/global warming/human caused is not a debate. There is a great deal of politization that has taken place around this topic - especially in the US - but no one who can read and understand the science is in the least 'unsure'.

Obviously you all enjoy the back and forth

On this thread? Who is doing a back-and-forth? I have done so minimally because it was very clear from the outset that certain posters have a very weak grasp of the science overall - and read nothing supplied anyway, so it's pointless to engage.

but for me, arguing about climate change year-in year-out is a tad boring and repetitive.

If that was what was happening I would agree, yet if one reads the thread that is not what I am posting. The science is always shifting and changing - sometimes slightly, sometimes dramatically. We know so much more now than we did even five years ago. We are in the midst of a massive shift right now. I find that beyond just interesting. It's compelling.

I only really come here for the UFO and paranormal stuff.

Yes. But there is a General posting area which this is under, so I assume this is a legit thread.

I literally do not have an opinion on climate change either way except that I would like my own local climate a bit warmer.

Methinks you will be getting your wish, albeit how climate and weather shift is not that easily predicted - and not my forte. You are in Scotland so if the ocean currents are stalled, you could be in for a deep freeze. Don't know - but if I were you I'd be interested. Just me.

If you google it there appears to be a great deal of literature on the changing climate of Scotland.
Just one - LINK: What impact will climate change have on Scotland?

 

[Tyger]

BTW the attempt to shut down discussion and even the mention of climate change is not a minor matter in the wider world these days. We are in significantly unusual times. Mr Trump is going after climate scientists - and now even those who are working for gender equality. It's quite possible that freedom to explore science will be curtailed in the not too distant future.

 

[Tyger]

@Goggs Mackay Here is an excellent summary of the past, current, and projected changes in Scotland's climate.

From the government - LINK: How our Climate is Changing

TEXT: "Scotland's climate is already changing and will continue to change for many years to come.

Our climate has already changed:
The Online Handbook of Climate Trends across Scotland offers a historical record of Scotland's climate over the last century.

Our climate will change in the future:
The Scottish Government helps to fund world leading climate projection research, showing how the climate will change in the future under different levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The UK Climate Projections were launched on June 18, 2009.

These projections show the changes that can be expected during the rest of this century. Broadly, Scotland will get warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers. You can find more detailed information on projected temperature, precipitation and sea level rise at the UK Climate Projections website.

As the climate changes, Scotland will see more extreme weather events. There will be more extended hot periods; major increases in maximum temperatures nation wide, and fewer days of snow and frost. There will be longer periods of dry weather in the summer and the wettest days of the year are likely to be considerably wetter than at present.

It is vital to plan for these changes - there will be negative impacts to overcome and new opportunities which we can benefit from. The Climate Change Adaptation Framework aims to build resilience and capacity to adapt to the changes.​

 

[pixelsmith]

@Goggs Mackay Here is an excellent summary of the past, current, and projected changes in Scotland's climate.

From the government - LINK: How our Climate is Changing

TEXT: "Scotland's climate is already changing and will continue to change for many years to come.

Our climate has already changed:
The Online Handbook of Climate Trends across Scotland offers a historical record of Scotland's climate over the last century.

Our climate will change in the future:
The Scottish Government helps to fund world leading climate projection research, showing how the climate will change in the future under different levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The UK Climate Projections were launched on June 18, 2009.

These projections show the changes that can be expected during the rest of this century. Broadly, Scotland will get warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers. You can find more detailed information on projected temperature, precipitation and sea level rise at the UK Climate Projections website.

As the climate changes, Scotland will see more extreme weather events. There will be more extended hot periods; major increases in maximum temperatures nation wide, and fewer days of snow and frost. There will be longer periods of dry weather in the summer and the wettest days of the year are likely to be considerably wetter than at present.

It is vital to plan for these changes - there will be negative impacts to overcome and new opportunities which we can benefit from. The Climate Change Adaptation Framework aims to build resilience and capacity to adapt to the changes.​

Such bullshit. Do not believe this crap Tyger posts.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Climate Tax is academic invention of extreme lefties B.S. more like Solar Warming and how hell do they know how long has weather reporting been going on ? More interested in this event and how much money gone from their defence budget and to the secret budget (black budget similar to the states). Mystery as NATO Auditor General is found shot dead in suspicious circumstances

 

[Tyger]

"It appears that 2 years after we get an ice free arctic ocean, we will hit 2C.

"The ice free arctic ocean warms enough to release 100 gigatons of methane over the following couple of years. This methane, along with the extra water vapor (5%more with every 1c of temp rise) leads to 4C within just a couple of years.

