UN report: Effects of climate change even more severe than we thought

41,421 Views | 502 Replies | Last: 7 hrs ago by bearister
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?


dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:






Let's assume man-made climate change is some giant global conspiracy.

Why?

Who exactly are the beneficiaries of this conspiracy?

I can definitely tell you who benefits from climate change denial: the oil and gas industry and those who depend on it.

Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:


Why is he just cherrypicking data from April? What happened in the other 11 months?

If you're just looking at April data, why pick a peak month like April 1895? Why not April 1899 or April 1904 or just some month where it was fairly average and not an extreme?

Here's additional food for thought from that Twitter thread:

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Why is he just cherrypicking data from April? What happened in the other 11 months?

If you're just looking at April data, why pick a peak month like April 1895? Why not April 1899 or April 1904 or just some month where it was fairly average and not an extreme?

Moreover, why only in the US? One month's data from one country doesn't prove s***.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Why is he just cherrypicking data from April? What happened in the other 11 months?

If you're just looking at April data, why pick a peak month like April 1895? Why not April 1899 or April 1904 or just some month where it was fairly average and not an extreme?

Moreover, why only in the US? One month's data from one country doesn't prove s***.

It's not "one month's data", it's data from over a century. They probably used April as their month-to-month anchor because that was the latest current data, as we are in May. If cooling is observed in April over 100+ years, it would be highly unlikely that the same phenomenon would not be observed yearround.

Temperatures have been flat or declining in North America over the last several decades. And the US is not "just one country", it's a huge country making up the majority of the inhabitable land mass of N. America. As well, it is the most monitored large land mass in the world in terms of temperature measurements.

Most of the increase in temperatures recorded is due to weather stations being in urban settings, and more specifically, increased urbanization around these stations, creating a more pronounced Urban Heat Island effect. For example, the area around a weather station like San Jose airport had a lot of orchards around it in the 1950s, 60s or even 70s that have been gradually replaced by asphalt and cement roads and buildings.

Most of the temperature increase observed in a station like this will come from increased local urbanization. This is a pattern observed not just in the rest of the country, and the rest of the world as well, as the majority of weather stations are located in or near urban areas.

The Urban Heat Island effect is a lot more dramatic in the rest of the country because the vegetation and tree cover is thicker, and the summer temperatures higher. For example, the difference between Central Park temperatures and urban Manhattan can be as high as 20F-30F in Summer!... >>>This will completely skew averages collected over several decades meant to show difference in fractions of a degree.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/environment/education/10-analyzing-urban-heat-island-effect.pdf

This urbanization heating effect is clearly apparent in data by the Natl Climatic Data Center (NCDC):


This data has however been "normalized" with rural data being altered by the NCDC to arbitrarily push up rural measurements:


Just one example of how easy it is to manipulate the data in the Climate Change sausage factory.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/

Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Why is he just cherrypicking data from April? What happened in the other 11 months?

If you're just looking at April data, why pick a peak month like April 1895? Why not April 1899 or April 1904 or just some month where it was fairly average and not an extreme?

Moreover, why only in the US? One month's data from one country doesn't prove s***.

It's not "one month's data", it's data from over a century. They probably used April as their month-to-month anchor because that was the latest current data, as we are in May. If cooling is observed in April over 100+ years, it would be highly unlikely that the same phenomenon would not be observed yearround.

Temperatures have been flat or declining in North America over the last several decades. And the US is not "just one country", it's a huge country making up the majority of the inhabitable land mass of N. America. As well, it is the most monitored large land mass in the world in terms of temperature measurements.

Most of the increase in temperatures recorded is due to weather stations being in urban settings, and more specifically, increased urbanization around these stations, creating a more pronounced Urban Heat Island effect. For example, the area around a weather station like San Jose airport had a lot of orchards around it in the 1950s, 60s or even 70s that have been gradually replaced by asphalt and cement roads and buildings.

Most of the temperature increase observed in a station like this will come from increased local urbanization. This is a pattern observed not just in the rest of the country, and the rest of the world as well, as the majority of weather stations are located in or near urban areas.

