2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Media_Truth, Oct 23, 2017.

  1. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,813
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, there is little chance that 2017 won't be either the 2nd or 3rd warmest year on record. Secondly, I don't need to place meaning on 2-year span. The trend is well-established.

    [​IMG]

    Are you seriously that much in denial - actually saying that the earth isn't warming?
     
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you kidding me ?? The earth has been warming since the mid 1800's when the LIA ended. And it was warmer 1000 years ago in the Medieval Ice Age.

    Alarmists are constantly claiming that those who are not alarmed do not acknowledge global warming. But that's what alarmists do.

    What is the climate sensitivity of CO2 ?? I haven't yet gotten an answer from any alarmist on any of the forums I participate in. Alarmists in general do not understand climate science, climate economics, and the economic consequences of energy policy on low income people and their ability to adapt.
     
  3. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,813
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ridiculous. Low income people - give me a break. Their carbon footprint is much lower than the trophy home owner. Many use mass transit. They live in smaller homes, and try to conserve utilities as a matter of financial survival. Heck, most Americans, driving around in their 8-cylinder SUVs and pickups wouldn't have the slightest clue about how to navigate a mass-transit system.

    There are plenty of scientific studies and models that discuss the climate sensitivity of CO2. You choose to hide your DENIER head in the sand.
     
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And they will pay more for energy as they do in Germany and Denmark.

    And another alarmist won't answer the question.
     
  5. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again a cult member extols the virtues of poverty.
     
  6. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's funny how the lib prog policies end up hurting those who are least able. And their claim of their lib prog "hearts being in the right place" is no excuse for human suffering.
     
    sawyer likes this.
  7. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not an alarmist, but I'll try to answer. I think climate sensitivity is technically defined as K/Wm^2 in academic literature, but most people are interested in C/century or C per doubling of CO2. And, of course, most estimates are expressed for all forcing mechanisms (solar, aerosols, GHGs, etc.) There is a pretty wide range for those estimates. I've seen anywhere from 0.5C to 10C, but most think the extremes on each end are very unlikely and the consensus is somewhere in the 2-4C range. My personal opinion (not backed up by experts) is that we will be on the lower end of the consensus. I make that statement based on the fact that models have overestimated the warming rate recently. It seems prudent to go with the lower 1.5-2.0C/century rate because that's what's being observed. It's certainly possible that the rate could increase further in which case I'm prepared to be wrong. And, if there really is a strong causative effect between CO2/CH4/etc and temperatures, then changes in future emissions could either lower or raise that figure. My personal feeling is that human political motivations aren't going to change the emissions landscape that much going forward so our current accumulation rate will probably persist for awhile. I could be wrong about that too...I'm not really in tune with the political side of things.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2017
    AFM likes this.
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed on most counts. The data based calculations I've seen are ~ 1.5 deg C. This is also the new lower limit in AR5 and it is specifically noted as data based. None of the models estimate the value at less than 2. Alarmists claim that those who do not agree with their energy policy resulting in higher energy prices are deniers. They dishonestly conflate the science with the politically possible policy recommendations. There is no energy policy which will significantly reduce CO2 and resultant future temperatures. The only thing these energy policies will achieve is to reduce the standard of living regressively on the poor and reduce the total capability to adapt to climate variations in the future.
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree on both points. Alarmists definitely exaggerate impacts. For example, claims of 200m sea level rises are preposterous. The absolute worst case scenario that even the IPCC claims is very unlikely is only 5-10m. So I don't see how alarmists can go around claiming that 10m is "likely". And, even if the political motivation is there to significantly curb CO2 (unlikely) at what cost will it be? Can you really justify $1 trillion to fix something that humans might be able to adapt to anyway instead of spending it on cancer research, poverty mitigation, etc? I don't know...I don't have all of the answer. I'm just saying that's not as easy of a decision as some make it out to be. I get that.
     
