Does the Reality of Global Warming Burn Your Arse?

You only have surface water where the water table breaks the surface and in stream channels coming down from the mountains.. And that's another major issue, the water table has dropped like a bomb from a B-17 in the last 100 years in most of the southwest including So. Cal. One of the few things the greens have right is that people are going to have to quit trying to grow non native trees and grasses in the area. They simply suck up to much water.

 

I live in California. California is not a third world country although certain parts of are looking more and more like one. BTW the water restrictions and high electricity rates at certain times of the day and rolling power blackouts due to high demand are complete BS. There is no good reason why California citizens should have to put up with this type of inconvenience. Nothing that California does will have the slightest effect on global warming. And of course we haven’t even mentioned the destruction caused in the Central Valley due to the completely dumba$$ fish policy.

Thanks Governor Moon Beam and all the illiberal regressives in the state legislature.

 

People in third world countries can only dream of living in “poverty” in the US.

 

The whole point of Global warming is that of fearmongering; via data mining. Data mining is sorting through all the available data you can find that supports your own preconceived belief of something. All-the-while, ignoring the data that doesn't support it.

So these so-called "record highs" that you fixate on, how far back do they go? 100 years? Comparatively, how long has the habitable earth been in existence? 100 billion years?

And tell me this, how much time do the fearmongers spend looking for "all-time low" temperatures? I'll guess it's about zero time. It takes about 1 minute to do a google search and come up with this:

First Week of 2018 Was the Coldest on Record in Dozens of Cities in the East

https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/2018-01-09-coldest-first-week-of-january-on-record-east-2018

 

I can't disagree with that.

 

I'm neither an economist or a climatologist, but I personally feel most of the cost will be negligible because creating new energy sources automatically creates new jobs & new markets, so economically, I feel there's a good chance it will increase our national income overall--at least for a decade or more. I don't know the exact reduction necessary to belay the growing global warming crisis, but it's a small percentage, and probably feasible if we take action soon. But waiting can compound the problem and make it harder to solve.

 

The whole point of global warming is to develop a theory that best explains the warming. Scientists do not ignore data during this process. The hypothesis that represent AGW have evolved from all of the available data.

I can't speak for any one particular person's reasoning for analyzing record highs, but for scientists the period that is of the most interest is from 1960 to present. The reason this period is interesting is because this is the approximate point in which the anthrprogenic effect really started ramping up. Most of the change in the global mean surface temperature prior to 1960 can be explained by natural processes only. Note that I said most and not all. There was a transition period in the early to mid 1900's in which the relative proportion of the changes flipped from natural to anthroprogenic.

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old so that puts an absolute upper limit on the duration of habitability. The problem is how we define habitability. The Cambrian explosion was 500 million years ago. But, it's life obviously existed prior to that. Humans first made an appearance about 2 million years ago. But, it wasn't until 300,000 years ago that modern humans first appeared. Then it wasn't until about 10,000 years ago that the Holocene began in which human civilizations started to appear. I personally think this later period makes for a pretty good break for determining habitability because it marks the end of the last ice age. So with that said we have reliable records that represent only 100/10000 = 1% of this period. So with that said is your argument that the absence of directly sensed temperatures for 99% of this period then humans can't be responsible for the warming? In other words, do you agree with the statement "Because we lack directly sensed temperature measurement over 99% of the period from the last ice age that necessarily precludes humans from influencing the climate today?"

Fearmongers: None
Scientists: Significant

Here in the US Tmax highs outnumber Tmin lows by 2-to-1. This ratio has increased significantly after WWII and is predicted to increase further. Refer to this publication for more information.

One week is not enough to draw conclusions about the climate.

 

Apparently you must not be aware of the split between the demand and usage for water by ag and by people. Ag takes about 80% of the water used in California. The people have been conserving through various means for decades, ag seems to get a pass. There are very few black outs in our state, who is your provider? I work with PGE and SCE, both have very good records on power availability, power is heavily regulated so I am guessing you are using anecdotal evidence to back your spurious claim. As for global warming, we have always lead the world in leading edge technology and policy. We consider ourselves a beacon that points the way for everyone. We did our bit for air pollution and we will do our bit for global warming. If you want coal plants, move to the four corners area, lots of coal plants to gaze at and the air is fine because it all blows away to somewhere else. Lastly, the socalled destruction of the Central Valley is a joke. Those farmers will bitch about anything that attempts to control their activities while they use water supplied to them at a pittance. They can replant pistachios and almonds, get rid of the cotton and grow cactus for all I care. The whole valley is one gigantic farm anyway. Drive up I5, miles upon miles of grapes. They are just a bunch of whining Trump humpers.

