What do you think of climate change?

[Ender]

There is no shortage in data concerning how many of the most severe hurricanes of the past century happened in the past 20 years, how much more severe the average wildfire has become, and so on.

The claim about hurricanes is incorrect. You have been deliberately mislead into believing something that simply is not true. Here is a graph of global cyclones (hurricanes) since 1978.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

As for what insurance companies believe, I think you captured it perfectly:

“Losses from secondary perils have been rising due to rapid development in areas exposed to severe weather and warmer temperatures…and we expect this trend to continue.”

If you build a house on the coast you’re playing Russian roulette with the weather. As for wild fires, if the Forest Service is correct that 85% are caused by man how is it reasonable to blame bad fire seasons on global warming?

 

[Ender]

Look up what NOAA says the CO2 levels are doing to the oceans.

OK, since you’re changing the subject I’ll assume we’re now all in agreement that the world is greening up very nicely due to CO2.

(Remember, if they say it is true, it is true.)

Not for me; I’ve never held their every word to be accurate. I challenged those who have implied such a position to deal with their comments. In fact I called NASA a special interest group so I’m certainly not bound to accept anything simply on their say so.

Re precipitation extremes: yay! data. I’ve seen indications that this one (in contrast to virtually all of the other claims about extreme weather) may actually be true.

 

[Theo520]

I hate to tell you this, but the increase since 1980 is a HUGE leap.

ROFL, stop changing the metrics!

We were talking about “prevalence of extreme single-day precipitation event”
a metric you introduced as evidence.

For your CO2 chart to show correlation, it would need to show flat CO2 from 1910 to 1980, but the record indicates we increase by about 17%, more than we have since 1980 (+12%). A sudden spike in events correlates with the introduction of satellites and their ability to monitor all across the US.

There could be a problem, but the data is highly suspect pre satellite measurement.

 

[Theo520]

I read the entire article. The insurance industry says the events are more frequent.
“Large losses from secondary perils are occurring more regularly”, says Edouard Schmid, Swiss Re’s Group Chief Underwriting Officer in a press statement. “This is a trend the insurance industry must act on so that we can continue to underwrite catastrophe business sustainably.”

LOL, read your quote again. It says “large losses” are more frequent, not the events themselves. I already quoted where you posted they said the losses were increasing because of ‘rapid development in high risk areas.’

It doesn’t say the weather events are more frequents, just that the losses are bigger.

Why did you post a CO2 chart when we were talking about rain?

 

[Theo520]

Re precipitation extremes: yay! data. I’ve seen indications that this one (in contrast to virtually all of the other claims about extreme weather) may actually be true.

Considering their definition for measuring extreme precipitation, we only have good data with the launching of satellites. I think it’s impossible to draw conclusions from just a few decades of data that is highly variable year to year. The data was flat from 1910-1980, when they relied on a very limited number of rain gauges.

 

[LoveMercyGrace]

TinyURL[dot]com/HowBigIsTheEarth

thank you, I will have a look. I scanned over your post and a couple things stood out to me. one, is doing what we can, where we are, and esp when it involves teaching children how to grow food, to recycle compost…so important. our local schools do this plus I have raised garden beds here where children also are involved.
a bigger item was giving up my car, using bus transportation for longer trips and walking or riding my bike. because I retired I was able to do this. I just thing each person can assess their personal situation and see what they can do to help take care of our common home.

 

[Ender]

Considering their definition for measuring extreme precipitation, we only have good data with the launching of satellites. I think it’s impossible to draw conclusions from just a few decades of data that is highly variable year to year. The data was flat from 1910-1980, when they relied on a very limited number of rain gauges.

I don’t know whether the claim about extreme precipitation is accurate or not, but at least this claim had some actual data to support it. Now I’ve had to go out and investigate the claim, and while it may be accurate, there seems to be some question about it. First it is useful to note that the data applied only to the US; it was not world wide data, and given that we’re discussing global warming that would be the more valid information.

For example, there is this regarding global data:

> “Decadal trends of global precipitation are examined using the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation (CMAP), Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP), and National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reanalysis data. The decadal trends of global precipitation average diverge a decreasing trend for the CMAP data, a flat trend for the GPCP data, and an increasing trend for the reanalysis data.”

So, depending on which data set was used they discovered that global precipitation was either increasing, decreasing, or not changing. Not quite the slam dunk NOAA made it seem.

 

[graciew]

It may be highly politicized there so I prefer not to mess with that.
We have our entities that help us to move from uncertainty to risk management when crops for example are concerned. Governmental and independent also.They do need info and data for that shifting to risk management mapping for example
Severe and intense rainfall, floods as are droughts in other regions of our country, as highly dependent on our agriculture, it is important , even as it adds to our PBI ( GDP?).
We have experienced the unprecedented, observable as a region also.
I attended as many meetings as I was invited to. Varied ,very concerned knowledgeable people from different fields among others.
Now ,can I tell you, Ender, that I súper understand all the (name removed by moderator)ut received at the level of those meetings?No. I must be frank.Far above my level , way above me.
But in my circle of trust, there are very knowledgeable , experienced and active persons, disinterested but in analysis, and what we can do to contribute positively , and I respect them much.
Aside from the fact that as a country we have signed the Paris Accord.
So it may be prudent for me perhaps, to leave these discussions as a foreigner, and also because politics seem to be very much involved there, or in these threads.