"So, with an ice free arctic ocean at the end of 2017 or 2018, which is highly likely, we will be at 4C by approx. 2020.

"The worlds forests burn down and the oceans die at 3C.

Civilization collapses at 4C, according to most scientists, due to crop failures, livestock die off, refugee crisis, food shortages, unrest, economic destabilization, infrastructure breakdown, lawlessness, genocide, geurilla warfare, unleashing of biological and chemical weopons on populations, nuclear wars over resources, mass starvation, meltdown of unattended and sabotaged nuclear power stations (440 worldwide).

"We are now in runaway greenhouse and abrupt global warming.

"Only massive carbon dioxide and methane removal and sequestration from the atmosphere can stabilize climate at this point. We don't have the technology or the time or the political will to do that.

"We have to be honest and start preparing for mass suffering, starvation and human extinction by 2030.

"Goodbye everyone."

Is Climate Denial Destroying Our Planet? (Feat. Michael Mann) (December 2016)

TEXT: "Published on Dec 27, 2016"

 

[Tyger]

I remain always an optimist, yet even within that - hard truths can be held: figure out how to make the best of a serious prognosis.

So many dying right now - feels like, not so? But many more will die, especially if Iran goes the route of Syria per Trump's stated views, and especially given the situation with climate change - humanity's existential crisis.

As someone just wrote elsewhere: "The chance that a majority of us will die in the next decade is extremely high - more likely than not. And most of us in the U.S. are still living in a comfy bubble, blissfully unaware and still mostly concerned about a pet issue or two."

I hope the poster is wrong, but the signs are there. As one of my Trump supporter friends tells me: We'll see. Yep, we will.

 

[Tyger]

Interesting for the direct reference (in the below video) by the speaker to being coached not to articulate the dire numbers. Climate scientists - contrary to the popular view stated by deniers of the science - have routinely been circumspect in their public statements. Except for a few outliers - Guy McPherson readily springs to mind - the general patter always points to 'we can get out of this if we act now'. Those days are over. Significant tempearture rise is 'baked in' even if the CO2 emmisions came to a full-halt in this instant. Result? You do the math. The consequences are enumerated in post#446.

Steven Chu Shares Some Sobering Climate Change Math

TEXT: "Published on Dec 17, 2016: The former U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, shares some sobering math on the state of the planet."

 

[pixelsmith]

Tyger should be banned for posting such bull$hit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

Very up-to-date informative video. Current reflections (made this month) regarding Trump asking for the names of scientists working on Climate Change and other relevant, timely issues.

The 6th Annual Stephen Schneider Award (Full Program)

TEXT: Published on Dec 16, 2016: Climate One presents Naomi Oreskes the 6th Annual Stephen Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communication. This special evening will include a conversation with Dr. Oreskes and special guest, Dr. Steven Chu, the former U.S. Secretary of Energy and Nobel Laureate, in addition to an extended reception.

Dr. Oreskes’ work first became well known when her paper, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” was featured in Al Gore’s seminal documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Later, she co-authored the influential book, Merchants of Doubt, which explores the public-relations tactics used by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the health risks of smoking, and draws a parallel to the similar tactics used by the oil industry to forestall government action on climate change. This widely read book inspired a successful documentary of the same name.

According to Schneider Award juror, Ben Santer, “Her 2004 Science paper helped to quantify, for the first time, the broad scientific consensus on climate change. Her recent research unmasked the forces behind denial of human effects on climate and improved our chances of having a responsible, science-based discussion of climate change solutions.”

The award was established in honor of Stephen Henry Schneider, one of the founding fathers of climatology who died suddenly in 2010. Internationally recognized for research, policy analysis and outreach in climate change, Dr. Schneider focused on climate change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He also consulted with federal agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations. His work is chronicled at climatechange.net.

Dr. Oreskes’ work first became well known when her paper, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” was featured in Al Gore’s seminal documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Later, she co-authored the influential book, Merchants of Doubt, which explores the public-relations tactics used by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the health risks of smoking, and draws a parallel to the similar tactics used by the oil industry to forestall government action on climate change. This widely read book inspired a successful documentary of the same name.

According to Schneider Award juror, Ben Santer, “Her 2004 Science paper helped to quantify, for the first time, the broad scientific consensus on climate change. Her recent research unmasked the forces behind denial of human effects on climate and improved our chances of having a responsible, science-based discussion of climate change solutions.”

The award was established in honor of Stephen Henry Schneider, one of the founding fathers of climatology who died suddenly in 2010. Internationally recognized for research, policy analysis and outreach in climate change, Dr. Schneider focused on climate change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He also consulted with federal agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations. His work is chronicled at climatechange.net.

