Climate Change News collection

[LeafByNiggle]

You may not think the question can be “properly” answered, but NASA did answer it, as I cited. I trust their opinion over yours.

 

[Ender]

You may not think the question can be “properly” answered, but NASA did answer it, as I cited. I trust their opinion over yours.

NASA did not answer that question, unless you think “something might happen” is an actual prediction. This goes back to my original complaint that people were being mislead into believing that extreme weather events were happening more frequently than ever before. The data categorically refute that so now people are being mislead into believing that scientists are predicting it will happen in the future. That too is untrue.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Go back and read the NASA page I linked. All of it. It is clearly more than something might happen. Don’t make me except for you.

 

[Rockoh22]

The problem I see is that Global Warming was refuted by prominent people such as the Weather Channel co-founder and people did not buy in to it. So, they changed it to “Climate Change”

A strategy that can not be refuted because the climate is always changing. It is sunny and hot now, but latter today it will be raining and cooler. Thus the climate changed.

That said, I believe we should approach this with a more balanced and unpartisan mentality. We are in fact making a whole lot of more trash and we contaminate the planet. I believe if politicians attack this as cleaning the planet, we can have better results. Because we all agree that we are making the planet filthier.

 

[Ender]

Go back and read the NASA page I linked. All of it. It is clearly more than something might happen . Don’t make me except for you.

This was the first thing written on that page:

The potential future effects of global climate change …

That’s basically “something might happen”.

I also dispute this comment about what is happening now:

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise…

The rate of sea level rise has not changed except in this regard: it is, and has always been, variable. Accelerating sea level rise is another unsubstantiated myth, and the fact that it is repeated in a NASA document doesn’t change the data.

 

[Ender]

That said, I believe we should approach this with a more balanced and unpartisan mentality. We are in fact making a whole lot of more trash and we contaminate the planet. I believe if politicians attack this as cleaning the planet, we can have better results. Because we all agree that we are making the planet filthier.

If the objective was in fact a cleaner, safer planet we would do a whole lot of things differently, including making a wholesale transition to nuclear power, but this has never been about saving the planet. It is about the transformation and control of national economies. That there are a lot of individuals committed to “Saving the Earth” and who have bought into the AGW story is not significant. They aren’t driving the effort; they are simply useful to those who are.

 

[HarryStotle]

You may not think the question can be “properly” answered, but NASA did answer it, as I cited. I trust their opinion over yours.

I am pretty certain that by NASA you mean some scientists who happen to work at NASA. That would be like assuming the “Union of Concerned Scientists” represents the definitive and to-be-trusted-as-scientifically-reliable findings of scientists and not merely the one-sided perspective of scientists who have a lucrative vested interest in a highly politicized view of climate change.

To frame this as a question of opinions where the opinions of experts ought to be trusted over the opinions of others is actually disingenuous because the question is one that can be settled definitively by the facts, and those are yet to be completely assembled.

Here, for example, is the Union of Concerned Scientists prematurely blaming the so-called increase in forest fires on climate change when the facts are that burn acreages in the United States are down 80% from the 1930s and 90% from pre-industrial times when CO2 levels were half of what they are today.

So the facts actually render the opinions of these “expert scientists” as thoughtless and unreasonable.

You can go on trusting these so-called experts based purely on your appeal to authority, but until and unless the OPINIONS of these ‘experts’ are corroborated by irrefutable evidence, I will continue looking at the evidence in deference to blind trust of authority.

Tony Heller does a magnificent job dismantling ‘expert’ opinions by using their own conflicted evidence. You might want to watch a few of his videos on YouTube. But, of course, you realize that I am being facetious given your view of YouTube.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am pretty certain that by NASA you mean some scientists who happen to work at NASA.

You don’t honestly expect people to believe that NASA is so incompetent as to allow a group of rogue scientists to post in the name of NASA on the official NASA website something that is grossly misrepresentative of the position of NASA as a whole, do you? If you examine the entire NASA website you will see that the page I cited is not an aberration, but is typical of the rest of the site.