 

[Ender]

We have experienced the unprecedented, observable as a region also.

In order to make a decision about how to solve a problem we have to know precisely what the problem is, and that requires data. Even that, however, is insufficient inasmuch as the data have to be interpreted. What we cannot do is rely on anecdotal experiences. If the world really is experiencing an increased frequency in some forms of extreme weather events then we can only know that by collecting and analyzing the data. If the data points don’t show an increase then why should we believe such an increase is real?

The AGW crowd has trumpeted increases in extreme weather events but with virtually no data to support those claims. I can accept data; I can’t accept invention.

 

[graciew]

I can accept data; I can’t accept invention.

Then look for your data.
I personally do not need it any more .
I have seen and heard enough.

 

[Dougbro1]

Here’s what I think about climate change: I have no problem believing it’s happening, after all, eventually this world will end, and there’s going to be a lot of burning involved.
That said, what I don’t like about it is that people blame global warming on overpopulation, which pro-choice people use as a grounds to support abortion.

 

[steve-b]

I suppose it was a sarcastic answer then as I have no idea why you used the sunglass dude emoji.

Yes it has been proven an ice age happens every some amount of time. The problem of being 2% wrong in this instance will cause the human race to be 2000 years (very long time and many of us can’t fathom it) earlier facing troubles that could have been prolonged compared to naturally!

Mr Steve B. We will all be dead by the time this will be a problem. That does not mean I care less for the children! Please think a bit further past our expiry date!

Not from me, but from scientific sources

NASA says the universe is 13.7 billion yrs old +/- 1%
The earth is apparently 4.5 B yrs old

AND

Science Daily, says, we have ice ages every 100,000 yrs. HERE So if true, we have lots of global warmings in between global ice ages.

doing some math

4.5 B yrs old for the earth ÷ every 100,000 yr eras = 45,000, eras where ice ages happened and global warmings happened in between, all naturally, and before humans were on the planet.

Q: just thinking out loud ​

If humans had nothing (ZERO) to do with any of the prior 10’s of thousands, of global cooling and global warming activity, (scientifically speaking ), over the last 4.5 billion yrs, why the big fuss NOW about humans? Especially since humans have such a short life span anyway, And considering how God already took out most of humanity in the great flood in which that 40 day rain fall, had NOTHING to do with humanity’s issues with the climate.

 

[StephenBales]

Oh boy.

Forgive me, your eminence, I’ll watch my tone next time.

 

[phaster]

What is the evidence that interpreting the data this way is a “scam,” though? A scam? That implies a total and deliberate fraud. It implies faking of data, faking of models, or some kind of serious lying.

there are all kinds, some really out there,… I included the video about the “finance guy” ranting about the climate change being a scam,… basically because the guy made me laugh w/ all the exaggerations,… where he says the best case is sea level rise of 10 ft in 40 to 50 years AND worst case is 100 ft,… and then he goes on to say how well banks manage risk

(ROTFLMAO,… I’ve time marked the video)

PetraG:

Al Gore would have a lot more credibility if,…

he [gore] wasn’t,… first of all a BIG hypocrite!

http://www.huffpost.com/entry/al-gore-wealth_n_599709f2e4b0e8cc855d5c09

Therefore, all things whatsoever that they shall say to you, observe and do. Yet truly, do not choose to act according to their works. For they say, but they do not do.

For they bind up heavy and unbearable burdens, and they impose them on men’s shoulders. But they are not willing to move them with even a finger of their own.

Matthew 23:3-4 CPDV

AND second of all,… he [gore] wasn’t an idiot WRT knowledge about climate science!!

basically when I watched gore’s science explanation about global warming,… I kinda had a laugh
Al Gore the 'climate hypocrite!' and science idiot:

(here is the youtube transcript)

01:28
But the problem is this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened
01:32
By all of the global warming pollution that’s being put up there.
01:37
And what that does is it thickens this layer of atmosphere,
01:42
More of the outgoing infrared is trapped.

