The Global Warming Thread

[Rip]

Did someone say something about not blaming tornados on Climate Change?

“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democ ... um=twitter

[hepcat]

He has a point.

[Unagi]

I agree. He certainly does.

[LawBeefaroni]

Not a good milestone to hit:

NOAA reported that the average of its Arctic measurements had exceeded 400 ppm for the entire month of May, not just for a single day....

...In a way, 400 ppm is an arbitrary milestone, like a .400 batting average in baseball. But the fact that no one has batted .400 since Ted Williams in 1941 still says something important about baseball. The same goes for CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.

Policymakers worldwide have been stymied in their effort to reach a global agreement on reducing fossil fuel emissions. Many scientists argue that the CO2 concentration must be stabilized at 450 ppm to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Depends if you are sane or not.

Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.
...
For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.

When did this become a poison v. plant food debate? I thought it was about climate change.

Phil Plait weighs in on the "CO2 is good for you article."

[Enough]

Did someone say something about not blaming tornados on Climate Change?

“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democ ... um=twitter

I liked all of the pro-gun fanatics posting things like uh oh killer storm in OK, Obama is going to have to do some tornado control now. As for this, the timing is uncouth/too soon for sure. Though as others already counted, he does seem to have a fair point.

[Enough]

Also, when did this become the political randomness thread?

[Rip]

and now we can add Boxer to the list saying that tornados are linked to climate change.

California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer also used part of her Monday floor speech to connect the Oklahoma tornadoes to climate change.
“This is climate change,” she said after expressing her condolences. “We were warned about extreme weather, not just hot weather but extreme weather. … When I had my hearings … scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather. … It’s going to get hot. But you’re also going to see snow in the summer in some places. You’re going have terrible storms. You’re going to have tornados.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05 ... epublican/

[RunningMn9]

Did someone say something about not blaming tornados on Climate Change?

That was me. And I said that I didn't see any evidence of scientists making that link. I typically don't go to politicians for my science.

[Captain Caveman]

A glimmer of hope?

Perhaps the U.S. can be shamed into action, but in the current political climate I'm not optimistic.

[YellowKing]

With all the rapid advances we're making in clean energy, energy independence, etc. I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over it. There are a lot of smart people working on these problems, and I have confidence in mankind to avoid driving itself to extinction.

[El Guapo]

Well we're not talking about extinction or anything close to it in any event, mostly just a series of localized disasters and probably significant geopolitical conflict.

[RunningMn9]

With all the rapid advances we're making in clean energy, energy independence, etc. I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over it. There are a lot of smart people working on these problems, and I have confidence in mankind to avoid driving itself to extinction.

I think it would actually be really hard to drive ourselves to extinction. At some point if you start dramatically reducing population, you lose the ability to keep doing it (short of an instantaneous "launch all nukes" event I guess).

The said, all species eventually go extinct. None of that will matter to us though, we'll be long dead.

[Rip]

With all the rapid advances we're making in clean energy, energy independence, etc. I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over it. There are a lot of smart people working on these problems, and I have confidence in mankind to avoid driving itself to extinction.

I think it would actually be really hard to drive ourselves to extinction. At some point if you start dramatically reducing population, you lose the ability to keep doing it (short of an instantaneous "launch all nukes" event I guess).

The said, all species eventually go extinct. None of that will matter to us though, we'll be long dead.

Unless we can migrate off planet. The thing we(the entire planet) really should be focusing on. I had a neat thought the other day concerning that. Wouldn't it be cool if we could make a machine that could take a frozen egg and some sperm, whip up a human omlet and incubate it till what would normally be birth. Can you imagine a ship that would land on the new planet without a single human aboard and then create and raise them till they could become self sufficient. THAT would make for a killer movie.

[Isgrimnur]

Short of getting FTL travel working or terraforming, we're not going to survive as a species off of Earth. We would have to take too many resources from Earth to sustain even a small town's population.

[RunningMn9]

Unless we can migrate off planet.