The Urban Heat Island effect is a lot more dramatic in the rest of the country because the vegetation and tree cover is thicker, and the summer temperatures higher. For example, the difference between Central Park temperatures and urban Manhattan can be as high as 20F-30F in Summer!... >>>This will completely skew averages collected over several decades meant to show difference in fractions of a degree.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/environment/education/10-analyzing-urban-heat-island-effect.pdf

This urbanization heating effect is clearly apparent in data by the Natl Climatic Data Center (NCDC):


This data has however been "normalized" with rural data being altered by the NCDC to arbitrarily push up rural measurements:


Just one example of how easy it is to manipulate the data in the Climate Change sausage factory.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/


Now you're referencing a "report" from 2010?

I know someone who tried to give Mr. Watts some updated information for one part of his web site. He told my friend he wasn't interested because his old information was better for what he was trying to prove. Watts is not interested in the truth if it conflicts with his agenda. He's scum.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Why is he just cherrypicking data from April? What happened in the other 11 months?

If you're just looking at April data, why pick a peak month like April 1895? Why not April 1899 or April 1904 or just some month where it was fairly average and not an extreme?

Moreover, why only in the US? One month's data from one country doesn't prove s***.

It's not "one month's data", it's data from over a century. They probably used April as their month-to-month anchor because that was the latest current data, as we are in May. If cooling is observed in April over 100+ years, it would be highly unlikely that the same phenomenon would not be observed yearround.

Temperatures have been flat or declining in North America over the last several decades. And the US is not "just one country", it's a huge country making up the majority of the inhabitable land mass of N. America. As well, it is the most monitored large land mass in the world in terms of temperature measurements.

Most of the increase in temperatures recorded is due to weather stations being in urban settings, and more specifically, increased urbanization around these stations, creating a more pronounced Urban Heat Island effect. For example, the area around a weather station like San Jose airport had a lot of orchards around it in the 1950s, 60s or even 70s that have been gradually replaced by asphalt and cement roads and buildings.

Most of the temperature increase observed in a station like this will come from increased local urbanization. This is a pattern observed not just in the rest of the country, and the rest of the world as well, as the majority of weather stations are located in or near urban areas.

The Urban Heat Island effect is a lot more dramatic in the rest of the country because the vegetation and tree cover is thicker, and the summer temperatures higher. For example, the difference between Central Park temperatures and urban Manhattan can be as high as 20F-30F in Summer!... >>>This will completely skew averages collected over several decades meant to show difference in fractions of a degree.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/environment/education/10-analyzing-urban-heat-island-effect.pdf

This urbanization heating effect is clearly apparent in data by the Natl Climatic Data Center (NCDC):


This data has however been "normalized" with rural data being altered by the NCDC to arbitrarily push up rural measurements:


Just one example of how easy it is to manipulate the data in the Climate Change sausage factory.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/




Look, you don't have to examine temperature data. It is almost irrelevant. We have very good global measurements of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They are the highest they have been in the last couple million years which is when our genus (Homo) started to evolve. That means humans have never lived in an environment like that.

There can be no arguments that high carbon levels are going to change the planet we live on in ways we may not be able to predict. We can roll the dice and be optimistic and assume that life on this planet (including us) will adapt but there are also some very bleak scenarios.

Even in the best case scenarios we are looking at crop failures, rising sea levels, and extinction events. I don't think all of humanity will be killed but Earth may not be able to sustain the population it is right now and as resources dwindle there are going to be wars fought over them.

Are climate change deniers fine with living in a Mad Max style dystopia - at least the ones that survive? Why not avoid that bleak possibility? I just boggle at how selfish and short-sighted some people can be.


Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Why is he just cherrypicking data from April? What happened in the other 11 months?

If you're just looking at April data, why pick a peak month like April 1895? Why not April 1899 or April 1904 or just some month where it was fairly average and not an extreme?

Moreover, why only in the US? One month's data from one country doesn't prove s***.

It's not "one month's data", it's data from over a century. They probably used April as their month-to-month anchor because that was the latest current data, as we are in May. If cooling is observed in April over 100+ years, it would be highly unlikely that the same phenomenon would not be observed yearround.

Temperatures have been flat or declining in North America over the last several decades. And the US is not "just one country", it's a huge country making up the majority of the inhabitable land mass of N. America. As well, it is the most monitored large land mass in the world in terms of temperature measurements.

Most of the increase in temperatures recorded is due to weather stations being in urban settings, and more specifically, increased urbanization around these stations, creating a more pronounced Urban Heat Island effect. For example, the area around a weather station like San Jose airport had a lot of orchards around it in the 1950s, 60s or even 70s that have been gradually replaced by asphalt and cement roads and buildings.