 

[phaster]

teaching children how to grow food, to recycle compost…so important

my dad was an engineer and my mom had a chemistry back ground and worked in various medical labs,… so I was lucky in that my parents placed an emphasis on understanding basic science,… sadly most kids (who grow up to be adults) are never taught that understanding basic science is the key to understanding big problems

give you an example,… when I was a kid, my mom told me a simple poem that I still remember,… “little drops of water and little grains of sand, make the might ocean and the pleasant land”

my dad being a numbers geek,… taught me to try and calculate the number of drops of water in a gal, and number of grains of sand in a cubic inch,… basically my parents did this so I’d learn to have a feel for engineering and math

so I think in a elementary school w/ a garden education program,… the poem and associated math lesson would be a simple but effective introduction to the topic of climate change

… anyway in the “pitch” I’ve put together

www.TinyURL.com/HowBigIsTheEarth

what kids and basically every one else should get a basic understanding of is,… we live on a tiny blue dot in space, which is our only home,… AND the big question is,… does mankind have the ability to dramatically effect the climate of this planet we live on

…in climate science “global dimming” simply means that mankind has covered the entire planet in a layer of smog which has decreased the intensity of sunlight hitting the earths surface

ever been out on a really sunny day and felt your skin feel like its burning? and then a cloud passes over head and blocks the sun,… so your skin no longer feels like its burning??

if you grasp the analogy of feeling your skin burning on a sunny day,…what global dimming actually means is,… the surface temperature of the earth has actually decreased because mankind has caused a measurable decreased the intensity of sunlight hitting the earths surface,… so basically climate science has confirmed that mankind does have the ability to alter climate,… and this fact has been known for about 20 years

a second confirmation that mankind has the ability to dramatically effect this planet we live on, is by using chemistry

we know the chemical reaction of burning gas in an engine creates CO2,… using math we can calculate the amount of CO2 produced globally,… the smoking gun that points toward mankind having the ability to dramatically effect this planet is,… if we use chemistry to look at the oceans around the world and note the pH of seawater is decreasing

so using math, physics and chemistry,…. climate science tells us its not “if” but “when” and “to what degree” (pardon the climate pun),… does this planet heat up

anyway FWIW the reason I include the photos of the earth from the apollo space program in the “pitch” is because,… that was a period of time is when science made possible the reality of placing a man on the moon,… likewise I believe if mankind embraces science,… the problems associated with climate change can be addressed

 

[PetraG]

Oh boy.
Forgive me, your eminence, I’ll watch my tone next time.

Your penance, after you look up the difference between climate change and seasonal weather change, is to look up flippant vs humorous.

 

[Ender]

we know the chemical reaction of burning gas in an engine creates CO2,… using math we can calculate the amount of CO2 produced globally,… the smoking gun that points toward mankind having the ability to dramatically effect this planet is

Knowing how much CO2 is produced from combustion is simple to compute, but its affect on the climate is, to this point, unknown, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much debate about the value to place on climate sensitivity. To suggest that basic chemistry is all that’s required to understand how CO2 contributes to global warming is ridiculous.

 

[PetraG]

To suggest that basic chemistry is all that’s required to understand how CO2 contributes to global warming is ridiculous.

This is true. The connection between CO2 and ocean pH or the mechanism by which CFCs can catalyze the breakdown of ozone into oxygen is far more direct.

I do have a hard time with people who believe there is an international conspiracy to fake the data to show the temperature of the earth is rising. To be blunt: people aren’t that good at keeping secrets, especially people who work in science labs. The temperature of earth is going up. Warmer air and warmer water causes different weather than cooler air and cooler water, so that’s going to make a difference in the climate beyond simply kicking up the thermostat a notch.

So…considering that the earth is getting warmer, (a) what can we reasonably expect might become problems in the future that we don’t have now? and (b) can we identify anything we’re doing that could be contributing whose impact on the change could be mitigated?

In other words, the premise that the world is getting warmer due to factors beyond our control and the premise that it is getting warmer due to factors that are within our control aren’t mutually exclusive by any means. There is no reason there has to be just one cause, either, or that some things we do warm the earth up while others work against the warming trend.

we know the chemical reaction of burning gas in an engine creates CO2,… using math we can calculate the amount of CO2 produced globally,… the smoking gun that points toward mankind having the ability to dramatically effect this planet is…

I think we’re just starting to comprehend what we’re capable of doing. I don’t think the 20th century argues in favor of just automatically assuming the best.

 

[Theo520]

To be blunt:

To also be blunt, it is very suspicious that the adjustments always trend in one direction and the supporting justifications are sparse. I call it highly suspicious, not a conspiracy.

 

[PetraG]

To also be blunt, it is very suspicious that the adjustments always trend in one direction and the supporting justifications are sparse. I call it highly suspicious, not a conspiracy.

Making accusations of data falsification is fightin’ words, and there are lawsuits flying over it, from what I gather. I can fully understand why a scientist would fight anyone defaming his or her integrity. Differences of opinion come up and have often become very fierce over the history of science, competence and judgment concerning data handling is questioned often, but allegations of willful dishonesty are very serious, indeed. Science is built on honesty. Those who falsify data or who knowingly make false accusations are dealt with very harshly. People will make mistakes, people can be mislead by their biases, but when they are dishonest, it knee-caps the entire enterprise. That cannot be tolerated.