I repeat. All species go extinct.

[Kraken]

Short of a planet-cleansing cataclysm humanity will not extinguish itself. We will ultimately speciate into something post-human, either by design or by adapting to alien environments, or both.

If the most extreme climate change projections come to pass, though, we could fall into resource wars capable of resetting our civilization and drastically reducing our population. That would suck.

This statistical/economic look at the odds of disaster fits into this thread's current tangent.

[Rip]

Short of getting FTL travel working or terraforming, we're not going to survive as a species off of Earth. We would have to take too many resources from Earth to sustain even a small town's population.

You shouldn't need FTL if you could send an unmanned craft that incubated a couple of frozen embryos. Just grow some humans once you get there.

[Rip]

Short of a planet-cleansing cataclysm humanity will not extinguish itself. We will ultimately speciate into something post-human, either by design or by adapting to alien environments, or both.

If the most extreme climate change projections come to pass, though, we could fall into resource wars capable of resetting our civilization and drastically reducing our population. That would suck.

This statistical/economic look at the odds of disaster fits into this thread's current tangent.

Eventually the Sun will consume Earth. Not a matter of if but when. I think humanity could survive just a matter of how late in the game we are before they decide to focus on trying.

[Kraken]

Eventually the Sun will consume Earth. Not a matter of if but when. I think humanity could survive just a matter of how late in the game we are before they decide to focus on trying.

No species has survived billions of years. They speciate and/or die out. Humans are different in that (barring a reset of civilization) we will soon be able to control our future evolution. We will not use that power to remain forever what we are now. And if we do screw up, natural selection will fill the gap.

I do agree that we are numerous, we are adaptable, we are curious, and we are badass. Homo saps or our successors are going to be around for a long time even if our civilization is interrupted.

[El Guapo]

With all the rapid advances we're making in clean energy, energy independence, etc. I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over it. There are a lot of smart people working on these problems, and I have confidence in mankind to avoid driving itself to extinction.

I think it would actually be really hard to drive ourselves to extinction. At some point if you start dramatically reducing population, you lose the ability to keep doing it (short of an instantaneous "launch all nukes" event I guess).

The said, all species eventually go extinct. None of that will matter to us though, we'll be long dead.

Unless we can migrate off planet. The thing we(the entire planet) really should be focusing on. I had a neat thought the other day concerning that. Wouldn't it be cool if we could make a machine that could take a frozen egg and some sperm, whip up a human omlet and incubate it till what would normally be birth. Can you imagine a ship that would land on the new planet without a single human aboard and then create and raise them till they could become self sufficient. THAT would make for a killer movie.

I think you're thinking of Aliens.

[Combustible Lemur]

With all the rapid advances we're making in clean energy, energy independence, etc. I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over it. There are a lot of smart people working on these problems, and I have confidence in mankind to avoid driving itself to extinction.

I think it would actually be really hard to drive ourselves to extinction. At some point if you start dramatically reducing population, you lose the ability to keep doing it (short of an instantaneous "launch all nukes" event I guess).

The said, all species eventually go extinct. None of that will matter to us though, we'll be long dead.

Unless we can migrate off planet. The thing we(the entire planet) really should be focusing on. I had a neat thought the other day concerning that. Wouldn't it be cool if we could make a machine that could take a frozen egg and some sperm, whip up a human omlet and incubate it till what would normally be birth. Can you imagine a ship that would land on the new planet without a single human aboard and then create and raise them till they could become self sufficient. THAT would make for a killer movie.

I think you're thinking of Aliens.

You mock, but within a hundred years we will have the technology to be a cyborg Species. We already gene modify lower species, and as we speak people are being implanted with wetware . Progress moves faster and faster.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[RunningMn9]

Short of a planet-cleansing cataclysm humanity will not extinguish itself.

Anything that quickly removes a dominant species would by definition be a planet-cleansing cataclysm. If you had the capacity to ask a wide range of co-habitants of Earth, they might suggest that we are the planet-cleansing cataclysm.

