The Global Warming Thread

[stessier]

Seems reasonable - which of course means it is doomed to failure.

[El Guapo]

Seems reasonable - which of course means it is doomed to failure.

I suspect you could generate sufficient political support if you just tell people that you want to bring Bikinis to the U.S.

[stessier]

Wait until Feb/Mar and it would be a lock.

[LawBeefaroni]

I know the deniers will cry foul but here it is:

Astronomers have fixed an embarrassing discrepancy involving the longest observational record in science: data on sunspot activity that stretch back four centuries. The discovery has ramifications for understanding how the Sun has affected, and could still affect, life on Earth.

Notably, the revised sunspot tally shows that solar activity has not risen in recent decades, as once thought1. Some had linked this idea of a sunspot 'Grand Maximum' to hotter temperatures on Earth.

“We find no such Grand Maximum,” says Frédéric Clette, an astronomer at the Royal Observatory of Belgium in Brussels. “There has been nothing exceptional about the level of solar activity.”

He described the work on 7 August in Honolulu, Hawaii, at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union.

...

Clette and his team identified several sources of systemic error in the two lists, such as the fading eyesight of an ageing observer in Switzerland who was seeing fewer sunspots over time. In other cases, skywatchers were focused on making other solar observations, so if their notes do not mention sunspots this does not necessarily mean that none were present.

The team developed a method for choosing a main sunspot observer for a given interval of time, while ensuring that observers from adjacent periods overlapped to give smooth transitions. Recalibrating the two lists caused the suggested Grand Maximum in the latter half of the twentieth century to disappear ― a change largely due to the correction of data collected around 1893, when the Zurich Observatory switched directors.

[Kraken]

Peace in the Middle East is finally at hand!

WASHINGTON — Rising global temperatures could push the sun-baked cities of the Persian Gulf across a threshold unknown since the start of civilization: the first to experience temperatures that are literally too hot for human survival.

A scientific study released Monday warns that at least five of the region’s great metropolises could see summer days that surpass the ‘‘human habitability’’ limit by the end of the century. Heat and humidity would be so high that even the healthiest people could not withstand more than a few hours outdoors.

The report, in the journal Nature Climate Change, says booming cities such Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Doha could cross the threshold if temperatures continue to rise at current rates. Not far behind is the Saudi holy city of Mecca, a destination for millions of Muslim pilgrims every year.

[Isgrimnur]

But how does it relate to the Maunder minimum?

[em2nought]

Peace in the Middle East is finally at hand!

WASHINGTON — Rising global temperatures could push the sun-baked cities of the Persian Gulf across a threshold unknown since the start of civilization: the first to experience temperatures that are literally too hot for human survival.

I knew there could be benefits! I just didn't know they'd all move to Germany and form a fourth reich.

[Holman]

Peace in the Middle East is finally at hand!

WASHINGTON — Rising global temperatures could push the sun-baked cities of the Persian Gulf across a threshold unknown since the start of civilization: the first to experience temperatures that are literally too hot for human survival.

I knew there could be benefits! I just didn't know they'd all move to Germany and form a fourth reich.

[Max Peck]

Exxon Mobil accused of climate change cover-up

Oil giant Exxon Mobil is being investigated for misleading the public about the impact of climate change. The New York attorney general has sent a request for emails and financial records to the company.

Allegations surfaced last month that the company's own scientists raised concerns about global warming decades ago and that Exxon had worked to suppress that information. On Thursday, the company called the allegations "inaccurate distortions". Exxon Mobil's vice-president for public affairs, Kenneth Cohen, said on Thursday, "We unequivocally reject the allegations that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate change research."

The investigation centres on whether the company lied as recently as this year to investors about the risks of climate change raised by its own scientists. Exxon was accused by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times of funding anti-climate change groups to mislead the public about the threat of global warming.

US presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both called for inquiries into Exxon actions. Attorney generals from other US states may also join New York in investigating the company.

[Rip]

Now you know what happens when you stop contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

[Isgrimnur]

Big Oil is the new Big Tobacco.

[Zaxxon]

Big Oil is the new Big Tobacco.

Or, more specifically, Big Oil is the same Big Tobacco.

[Pyperkub]

On the good news front - some signs of Sanity in the US:

Over the past few years I’ve hammered pretty hard at Republicans in Congress for being anti-science because … well, because, as a party, they are.

