Climate Change News 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Arctic carbon cycle is speeding up

A new NASA-led study using data from the Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) shows that carbon in Alaska’s North Slope tundra ecosystems spends about 13 percent less time locked in frozen soil than it did 40 years ago. In other words, the carbon cycle there is speeding up – and is now at a pace more characteristic of a North American boreal forest than of the icy Arctic.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think 40 yrs of data tells you anything pertinent about global climate change? 13% may or may not be random variation. We are discovering old growth forests under melting glaciers.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Arctic carbon cycle is speeding up

A new NASA-led study using data from the Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) shows that carbon in Alaska’s North Slope tundra ecosystems spends about 13 percent less time locked in frozen soil than it did 40 years ago. In other words, the carbon cycle there is speeding up – and is now at a pace more characteristic of a North American boreal forest than of the icy Arctic.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think 40 yrs of data tells you anything pertinent about global climate change?
Click to expand...
NASA thinks so, and so do I.
13% may or may not be random variation.
Click to expand...
That can be easily determined by looking at recent historical variation in that variable.
We are discovering old growth forests under melting glaciers.
Click to expand...
Is this a non-sequitur? Or does it implying something about the topic at hand? I got into trouble once already making assumption about your intentions so I hope to try to avoid those kinds of assumptions in the future.
 
Don’t know if anyone posted this, but since this thread is about climate change, I thought some here would get a good laugh out of this garbage piece from the Washington Post as reported by Fox.

www.foxnews.com

Hurricane Florence: Washington Post declares Trump is 'complicit' for dangerous storm

The editorial board of the Washington Post has declared that President Trump is “complicit” for Hurricane Florence because of his views on climate change.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ucfengr said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The key phrase is “ in spite of ”.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The climate is changing not because carbon emissions are going up…
Click to expand...
Carbon emissions do not have to go up to make climate change. If carbon emissions stay same or even go down a little bit, the climate will continue to change because of carbon emissions already in the atmosphere. What I meant by “in spite of” is that people are trying to observe the Paris accords even though Trump pulled out. This might continue, or it might not. We don’t know how long people’s altruism will continue like this. But thank God people are taking this seriously even if Trump is not.
 
I don’t think the article really says businesses and local governments are trying to reach the Paris Accord levels. My guess would be that they’re finding efficiencies and cost savings that will incidentally reduce carbon emissions.

As a very small example, my town recently went to sun-powered flashers on stop signs. That resulted in lower carbon emissions, but they sure didn’t do it to meet Paris Accords. They did it because they don’t have to serve them with electricity from the main power source, at relatively low cost.

There are undoubtedly a number of such things people are willing to do for economic reasons, and they ought to. But the Paris accords were non-binding anyway, and were a wealth transfer from the U.S. if this country didn’t meet the 25% reduction level.

So really, it seems this country is much better off without the Paris Accords.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I suspect you are cherry-picking records.
Click to expand...
You continually charge me with doing this without ever providing any reasonable rebuttal.

We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero (NOAA)

In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase . (NOAA)

In the Atlantic, it is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity. (NOAA)

Does this seem like cherry-picking, or a solid description of what NOAA actually believes…as opposed to the line being fed an uninformed public?
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I suspect you are cherry-picking records.
Click to expand...
You continually charge me with doing this without ever providing any reasonable rebuttal.

We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero (NOAA)

In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase . (NOAA)

In the Atlantic, it is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity. (NOAA)

Does this seem like cherry-picking, or a solid description of what NOAA actually believes…as opposed to the line being fed an uninformed public?
Click to expand...
Well, yes. You are cherry-picking your quotes from these references. For example, your reference also says:
A review of existing studies, including the ones cited above, lead us to conclude that: it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, yes. You are cherry-picking your quotes from these references. For example, your reference also says:
A review of existing studies, including the ones cited above, lead us to conclude that: it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes
Click to expand...
Your citation is a prediction, mine are explanations of the actual facts that have been observed so far. That is, the facts contradict your (and your weatherman’s) claims about current storms, and based on their track record of predictions, there is no particular reason to believe things will get worse in the indeterminate future.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top