We're stupid enough to keep kicking out the pillars of support to our biosphere, because we are short-sighted and believe that we are invincible. As long as we are dumb enough to keep doing that, it remains a possibility that we'll be dumb enough to kick out a really important piece of the puzzle. Although like I said - it seems like that would simply wipe out most of us and our civilization.

Some would survive, and perhaps the vacuum left by our civilization will spur the next speciation event.

[Enough]

For the first time since being elected, Obama has made some significant actions on climate. It looks like he is going to tie approval of Keystone to emissions as well. This was a major speech.

[msduncan]

For the first time since being elected, Obama has made some significant actions on climate. It looks like he is going to tie approval of Keystone to emissions as well. This was a major speech.

This was an announcement of a major circumvention of the legislative process.

Have we entered an era where we have rulers instead of Presidents? This President is attempting to rule by executive order.

[Smoove_B]

Have we entered an era where we have rulers instead of Presidents? This President is attempting to rule by executive order.

Slow day at work? As of October of 2012:

According to the database, Obama has issued 139 executive orders so far. In a comparable amount of time in their presidencies, President George W. Bush signed 160 executive orders, while President Bill Clinton signed 364. By the way, executive orders are numbered consecutively, so you can easily count how many each president signed.

Yes, THIS President is attempting to rule by executive order. THIS one.

[Enough]

For the first time since being elected, Obama has made some significant actions on climate. It looks like he is going to tie approval of Keystone to emissions as well. This was a major speech.

This was an announcement of a major circumvention of the legislative process.

Have we entered an era where we have rulers instead of Presidents? This President is attempting to rule by executive order.

I know this is like nails on the chalk board for you to bring up Bush... but it's appropriate here. Bush/Cheney built up (or re-built up depending on your perspective) the executive powers in general when they were in office and surprise, surprise the next executive isn't giving them up. And Bush still easily has Obama beat on signing statements by a good margin. And MSD, how unique are Obama's use of executive orders really?


Jimmy Carter 320 11967 - 12286
Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667
George Bush 166 12668 - 12833
William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197
George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488
Barack Obama 157 13489 - 13645...

[msduncan]

For the first time since being elected, Obama has made some significant actions on climate. It looks like he is going to tie approval of Keystone to emissions as well. This was a major speech.

This was an announcement of a major circumvention of the legislative process.

Have we entered an era where we have rulers instead of Presidents? This President is attempting to rule by executive order.

I know this is like nails on the chalk board for you to bring up Bush... but it's appropriate here. Bush/Cheney built up (or re-built up depending on your perspective) the executive powers in general when they were in office and surprise, surprise the next executive isn't giving them up. And Bush still easily has Obama beat on signing statements by a good margin. And MSD, how unique are Obama's use of executive orders really?


Jimmy Carter 320 11967 - 12286
Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667
George Bush 166 12668 - 12833
William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197
George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488
Barack Obama 157 13489 - 13645...

I'd like to see how many of those executive orders instituted major financially impactive policy changes pushed by powerful government agencies rather than the scores of executive orders that are related to instituting enforcement of existing laws, etc (you know...the role of the executive, rather than legislating through executive order like this President is doing).

[Enough]

For the first time since being elected, Obama has made some significant actions on climate. It looks like he is going to tie approval of Keystone to emissions as well. This was a major speech.

This was an announcement of a major circumvention of the legislative process.

Have we entered an era where we have rulers instead of Presidents? This President is attempting to rule by executive order.

I know this is like nails on the chalk board for you to bring up Bush... but it's appropriate here. Bush/Cheney built up (or re-built up depending on your perspective) the executive powers in general when they were in office and surprise, surprise the next executive isn't giving them up. And Bush still easily has Obama beat on signing statements by a good margin. And MSD, how unique are Obama's use of executive orders really?


Jimmy Carter 320 11967 - 12286
Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667
George Bush 166 12668 - 12833
William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197
George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488
Barack Obama 157 13489 - 13645...