But there’s dissension in the ranks, and I’m very, very pleased to hear it. And it’s over the single most important topic in the politicization of science: climate change.

There have been a few voices in opposition to the staunch GOP plank of head-in-the-sandism, but just a few. Lindsey Graham, for one, and Jon Huntsman for another (though Huntsman is a former governor of Utah, and not in Congress). I’ve also mentioned Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, before, who signed on with President Obama’s EPA Clean Power Plan.

But now it looks like they’re getting organized. In the Senate, Ayotte, along with Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee; Graham; and Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, has formed a Senate Energy and Environment Working Group, the purpose of which is to “focus on ways we can protect our environment and climate while also bolstering clean energy innovation that helps drive job creation. ..

...

There’s hopeful news on the House side, too. Eleven GOP representatives put forth a resolution (H. Res. 424), “Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to conservative environmental stewardship.”

The resolution reads pretty well to my eye, stating for example, that “it is a conservative principle to protect, conserve, and be good stewards of our environment, responsibly plan for all market factors, and base our policy decisions in science and quantifiable facts on the ground.”

Nice. And true. Mind you, this is a resolution, not a bill, so it won’t be law or anything like that. But given how notoriously anti-science so many GOP representatives are—like the chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee—this resolution is very positive, very hopeful. As I read it, I almost felt like it was an act of defiance. It wasn’t nailed to the door of the Rayburn House Office Building, but its point is clear.

Maybe the tide is finally turning...

[pr0ner]

I sure hope so. One of my biggest issues with the current Republican party is their insistence on doing jack squat to try to slow climate change.

[Kraken]

For the most part, mainstream Republicans have moved from denying climate change to denying human culpability. The next step will be to admit anthropogenesis and deny that we can do anything about it. After that, they'll admit that we should have done something but it's too late now thanks to Obama. So they're taking baby steps, but their voter base is going to lag significantly.

[Jaymann]

I didn't check the whole thread, but here is a world map after the ice caps melt. No more Florida. Houston is beachfront property.

[Kraken]

Probably ought to mention that nobody predicts all of the ice will melt. The sea level rise that's already locked in for the next 100 years is going to be hella challenging but it won't alter the coastlines all that drastically.

We will lose all of Florida's coastal cities, though, since their government has banned any discussion of climate change. I guess drowning is one way to turn a red state blue.

[Max Peck]

COP 21: 2015 likely to be warmest on record, says UN weather body

Global average temperatures in 2015 are likely to be the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). Data until the end of October showed this year's temperatures running "well above" any previous 12 month period. The researchers say the five year period from 2011 to 2015 was also the warmest on record. The rise, they state, was due to a combination of a strong El Nino and human-induced global warming. The WMO said their preliminary estimate, based on data from January to October, showed that the global average surface temperature for 2015 was 0.73 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average. Their scientists also found that global temperatures were approximately 1 degree C above the 1880-1899 period, mirroring a recent finding by the UK Met Office.

The record-breaking five year period from 2011 to 2015 was 0.57C above the average for 1961-1990. The WMO said that levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached new highs. In the northern hemisphere, the spring of 2015 saw the three-month global average concentration of CO2 cross the 400 parts per million barrier for the first time. "The state of the global climate in 2015 will make history for a number of reasons," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud. "2015 is likely to be the hottest year on record, with ocean surface temperatures at the highest level since measurements began. It is probable that the 1C threshold will be crossed. This is all bad news for the planet."

<insert "The Planet is fine" joke here>

[Rip]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/25/the-n ... l-warming/

While 97 percent of scientists may agree mankind is driving global warming, 97 percent of Americans don’t seem to care about the issue when stacked up against other concerns such as terrorism or the economy, according to a recent Fox News poll.

Even among Democrats concern for global warming was low. The Fox poll found only 6 percent of Democrats listed global warming as their top concern, compared to 1 percent of Republicans. Men were slightly more likely than women to list global warming as their top concern, and whites were more likely than blacks to worry about warming.

[GreenGoo]

Lol. Well if people aren't worried then clearly there's nothing to worry about.

You win Rip! Keep on keeping on.

edit: Actually, I'll just wait for someone else to find the gaping hole in this fox poll. As per usual.

I have no idea why I still assume there isn't massive spin behind everything you post Rip.