  10. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Totally wrong, as there have been several cooling periods since.

    Also totally wrong. Despite what the cherrypicking conspiracy blogs that supply your propaganda try to push, the world is warmer now than it was during the MWP.

    There's a pattern here. All of your "science" is wrong, because your "science" comes from conspiracy blogs.

    We've discussed this before. It's > 3.0C.

    Interesting claim, being how I've discussed this subject with you here before.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...k-graph-reality.498157/page-4#post-1067179050

    Well, doesn't that just crater your credibility. Why should anyone trust anything you say now?

    I can see why you want to hide the fact that you discussed it with me. I showed your bizarre claims were totally wrong. Half a doubling of CO2 has already produced 1.0C - 1.2C warming, meaning TCS is already 2.0C - 2.4C, and ECM has to be significantly bigger. Yet here you are, claiming <1.5C, a figure that's flatly contradicted by reality.
     
    Media_Truth likes this.
  11. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can never back up your wild claims. Now me, being a liberal, it's a given I can always back up my claims. That's how we in the rational community differ from you wild-eyed conservatives who run entirely on emotion. Coal grid power is not the cheapest way to get energy to the third world.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ot-cut-poverty-researchers-warn-idUSKCN12O2S1

    https://www.sciencealert.com/solar-power-is-now-the-cheapest-energy-in-the-world

    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/africa-leapfrog-coal-choose-renewable-energy-instead/

    So by your standards, the human suffering your policies (all your policies, not just energy policy) cause is not excused by your good intentions.
     
  12. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And as we have shown before the above is totally wrong. The real world data shows a climate sensitivity less than 1.5 deg C. Even the IPCC agrees with this in AR5. The consensus of models which can't predict the past is ~ 3 deg C.

    And the consensus of scientific papers on the MWP indicates that the peak temperature was ~ 0.6 deg C warmer than it is today.

    But keep trying - it's amusing.
     
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Supply side free market capitalism has benefited more people than any other economic system.

    Solar and wind power energy policy decisions have resulted in Germans paying 3X and Danes paying 3.5X what US consumers pay for electricity. You might want to review what the war on coal energy policies of the Obama administration has done to towns like Pikesville KY. Why so many pain clinics there ??

    Fossil fuel grid power is absolutely the best way for developing countries to raise the standard of living of their citizens. Economic growth is directly dependent on inexpensive power available 24/7/365. To saddle the developing economies of developing countries with wind and solar installations is immoral.

    The last sentence of the post above is hilarious.
     
    Bear513 likes this.
  14. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,813
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was going to mention some of the very same facts that you've mentioned here. Why should these folks get their science from such groups as the National Academy of Science and other reputable organizations, when they can consult some Conspiracy Blog. They also ignore the fact that renewable energy is now highly competetive from a cost perspective, and will soon be the most affordable form of energy. They are stuck in their fossil-fuel paradigm. It's like quicksand.
     
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's funny and tragically immoral. But that's what lib progs do. Advocate policies which harm low income people as exemplified in the extreme in the nations of Germany and Denmark.
     
  16. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I stopped reading and stopped taking your so called evidence seriously after the first paragraph of your first link which is nothing but cult propoganda

    LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Building just a third of planned new coal-fired power plants around the world would push hundreds of millions of people into poverty as it accelerates climate change past an agreed limit of 2 degrees Celsius of warming, development experts warn."
     