Most of the temperature increase observed in a station like this will come from increased local urbanization. This is a pattern observed not just in the rest of the country, and the rest of the world as well, as the majority of weather stations are located in or near urban areas.

The Urban Heat Island effect is a lot more dramatic in the rest of the country because the vegetation and tree cover is thicker, and the summer temperatures higher. For example, the difference between Central Park temperatures and urban Manhattan can be as high as 20F-30F in Summer!... >>>This will completely skew averages collected over several decades meant to show difference in fractions of a degree.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/environment/education/10-analyzing-urban-heat-island-effect.pdf

This urbanization heating effect is clearly apparent in data by the Natl Climatic Data Center (NCDC):


This data has however been "normalized" with rural data being altered by the NCDC to arbitrarily push up rural measurements:


Just one example of how easy it is to manipulate the data in the Climate Change sausage factory.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/


Now you're referencing a "report" from 2010?

I know someone who tried to give Mr. Watts some updated information for one part of his web site. He told my friend he wasn't interested because his old information was better for what he was trying to prove. Watts is not interested in the truth if it conflicts with his agenda. He's scum.

The report from 2010 dealt with data from 1900 to 2010, it is entirely relevant in documenting climate, and the phenomenon of Urban Heat Island, which became more pronounced over the last 50 years.

Your ad hominem attack on Watts is fairly irrelevant here, it does not address the evidence presented in the century-long NCDC data above.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"...We can roll the dice and be optimistic and assume that life on this planet (including us) will adapt but there are also some very bleak scenarios.

"Even in the best case scenarios we are looking at crop failures, rising sea levels, and extinction events. I don't think all of humanity will be killed but Earth may not be able to sustain the population it is right now and as resources dwindle there are going to be wars fought over them.

"Are climate change deniers fine with living in a Mad Max style dystopia - at least the ones that survive? Why not avoid that bleak possibility? I just boggle at how selfish and short-sighted some people can be."

**********

Before the Green New Deal madness / Build Back Better, we effectively ended world hunger (source Dr. Jordan Peterson). CO2 = plant food. So where is this mass starvation and upheaval, pre Joe Biden installation?

Where are the widespread crop failures? All I read are California radicals including Newsom trying to fallow millions of acres of highly productive farmland; zealots likewise shutting down highly productive, efficient farms in Northern Europe; and radicals preventing new water storage in our state.

Random tiny islands ocassionally disappearing is nothing new. What the radicals ignore are hundreds of thousands of birds butchered by windmills (an intermittent energy source), and millions of birds killed by felines. The cherry on top is radicals deciding to install windmills off the coast in the path of whale migration.

What is your stance on zero CO2, non-bird-killing nuclear power?

The Ocean Cleanup may have a dramatic contribution in cleaning up our oceans. They're on pilot system #3 - to clean up the Pacific Garbage Patch.





sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:


Your ad hominem attack on Watts is fairly irrelevant here, it does not address the evidence presented in the century-long NCDC data above.

So now I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Cal88 said:


Your ad hominem attack on Watts is fairly irrelevant here, it does not address the evidence presented in the century-long NCDC data above.

So now I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means.


Eastern Oregon Bear certainly conducted an ad hominem attack on Watts. What caused you to say that Cal88 doesn't know what it means?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
^Madame Poisson, my late 7th grade Latin teacher, would have been very disappointed to observe that kind of a lapse on my part.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

Cal88 said:


Your ad hominem attack on Watts is fairly irrelevant here, it does not address the evidence presented in the century-long NCDC data above.

So now I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means.


Eastern Oregon Bear certainly conducted an ad hominem attack on Watts. What caused you to say that Cal88 doesn't know what it means?

He attacked Watts' methods on climate reporting by relaying a story about how he handled (or failed to handle) new information. Besides then calling him "scum," that's not ad hominem. That's fair criticism.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

Cal88 said:


Your ad hominem attack on Watts is fairly irrelevant here, it does not address the evidence presented in the century-long NCDC data above.

So now I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means.


Eastern Oregon Bear certainly conducted an ad hominem attack on Watts. What caused you to say that Cal88 doesn't know what it means?

He attacked Watts' methods on climate reporting by relaying a story about how he handled (or failed to handle) new information. Besides then calling him "scum," that's not ad hominem. That's fair criticism.


"Watts is not interested in the truth if it conflicts with his agenda. He's scum."