 

Thanks for confirming my conclusion that the state of California under Democratic leadership has become a national joke. No dams built in years, rolling black out plans and implementation, global warming policies which do absolutely nothing to reduce temperature but result in regressive economic harm to the low and middle income quintiles, and yes, the destruction of the Central Valley because of some dumba$$ non native fish policy. It's disgusting - almost as bad as the city streets in San Francisco and Los Angeles where needles and tent communities are common place.

And to top it off - Trump Derangement Syndrome. Yowzer !!! Well done.

 

......

 

This is F A N T A S T I C NEWS!

The law of unintended consequences is a double edged sword.

The OP might be right. If so, the human race has inadvertently accomplished what has never happened in the entire history of earth: on a global level prevented the massive level of death, starvation, disease and extinctions that would have occurred had we not prevented the next ice age every climatologist for decades had declared was imminent and inevitable.

The last ice age lead to the plague that killed as many as 20% of the entire world human population. As many as a billion lives have been saved, not counting the ecological crisis for other species prevented!

WELL DONE FELLOW HUMANS! Let's heat it up!

 

Silly fellow. Don’t you know that it’s not allowed to acknowledge the benefits of global warming. Alarmists will absolutely not allow it.

 

The Spanish economy suffered significant damage by acting on the same feelings. Germans and Danes pay 3X the price of electricity by acting on these same feelings. And the further tragedy of all this is that global warming will not be reduced. All this economic harm is endured for nothing.

Why do those who advocate CO2 reduction policies never state how much of a reduction in the rate of global warming will result.

 

Hmm.. So, given that you cannot, and will not address the very specific examples provided, it seems that your method is simply to ignore, and then march past the conversation at hand to your triumphant declaration of rightness... Got it.

Last year, the US federal government dolled out 8 Billion Dollars in research grants for AGW. Those weren't "find a hole", or "fix a hole" projects, those were "prove the point" allocations. I know, actual research may not be in your wheelhouse, it is none the less that facts of how much money is available as long as you promise to prove the point. Second, the conversation isn't really global warming, it is anthropogenic global warming that garners the majority of grant money. Why? Because the assertion is studying how man interferes or otherwise impacts the climate justifies the expense on the premise that because man does it, man can or should alter or find alternatives to the behavior. Of course this is the point. Behavior mod via legislative fiat is, and always has been, the goal.

As we have seen, time and time again, the goal of these studies is finding justification for all kinds of onerous, tyrannical governmental interventions from population control, to energy scarcity, to food scarcity, to wealth transfers. This has always been the point of the exercise. All this breathless expenditure of resources, time, and study, all to guarantee that government can effectively dictate to you what you can, and cannot do, and how much, or not, that you should expect to get.

 

Really? The public record of this is well documented. Collusion between the powerful in the climate science group actively threatening publications who might have published studies that were detrimental to the AGW orthodoxy. We have the evidence, the email trail doesn't lie. It seems you might though to what end?

I would point out that the "data" doesn't "flatly" contradict folks who are unlikely to support the hypothesis of anthropogenic impact. I would simply ask you this. Of the .9C in change, what percentage of that change is directly attributable to man? Show your work, because no one else has. It should be quite interesting.

 

Now. there's a bunch of B.S. You didn't give a single specific example. The paragraph that starts with "to be more specific" just makes some nonsensical completely general statement about being "on the good side" with o specifics, which I did address and debunked by explaining to you what "the right side" actually is right now. You gave nothing more specific than that.

Is this what you call "specifics"? "Specifics" would include an example, what was being researched, who did the research, why did the Trump administration authorize $8 billion?....

I know quite a bit about research. And I know that sometimes grants are allocated for stupid projects. And it's possible that some grant were given to research for something we already knew. But extremely unlikely that would happen in the field of AGW at this point. And you not giving any specific examples would support this statement unless you can give such specifics now.

More general statements. Let me give you the bottom line: The fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Scientific fact (for whatever the term "Scientific Fact" is worth), has not been in question in Science since the last century. Nor in serious political circles. The questions have been: can we stop it? (the answer is: probably not), can we mitigate it?, and how do we adapt? Whether AGW is Warming, Global or Anthropogenic is questioned only in the extreme political right. And this political questioning of Science was originally fueled by Oil companies who paid just about anybody who had a college degree in any Science to write articles to undermine it, even if they had no clue about the subject. And bought politicians to do their bidding.