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's quite amazing to watch the inability of alarmists to actually process facts and come to rational conclusions. Faith based believe (facts be damned) is the only explanation for concluding that raising energy prices by 3X in Germany and Denmark with zero effect on current and future global average temperatures is a good thing.
     
    sawyer likes this.
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe we should just look at satellite photos of the Arctic and Antarctic oceans for the same times each year since they started taking them, and see what has physically happened to the sea ice.
    Do the satellite photos show the sum of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is the second lowest this year? If not, then I am skeptical that temperatures are second highest.
    I don't think the temperature datasets or proxies can be made honest, frankly. Remember, Mann's original hockey stick graph deleted recent proxy data in favor of instrument data because the instrument data showed warming and the proxy data didn't. That's why I'm ready to just look at the actual physical condition that shows how warm it is: the extent of sea ice at high latitudes.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Including 1940-1970, when CO2 was climbing rapidly....
    And yet, melting glaciers are uncovering villages that were occupied during the MWP...
    Nope. We know for certain it's not, because that would imply temperatures far above the known level when CO2 was at 10 times the current level. WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN that CO2 cannot have such a large effect, because it was far higher in the past, when temperature just indisputably WASN'T.
    No, that is a false assumption on your part, as it ignores the increase in solar activity during the period of warming.
    Flat false. Your "inference" above is based not on any empirical evidence or logic, but only on your false ASSUMPTION that CO2 has been the ONLY cause of the warming.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very funny, given supply-side irrationality led to 'domestic labour' suffering (i.e. through underpayment) and encouraged environmental profiteering behaviour (i.e. short term rent seeking behaviour based on exploiting asymmetric information).

    That people still believe the unbelievable is a difficult one. Probably cognitive dissonance!
     
  21. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hilarious- under which economic system have people done better??
     
  22. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is already taking place.

    Yes, Arctic+Antarctic sea ice extents are the second lowest since records began. That is partly coincidental though as there isn't a perfect correlation between global mean temperature and polar sea ice extents. One interesting aspect of sea ice extents is that the Arctic has been declining through the years while the Antarctic has actually been increasing...until recently that is. And while models have overestimated the global mean temperature anomalies slightly they have actually underestimated sea ice melt out. The consensus right now is that 2050'ish is the point at which there is a 50% chance of having an ice free Arctic, but experts are beginning to think this may be too conservative. I'm seeing chatter by experts recently that may bring this 50% point down to 2040'ish, but I don't think the consensus is going to drop anytime soon for various reasons I won't get into here.

    I actually do think they can be made honest within a reasonably margin of error. But, fortunately it's becoming less necessary to use them now that reanalysis datasets are becoming the de facto standard. But, knowledge is still gained by figuring out how to bias correct and calibrate them. One problem of using just sea ice data is that it might skew your perspective too far towards global warming. The reason is because the warming is non-homogeneous with the polar regions (especially the Arctic) experiencing far more warming than mid latitude or tropical regions. So if you only focus on polar regions you'll end up overestimating the amount of warming that's occurring. In other words, just because the Arctic goes ice free doesn't necessarily mean that global warming is catastrophic. Al Gore and the rest of media way overhype this aspect.
     
  23. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,813
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now that you've been proven wrong on everything else, it's time to resort to the "immoral" argument. I wonder who will be hurt when climate change really starts kicking in. The rich will purchase the more elevated properties, while the poor will be forced to live in the flood zones. And of course, as all these disasters start occuring, governmental relief will be required. Taxes will be increased at all levels, and the poor will suffer most from tax increases.

    But you love the FOX and Rush Limbaugh rhetoric, and all your unscientific blogs and books.
     
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's hilarious. Global warming is net beneficial for the next 200 years and that is based on today's air conditioning technology. There is no politically viable way to significantly reduce CO2 emissions and there is no significant reduction in global average temperatures for the energy policies which have been enacted. The most impressive reduction in CO2 emissions comes from the US switch to natural gas energy generation and that had nothing to do with gov energy policy. In fact the gov did all it could to stop fracking.

    Your scenario is classic alarmist illib prog nonsense. Do yourself a favor and actually study the science.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Supply side economics, for obvious reasons, has rarely been applied. America, for example, always preferred military keynesianism. You can refer to Britain and Thatcherism of course. End result? Family silver sold off cheap and new means to rent seek, such as the French nuclear investment that has been shown to be a particularly bad deal.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017

Share This Page