That's an ad hominem attack even if you really want it not to be.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

Cal88 said:


Your ad hominem attack on Watts is fairly irrelevant here, it does not address the evidence presented in the century-long NCDC data above.

So now I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means.


Eastern Oregon Bear certainly conducted an ad hominem attack on Watts. What caused you to say that Cal88 doesn't know what it means?

He attacked Watts' methods on climate reporting by relaying a story about how he handled (or failed to handle) new information. Besides then calling him "scum," that's not ad hominem. That's fair criticism.


"Watts is not interested in the truth if it conflicts with his agenda. He's scum."

That's an ad hominem attack even if you really want it not to be.

Good job cutting out the sentence immediately before, which these comments are directly in relation to.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

Cal88 said:


Your ad hominem attack on Watts is fairly irrelevant here, it does not address the evidence presented in the century-long NCDC data above.

So now I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means.


Eastern Oregon Bear certainly conducted an ad hominem attack on Watts. What caused you to say that Cal88 doesn't know what it means?

He attacked Watts' methods on climate reporting by relaying a story about how he handled (or failed to handle) new information. Besides then calling him "scum," that's not ad hominem. That's fair criticism.


"Watts is not interested in the truth if it conflicts with his agenda. He's scum."

That's an ad hominem attack even if you really want it not to be.

Good job cutting out the sentence immediately before, which these comments are directly in relation to.


Even if Eastern Oregon's acquaintance has a sincerely held belief that Watts is partial, Eastern Oregon still conducted an ad hominem attack.

Thanks!
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

Cal88 said:


Your ad hominem attack on Watts is fairly irrelevant here, it does not address the evidence presented in the century-long NCDC data above.

So now I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means.


Eastern Oregon Bear certainly conducted an ad hominem attack on Watts. What caused you to say that Cal88 doesn't know what it means?

He attacked Watts' methods on climate reporting by relaying a story about how he handled (or failed to handle) new information. Besides then calling him "scum," that's not ad hominem. That's fair criticism.


"Watts is not interested in the truth if it conflicts with his agenda. He's scum."

That's an ad hominem attack even if you really want it not to be.

Good job cutting out the sentence immediately before, which these comments are directly in relation to.


Even if Eastern Oregon's acquaintance has a sincerely held belief that Watts is partial, Eastern Oregon still conducted an ad hominem attack.

Thanks!

You see what you want to see.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

Cal88 said:


Your ad hominem attack on Watts is fairly irrelevant here, it does not address the evidence presented in the century-long NCDC data above.

So now I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means.


Eastern Oregon Bear certainly conducted an ad hominem attack on Watts. What caused you to say that Cal88 doesn't know what it means?

He attacked Watts' methods on climate reporting by relaying a story about how he handled (or failed to handle) new information. Besides then calling him "scum," that's not ad hominem. That's fair criticism.


"Watts is not interested in the truth if it conflicts with his agenda. He's scum."

That's an ad hominem attack even if you really want it not to be.

Good job cutting out the sentence immediately before, which these comments are directly in relation to.


Even if Eastern Oregon's acquaintance has a sincerely held belief that Watts is partial, Eastern Oregon still conducted an ad hominem attack.

Thanks!

You see what you want to see.

Did you work for the UC Berkeley ad campaign by any chance?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?


movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Spectator: The 'green agency' Natural England has been accused of blocking 160,000 new homes from being built. [UK] House building is at its lowest level since the 1920s.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another prediction fails.

movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?


The Greens have lost substantial support in Germany.

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:




Record global outputs across the board in the three main cereal crops wheat, corn, rice. There is no question that increased levels of CO2 have contributed to this and helped stave off global hunger. It also shows that contrary to popular perception driven by the media, the climate has not deteriorated to the point of having a negative impact on agriculture and world food production:







source: USDA

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/05/24/record-world-cereal-outputs-forecast-for-2023-24/

The higher the concentration of CO2, the greater the crop yields, due to increase in photosynthesis. This is particularly true in more arid regions, as the higher the CO2, the less water crops require.