[Holman]

The question is "Which one of the following is the most important issue facing the country today?" with possible answers besides climate change including the economy, terrorism, foreign policy, race relations, and more. There's no ranking of items, just picking the most important. Fox sees 3% of people listing climate change first and concludes that people "don't seem to care" about the issue.

By their own logic, Fox's poll reveals that Americans give even less of a shit about taxes, abortion, and gay marriage than they do about climate change.

[em2nought]

Probably ought to mention that nobody predicts all of the ice will melt. The sea level rise that's already locked in for the next 100 years is going to be hella challenging but it won't alter the coastlines all that drastically.

We will lose all of Florida's coastal cities, though, since their government has banned any discussion of climate change. I guess drowning is one way to turn a red state blue.

Mostly blue people live in the cities, so nope gonna be dark red.

[Kraken]

Probably ought to mention that nobody predicts all of the ice will melt. The sea level rise that's already locked in for the next 100 years is going to be hella challenging but it won't alter the coastlines all that drastically.

We will lose all of Florida's coastal cities, though, since their government has banned any discussion of climate change. I guess drowning is one way to turn a red state blue.

Mostly blue people live in the cities, so nope gonna be dark red.

It will be literally blue when the waters close over it. Cuz the water is blue, see.

[GreenGoo]

Probably ought to mention that nobody predicts all of the ice will melt. The sea level rise that's already locked in for the next 100 years is going to be hella challenging but it won't alter the coastlines all that drastically.

We will lose all of Florida's coastal cities, though, since their government has banned any discussion of climate change. I guess drowning is one way to turn a red state blue.

Mostly blue people live in the cities, so nope gonna be dark red.

It will be literally blue when the waters close over it. Cuz the water is blue, see.

With a little luck the Pacific garbage vortex will be available to live on, water world style.

[Max Peck]

The BBC is providing a lot of coverage for COP21, if you have a hankering for that sort of thing.

COP21: Beginner's guide to the UN Paris climate summit

Live reporting here.

President Obama's COP21 address.

As one of America's governor's has said, "We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and the last generation that can do something about it."

[Rip]

If that is the case then we are screwed because there is no way in hell that there will be substantial CO2 emission reduction worldwide in the near future.

Speaking of feeling the effects. 10 years of low Hurricane activity. WOOT!

[hepcat]

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Who knows what advances we'll discover if we devote resources to the effort.

I'm not singling out you, Rip. But it seems like the GOP runs on the platform "if we can't completely fix things, why try?" way too often.

[Jeff V]

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Who knows what advances we'll discover if we devote resources to the effort.

I'm not singling out you, Rip. But it seems like the GOP runs on the platform "if we can't completely fix things while we're still in office to get credit for it, why try?" way too often.

Amended for clarity.

[Rip]

The GOP isn't your problem near as much as China and others who are not going to adhere to any limits anyway. They are only playing along to see if we are stupid enough to see if we are dimwitted enough to cripple our economy to save us from the boogie man.

You'd have better luck getting China to support Taiwan's independence and freedom and getting Russia to give back Crimea.

[hepcat]

So you ARE saying if we can't completely fix things, why try?

[RunningMn9]

I feel like the GOP is a little bit of our problem, as they are the primary entity responsible for people believing dumb shit like this is all being done to chase a bogeyman.

[Max Peck]

Why Syria is the canary in the coal mine for a new era of world conflict

It is sheer coincidence that Paris was struck by terrorists on the eve of a key climate conference known as COP 21. To some, the attacks may appear like an unfortunate distraction in the face of efforts to meet a civilizational challenge like no other. Yet there are important cross-connections between security and climate concerns.

Runaway climate change will impose growing stress on natural systems and human societies, and it could well usher in a whole new age of conflict. We live, after all, in a world marked by profound disparities in wealth, social and demographic pressures, unresolved grievances, and a seemingly endless supply of arms of all calibers. Far from being a separate concern, climate change is certain to intensify many existing challenges. More frequent and intense droughts, floods, and storms will likely play havoc with harvests and compromise food security. Extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and spreading disease vectors could undermine the economic viability and long-term habitability of some areas. The result could be escalating social discontent, mass displacement, and worse.