I'd like to see how many of those executive orders instituted major financially impactive policy changes pushed by powerful government agencies rather than the scores of executive orders that are related to instituting enforcement of existing laws, etc (you know...the role of the executive, rather than legislating through executive order like this President is doing).

I'd like to see you have actually done the research to answer this question before making the bold assertions you are making. You clearly are admitting you don't know jack in this area, is to much to ask that you do the research to back up the claims you like to make?

[Enough]

Just off memory for Bush: his famous but secret NSA warrantless surveillance order, blocking stem cell research, taking power from agencies and transferring it to POTUS, and limiting the release of presidential records. Those all seem to have big impacts.

[LordMortis]

With no thoughts of the political hub bub, wow:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/heat ... cord-16161" target="_blank

All-time records are likely to be threatened in normally hot places — including Death Valley, Calif., which holds the record for the highest reliably recorded air temperature on Earth at 134°F. That mark was set on July 10, 1913, and with forecast highs between 125°F to 130°F this weekend, that record could be threatened. The last time Death Valley recorded a temperature at or above 130°F was in 1913.

And my heart goes out those affected by the craziness in Arizona in addition to their struggles with the heat.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/01/19 ... ona-blaze/" target="_blank

[Kraken]

The latest big picture numbers are in, courtesy of the UN, and they are sobering.

The World Meteorological Organization says the planet "experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" in the ten years from 2001 to 2010, the warmest decade since the start of modern measurements in 1850.

Those ten years also continued an extended period of accelerating global warming, with more national temperature records reported broken than in any previous decade. Sea levels rose about twice as fast as the trend in the last century.

...

It says the decade was the warmest for both hemispheres, and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. There was a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world's glaciers.

This melting and the thermal expansion of sea water caused global mean sea levels to rise about three millimetres annually, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than in 1880, the report says.

[Redfive]

Out of curiosity, how do they measure the rise / fall in sea levels? Is there some yardstick (or meter stick) in the water some where with mm tickmarks?

[Vorret]

Out of curiosity, how do they measure the rise / fall in sea levels? Is there some yardstick (or meter stick) in the water some where with mm tickmarks?

Complete guess here but maybe the buoys that measure waves can actually report that?

[stessier]

Out of curiosity, how do they measure the rise / fall in sea levels? Is there some yardstick (or meter stick) in the water some where with mm tickmarks?

Complete guess here but maybe the buoys that measure waves can actually report that?

Yeah, bouys and satellites.

[Kraken]

Out of curiosity, how do they measure the rise / fall in sea levels? Is there some yardstick (or meter stick) in the water some where with mm tickmarks?

Complete guess here but maybe the buoys that measure waves can actually report that?

Yeah, bouys and satellites.

Jason-1 was just decommissioned last week after 11.5 years on the job.

Since its launch, Jason-1 recorded a rise of nearly 1.6 inches in global sea levels that are "a critical measure of climate change and a direct result of global warming," Grunsfeld said in a statement. "The Jason satellite series provides the most accurate measure of this impact, which is felt all over the globe."

[Isgrimnur]

Not to mention, as with all things, there are multiple historical records used as well as a wide variety of current instruments (PDF).

Satellites are now measuring sea level by altimetry on a routine basis and it is increasingly
necessary to integrate these with the ground-based longer term sea level measurements

[Rip]

Mostly just wild ass guesses.

[Kraken]

Mostly just wild ass guesses.

I hasten to point out that my link was to a Fox News story.

[Isgrimnur]

The Aussie conservative government just axed their Climate Commission. Of course, I can't understand why they would want to do that. Except that their #2 export is black coal to Japan, China, Korea, India, and Taiwan. And the coal industry is taking credit for Oz being the only advanced economy to grow during 2009.

[Rip]

Not all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”

A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

The Associated Press obtained documents that show the Obama administration and some European governments pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-m ... ly-flawed/

But in comments to the IPCC obtained by the AP, several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/warming- ... ate-report

Scientifically proven indeed.