Photosynthesis CO2 assimilation rate (A) as a function of intercellular CO2 (Ci) for single, attached, fully expanded leaves of rice plants

https://www.fao.org/3/w5183e/w5183e06.htm

The CO2 fertilization effect applies to other vegetation as well, particularly in drier regions:

dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

movielover said:




Record global outputs across the board in the three main cereal crops wheat, corn, rice. There is no question that increased levels of CO2 have contributed to this and helped stave off global hunger. It also shows that contrary to popular perception driven by the media, the climate has not deteriorated to the point of having a negative impact on agriculture and world food production:







source: USDA

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/05/24/record-world-cereal-outputs-forecast-for-2023-24/

The higher the concentration of CO2, the greater the crop yields, due to increase in photosynthesis. This is particularly true in more arid regions, as the higher the CO2, the less water crops require.


Photosynthesis CO2 assimilation rate (A) as a function of intercellular CO2 (Ci) for single, attached, fully expanded leaves of rice plants

https://www.fao.org/3/w5183e/w5183e06.htm

The CO2 fertilization effect applies to other vegetation as well, particularly in drier regions:




The higher the CO2 levels, the less nutritious the crops are.

https://scitechdaily.com/increasing-levels-of-co2-results-in-less-nutritious-crops/#:~:text=Elevated%20levels%20of%20CO2%20make,resulting%20in%20less%20nutritious%20crops.

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would guess that if you have more production out of the same soil, the amount of minerals absorbed is going to be spread over a larger volume of biomass. It's this process rather than CO2 actually impeding plant absorption of minerals. We know this because CO2 is always used with greenhouse farming, where its concentrations are boosted to ~1,000ppm, resulting in much higher yields for tomatoes, lettuce, peppers etc. without affecting the nutritional value of these greenhouse vegetables.

It is not clear how much that decline in minerals due to increased CO2. As well this of course does not affect the calories produced, which is the main concern here in addressing global starvation, especially for crops like rice which aren't rich in minerals to start with.

movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is a lack of common sense in search of the perfect, which doesn't exist. We've far surpassed what the EU has achieved - by switching coal plants to NG. But our Progressives want no "oil sources" at all, and many are against nuclear power (no CO2 bogeyman).

How about:
- insulate millions of homes a year - decreasing Demand
- create more "water batteries" in the Sierras for summer peak needs ('green')
- stop demonizing clean Natural Gas
- can we start scaling up The Ocean Cleanup's two inventions to clear the Pacific Garbage Patch (massive pontoon System 003) and River Interceptors? The Uber young founder has done amazing things, but he appears to not be scaling his systems. (He founded his nonprofit at 18.

They estimate they can clear 50% of the Pacific Garbage Patch in 5 years.
1) Quadruple the number of systems, and prevent the plastic from breaking down!
2) River Interceptors cost roughly $1 Million, and 1,000 are needed to 'turn off the tap' to our oceans. Ramp up deployment for these cheap, phenomenal inventions!
3) Loop in the European female inventors who have pioneered air systems (hoses) to help kick up sunk river plastic, so more plastic makes it into the Interceptors.



Lots of vids on YouTube. Here's a quickie.


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

There is a lack of common sense in search of the perfect, which doesn't exist. We've far surpassed what the EU has achieved - by switching coal plants to NG. But our Progressives want no "oil sources" at all, and many are against nuclear power (no CO2 bogeyman).

How about:
- insulate millions of homes a year - decreasing Demand
- create more "water batteries" in the Sierras for summer peak needs ('green')
- stop demonizing clean Natural Gas
- can we start scaling up The Ocean Cleanup's two inventions to clear the Pacific Garbage Patch (massive pontoon System 003) and River Interceptors? The Uber young founder has done amazing things, but he appears to not be scaling his systems. (He founded his nonprofit at 18.

They estimate they can clear 50% of the Pacific Garbage Patch in 5 years.
1) Quadruple the number of systems, and prevent the plastic from breaking down!
2) River Interceptors cost roughly $1 Million, and 1,000 are needed to 'turn off the tap' to our oceans. Ramp up deployment for these cheap, phenomenal inventions!
3) Loop in the European female inventors who have pioneered air systems (hoses) to help kick up sunk river plastic, so more plastic makes it into the Interceptors.



Lots of vids on YouTube. Here's a quickie.





Need more reservoirs in CA, so we can capture rain instead of letting almost all of it go into the ocean.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Build the FULL Sites Reservoir. And since nothing is there right now, why not expand it with cogent excavation where appropriate?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are the idiots who want to drain Hetch Hetchy getting any traction? It wouldn't surprise me in this cultural climate...
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:




CO2 levels are only going in one direction
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Due to all that plant food, we had record food production... until Covid lockdowns and Green New Deal policies.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.