 

[pixelsmith]

Very up-to-date informative video. Current reflections (made this month) regarding Trump asking for the names of scientists working on Climate Change and other relevant, timely issues.

The 6th Annual Stephen Schneider Award (Full Program)

TEXT: Published on Dec 16, 2016: Climate One presents Naomi Oreskes the 6th Annual Stephen Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communication. This special evening will include a conversation with Dr. Oreskes and special guest, Dr. Steven Chu, the former U.S. Secretary of Energy and Nobel Laureate, in addition to an extended reception.

Dr. Oreskes’ work first became well known when her paper, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” was featured in Al Gore’s seminal documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Later, she co-authored the influential book, Merchants of Doubt, which explores the public-relations tactics used by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the health risks of smoking, and draws a parallel to the similar tactics used by the oil industry to forestall government action on climate change. This widely read book inspired a successful documentary of the same name.

According to Schneider Award juror, Ben Santer, “Her 2004 Science paper helped to quantify, for the first time, the broad scientific consensus on climate change. Her recent research unmasked the forces behind denial of human effects on climate and improved our chances of having a responsible, science-based discussion of climate change solutions.”

The award was established in honor of Stephen Henry Schneider, one of the founding fathers of climatology who died suddenly in 2010. Internationally recognized for research, policy analysis and outreach in climate change, Dr. Schneider focused on climate change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He also consulted with federal agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations. His work is chronicled at climatechange.net.

Dr. Oreskes’ work first became well known when her paper, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” was featured in Al Gore’s seminal documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Later, she co-authored the influential book, Merchants of Doubt, which explores the public-relations tactics used by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the health risks of smoking, and draws a parallel to the similar tactics used by the oil industry to forestall government action on climate change. This widely read book inspired a successful documentary of the same name.

According to Schneider Award juror, Ben Santer, “Her 2004 Science paper helped to quantify, for the first time, the broad scientific consensus on climate change. Her recent research unmasked the forces behind denial of human effects on climate and improved our chances of having a responsible, science-based discussion of climate change solutions.”

The award was established in honor of Stephen Henry Schneider, one of the founding fathers of climatology who died suddenly in 2010. Internationally recognized for research, policy analysis and outreach in climate change, Dr. Schneider focused on climate change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He also consulted with federal agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations. His work is chronicled at climatechange.net.

His work has been widely discredited.

 

[pickles]

More ice at the poles than in recent decades...

I think the primary issues "deniers" have with the global warming (recently changed to climate change for CYA purposes) is the taxation and destruction of certain targeted industries. Everyone is pro-environment, but the idea that we can ignore global polluters like India and China while killing the coal industry in the US is one of many concerns.

 

[Tyger]

This thread is not for debate - as I endlessly mention. The science is there for anyone to read - and understand. That is key, of course. It speaks for itself.

More ice at the poles than in recent decades...

Could you please supply a link supporting that assertion? You must have read that somewhere - that link will do.

I think the primary issues "deniers" have with the global warming (recently changed to climate change for CYA purposes)

Global Warming and Climate Change refer to two different phenomenon. There was no 'change' in terms - to CYA (Cover Your Ass) - though this must be coming from some website that is giving this as a 'talking point' because I have heard it a couple of times (one in RL from a Fundamentalist Christian - so I assume this is the 'patter' coming from that direction). This is just one more piece of evidence pointing to considerable ignorance regarding science.

LINK: Global warming vs climate change

'Global Warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature.

'Climate Change' refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature.

While the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.

The argument 'they changed the name' suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change'was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.​

I think the primary issues "deniers" have with the global warming (recently changed to climate change for CYA purposes) is the taxation and destruction of certain targeted industries. Everyone is pro-environment, but the idea that we can ignore global polluters like India and China while killing the coal industry in the US is one of many concerns.

The fossil fuel industries have been 'targeted' for decades with government subsidies - the benfits of which never filtered down to the coal miner except through aggressive action. The demise of the coal industry has been in the works for decades. Have you heard of Nic Smith, a self-described 'white trash hillbilly from the holler' ?

Think This Coal Country Southerner Voted for Trump?

TEXT: "Published on Dec 5, 2016: Nic Smith, a self-described 'white trash hillbilly from the holler' has a few choice words for The Young Turks and other 'left wing media' outlets in regard to assumptions about people from the South and from Coal Country. Did he believe Donald Trump when he promised to bring all the coal jobs back? What does he think about popular narratives on the right, blaming immigrants for global economic conditions, or cutting back on immigration to protect the white majority? Nic Smith is a Virginia Raise Up 'Fight for 15' activist who, in a previous TYT Politics report, thrilled the TYT audience with keen observations and enlightening insights about 21st century struggles for working class Americans."