Ok. So here you change the subject from "prove-the-point allocations" (which, anybody who has even a vague understanding of Science research knows is pure nonsense) to Population control, energy scarcity, food scarcity.... All those things are fair game in any debate. But not, by any stretch of the imagination, that AGW is now a proven scientific fact.

The debate on those things you mention is the reason why the Paris Agreement was created: so everybody in the world can see clearly what is being done, why, what effects it's been having as each project advances.... And if money is being wasted, if something is not having the expected effects, if somebody is not doing their job.... you have just about the whole population of the world who has access to the Internet who can vet and pinpoint any inadequacies.

And you also have the signatory nations with the power to influence the decisions and the direction these efforts take. But, guess what, we pulled out. Now we have no say in the matter.... How can that not be a stupid move?

 

This is called the politicization of science. The elites in charge only fund research which supports their agenda.

 

So, I fear you don't understand what "scientific fact" is. If you're referring to the .9C that has been provided by the global temp average, obviously, you missed the part about guessing, or otherwise smoothing data that no longer represents real data and substitutes guessed at data in its place, nor the level of authority to which these guesses are measured at. So, when you use these data set outputs, they all come with a level of assurity, like 40% chance of being right, for example (which the averages all fall under btw...)

K, time for two responses. First, the reference was to the prime example of actual climate science collusion, that being the episode from the nice folks at East Anglia, Robert Mann, et al. The only impediment here seems to be your knowledge.

Second, the budget for AGW allocations, the amount is public record. Look it up yourself. I'm not your research assistant. There are lots of links, use one. Next, the only point of creating alarm for "warming" is to do something about it. Right? Or do you contend that there isn't a real negative impact for this warming? If warming does not, in fact, produce a threat, why bother? And if you are unaware of the actual agreements that are a part of the existing Kyoto Paris, or other agreements based on the original blather from the IPCC, then you simply aren't paying attention, or you're flat out attempting to hide what is so obviously the truth of the effort here.

 

Agreed. Without the casual scientific link, the justification for the allocation of the resources becomes very difficult. So, demonstrate the urgency, and the catastrophe, and the door opens to the bank....

 

We don't know all the answers. Global warming is a new kind of event, never faced by humanity before. Our increasing fossil fuel based technology caused it. We have no precedent to learn from. But it's clear that without some human intervention it will become THE issue threatening human survival within the next century. The costs of acting now pale in comparison to the costs of delaying our response--in both money and effects on human societies worldwide.

 

There's definitely an abundance of evidence that supports the casual link. It's summarized pretty well in the IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis report.

However, I fully agree that there are other considerations to factor in other than the science of AGW when setting public policy. So while the science of AGW should be a consideration it shouldn't be the only consideration. Arguments supporting the outright rejection of policies mitigating the warming are far more convincing to me when they are framed with the consideration of many elements instead of just saying "because I think science is all a big hoax".

 

That’s not clear at all. Global warming is actually net beneficial for the next ~ 2 deg C of warming which will take ~ 200 years for a climate sensitivity of ~ 1 deg C. The cost benefit goes negative due to energy costs from air conditioning.

 

Fair. I always also include the "policy is designed to enrich those by legislative framework" part, as well as the "developing the third world only further exacerbates the overall problem" by adding more outputs (if we agree the outputs are indeed problematic). Which is why it is then so much more necessary for the orthodoxy to include all of the apocalyptic consequences, because absent them, the average policy maker will ignore the drama.

I saw something funny.. There was a news article that suggested that "for the first time, ever" and then went on to relate that a mountain pass in the alps would be free of snow in the summer.... of course, the accounts of the Roman legions transiting the same passes unencumbered by snow weren't mentioned, but hey, good story huh? And of course, produces angst in the public. And of course, also a flat out whopper of a lie. But the, we expect this now.

 

Global Warming is not beneficial now, or ever. The melting ice caps, plus melting mountain glaciers around the world, are all forcing sea levels up, which will eventually affect coastal cities world wide; which are the places where most humans reside; which will force massive evacuations that will impinge on every country in the world, including us. But even more dangerous for now is the increase in strength for every destructive weather phenomenon--thunderstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Also, precipitation levels are being altered dramatically world wide, causing famines & floods in areas previously safe, and extreme heat & drought where comfort ruled in the past. Almost every year for the past decade has broken all records for high annual temperatures. And this is only the beginning.