 

[Theo520]

I didn’t see a thing on the NASA site that contradicted Curry

But you do have to read their material with some objectivity, there is a bias.

Look at how they metric extreme precipitation. We don’t have a historical record pre-satellite. This means they have less than 40 yrs of data to extrapolate conclusions from.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

See prediction by NASA in next post.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I didn’t see a thing on the NASA site that contradicted Curry

Then, I guess Curry is cool with this from the NASA page I cited:
NASA:

Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves (periods of abnormally hot weather lasting days to weeks) everywhere are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense everywhere.

Summer temperatures are projected to continue rising, and a reduction of soil moisture, which exacerbates heat waves, is projected for much of the western and central U.S. in summer. By the end of this century, what have been once-in-20-year extreme heat days (one-day events) are projected to occur every two or three years over most of the nation.

Theo520:

But you do have to read their material with some objectivity, there is a bias.

So, if “NASA didn’t say that” doesn’t work, you are resorting to “If NASA did say that, they are wrong.”. Nice to keep your options open, eh?

 

[Theo520]

everywhere are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense everywhere.

NASA is regurgitating the model projections. Curry could honestly make the same statement about what the models are “projecting”.

So, if “NASA didn’t say that” doesn’t work, you are resorting to “If NASA did say that, they are wrong.”. Nice to keep your options open, eh?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I’ll repeat, the precipitation record as referenced by NASA could not be measured prior to satellite measurement.

Did you take their quiz? I liked the question on the number of global ran gauges that exist for basic measurement without satellites.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Does “regurgitating” mean that NASA is not consciously supportive of these projections? I don’t think NASA mindlessly regurgitates anything.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’ll repeat, the precipitation record as referenced by NASA could not be measured prior to satellite measurement.

Are you suggesting that NASA is not justified in what they claim? If that is your position - that NASA is incompetent - just come out and say so.

 

[Ender]

You don’t honestly expect people to believe that NASA is so incompetent as to allow a group of rogue scientists to post in the name of NASA on the official NASA website something that is grossly misrepresentative of the position of NASA as a whole, do you? If you examine the entire NASA website you will see that the page I cited is not an aberration, but is typical of the rest of the site.

Believing that everything put out on the NASA website was written by a scientist and encapsulates the considered opinions of all the actual scientists is akin to believing that everything put out on the USCCB website was written by a bishop and represents the collective wisdom of all bishops in the US.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That does not answer the question I posed. A simple yes or no will do.

 

[graciew]

Antarctica

The volume of ice mass that Antarctica loses annually multiplied sixfold from what was recorded 40 years ago, according to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) that was released in January.

Glaciologists from the University of California, Irvine (UCI), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) of NASA and the Utrecht University of the Netherlands who participated in the work found that the accelerated fusion caused global sea levels to increase more than 1.27 centimeters between 1979 and 2017.

“That’s just the tip of the iceberg,” said Eric Rignot, lead author of the study, professor and president of Earth System Science at the UCI, the DPA news agency reported today.

Rignot explained: “As the Antarctic ice sheet continues to melt, we expect an increase of several meters of sea level from Antarctica in the coming centuries.”

For this study, the researcher and his collaborators performed what they called the longest assessment of the remaining Antarctic ice mass: for four decades, the project was also completed geographically; The research team examined 18 regions covering 176 basins, as well as the surrounding islands.”

Cambio climático: la Antártida se derrite seis veces más que hace 40 años - LA NACION ( source in Spanish, may translate it all if interested. Just ask )

 

[Guinness]

The volume of ice mass that Antarctica loses annually multiplied sixfold from what was recorded 40 years ago, according to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) that was released in January.

Does the NAS say what happened 40 years before that? Or 400? How does the NAS know that what happened 40 years ago was normal and not an aberration?

 

[graciew]

Not in the article I posted, Guinness.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Does the NAS say what happened 40 years before that? Or 400? How does the NAS know that what happened 40 years ago was normal and not an aberration?

If you have a question about how these scientists know those things you should ask those scientists, not someone who is reporting on those scientists.