I make $2.35 an hour in coal country. I don’t want handouts. I want a living wage. - Dec 20. 2016
LINK: I make $2.35 an hour in coal country. I don’t want handouts. I want a living wage.

TEXT: "In April 1989, the Pittston Coal Co. cut health care for mineworkers, and 2,000 miners walked out on strike. My pawpaw was one of them. When Pittston brought scabs in to work at lower wages and called on state troopers to break up the strike, the mineworkers, with their community behind them, didn’t back down — they fought harder. Through months of civil disobedience, blocking roads and mine entrances and holding public demonstrations, the United Mine Workers of America won the wages and benefits our families deserved in February 1990.

"In April 1989, the Pittston Coal Co. cut health care for mineworkers, and 2,000 miners walked out on strike. My pawpaw was one of them. When Pittston brought scabs in to work at lower wages and called on state troopers to break up the strike, the mineworkers, with their community behind them, didn’t back down — they fought harder. Through months of civil disobedience, blocking roads and mine entrances and holding public demonstrations, the United Mine Workers of America won the wages and benefits our families deserved in February 1990.

"The good wages that my father and grandfather fought to win are gone. I’m 20 years old, and I’m working at Waffle House, getting paid $2.35 an hour and relying on tips to reach the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

"Our reality goes unmentioned but for every four years, when politicians start knocking on our doors and stumping outside old, shuttered mines and factories. But we don’t need empty promises about bringing back coal jobs. We need the jobs that actually exist in our towns to pay us wages high enough for us to afford basics we can live on.

"My family has always understood that we can’t wait for a savior at the ballot box to shepherd in the change we so desperately need. If we want a shot at a decent life, working people must fight for it together. That’s why, last month, I followed in my grandfather’s footsteps and went on strike, joining with tens of thousands of service workers in 340 cities to fight for $15 an hour and the right to organize unions.

"In the run-up to the election and its aftermath, politicians, analysts, pollsters and pundits tried to divide the working class along the lines of race. Growing up in Dickenson County, in a community that is 98 percent white, all I knew was the struggle white working-class families faced. But when I joined the Fight for $15, I met people who work in restaurants in other parts of this state and learned how jobs that pay this little are taking a toll on working people in bigger cities, too. And many families in those larger cities face additional threats, like police violence and the risk of deportation.

"White, black, brown — we’re all in this together — fighting for a better life for our families."​

 

[Fcseven]

Guy McPherson recently changed his prediction of mass extinction from thirty years to ten. Either he is trying to place urgency on getting the word out or he thinks the trapped methane will be released soon.

He would be a fascinating guest to see on on the show if G and C ever want to go in that direction. I know he has made an appearance on the Vinny Eastwood show in the past.

 

[pixelsmith]

Climate change is normal and not caused by human generated CO2. Tyger is doing great damage to the real environmental movement and should hold his CO2 emissions for at least 20 minutes ASAP

Here is a link to several peer reviewed papers of great interest to the topic.

1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist | Climate Change Dispatch

 

[mike]

Still missing the forest for the trees here i see.


More plastic than fish in the sea by 2050, says Ellen MacArthur

Populations generate waste, including CO2.
At some point it becomes too much.

BBC - GCSE Bitesize: The human population

 

[pixelsmith]

Still missing the forest for the trees here i see.


More plastic than fish in the sea by 2050, says Ellen MacArthur

Populations generate waste, including CO2.
At some point it becomes too much.

BBC - GCSE Bitesize: The human population

That shows you know nothing about the logarithmic properties of CO2

 

[mike]

And you seem to think that by isolating one tiny aspect of mankind's pollution that's undeniably destroying the very biosphere we need to live within and arguing that tiny aspect isn't a problem, That we don't in fact have a problem.

We do have a problem.

The real denier here is you.

 

[pixelsmith]

And you seem to think that by isolating one tiny aspect of mankind's pollution that's undeniably destroying the very biosphere we need to live within and arguing that tiny aspect isn't a problem, That we don't in fact have a problem.

We do have a problem.

The real denier here is you.

No I don't think that. The science you subscribe to does. CO2 is said to be the primary cause of global warming.

 

[mike]

Even were i to stipulate Co2 is harmless, its only a part of the man made pollution that IS killing this planet.

The Co2 in this lot is mixed with some serious HAP's

We do have a problem, Only the real deniers would claim otherwise.