In fact, such scenarios are no longer mere conjecture. Consider Syria. Several consecutive years of severe drought in the country’s agricultural heartland had fateful consequences as underground water sources ran dry, livestock herds died, and farmland turned to desert. Close to three-quarters of farming households in Syria’s northeast experienced total crop failure. Some 2-3 million people fell into extreme poverty. A number of factors are behind this calamity, including climate change, overexploitation of groundwater due to subsidies for water-thirsty crops like cotton and wheat, inefficient irrigation systems and overgrazing.

The drought led to an exodus of perhaps as many as 1.5 million people from rural to urban areas. But Syria’s cities were already under economic stress, in part because of the influx of refugees from neighboring Iraq following the U.S. invasion of 2003. Growing numbers of destitute people found themselves in intense competition for scarce jobs and social services. Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell of the Center for Climate and Security point out that “the role of disaffected rural communities in the Syrian opposition movement has been prominent compared to their equivalents in other ‘Arab Spring’ countries.”

Of course, Syria’s civil war is the product of several factors. Deep-seated popular discontent over decades of repressive rule, heightened by Assad’s violent reaction to peaceful demonstrations, surely was a major driver. The rise of extremist groups financed and armed by the Gulf States was another. But this is the important point: the repercussions from environmental degradation do not occur in a void; they interact with a cauldron of societal pressures and unresolved political problems.

[Pyperkub]

Unearthing the climate change denial donor webs:

according to a paper published today in Nature Climate Change. ExxonMobil and the family foundations controlled by Charles and David Koch emerge as the most significant sources of funding for these skeptics....

...He examined Internal Revenue Service data showing which groups in the network of climate contrarians accepted funding from ExxonMobil or Koch foundations between 1993 and 2013. Recipients from those two sources tend to occupy central nodes in what he calls a "contrarian network." ...

..."This was completed by hand," he noted, "on all 4,556 names." A supplement to the paper lists all 164 of the organizations he identified as promoting climate-change skepticism, a roster that includes the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Heartland Institute.

Once he understood the network, Farrell investigated which organizations were most successful in pushing their view. He found that groups with ties to the two big donors were more likely to see their viewpoints make it into media than those without such ties.

[Pyperkub]

Phil Plait has a link to the Presidential Candidates grades of their anonymized statements on Climate Change and Science:

In the “I’m shocked … shocked” category, a group of climate scientists graded the presidential candidates on their knowledge of accurate climate change science, and the Democrats came out on top, with the Republicans at best doing badly, and at worst humiliating themselves.

The study was done using anonymized statements made in tweets, interviews, and debates, which were shown to eight scientists. Hillary Clinton came out on top, followed by Bernie Sanders with quite high marks. None of the GOP hopefuls even got a passing grade (closest: Jeb Bush with a meager 64/100).

However, one candidate stands (?) above them all:

This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner.

[Alefroth]

However, one candidate stands (?) above them all:

This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner.

Drum roll please...

[Max Peck]

However, one candidate stands (?) above them all:

This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner.

Drum roll please...

Spoiler:

[Holman]

Spoiler:

Well, that's obviously unfair. If you ask petroleum execs or Young-Earth Creationists to evaluate the statements, you won't see that kind of bias.

[RunningMn9]

Well, that's obviously unfair. If you ask petroleum execs or Young-Earth Creationists to evaluate the statements, you won't see that kind of bias.

[Enough]

So we already know that today's GOP is out of step with GOP-hero Reagan on gun control, but how about environmental issues like ozone and climate change?

“If the climate change within the range of current predictions actually occurs, the consequences for every nation and every aspect of human activity will be profound,” acting assistant secretary Richard J. Smith writes in the memo.

Smith then cites Baker’s own words to a working-group meeting a few months earlier: “As you yourself stated,” he writes, “we cannot wait until all the uncertainties have been resolved before we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare for whatever climate change we are already committed to.”

Imagine if a leading Republican said something like that now.

[pr0ner]

So we already know that today's GOP is out of step with GOP-hero Reagan on gun control, but how about environmental issues like ozone and climate change?

“If the climate change within the range of current predictions actually occurs, the consequences for every nation and every aspect of human activity will be profound,” acting assistant secretary Richard J. Smith writes in the memo.

Smith then cites Baker’s own words to a working-group meeting a few months earlier: “As you yourself stated,” he writes, “we cannot wait until all the uncertainties have been resolved before we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare for whatever climate change we are already committed to.”

Imagine if a leading Republican said something like that now.

I'd think he was sane and I'd want to vote for him!