The 2018 UN Climate Report

[One Brow]

WE SHOULD FUND data collection and a variety of research proposals addressing both sides of this controversy.

We do. It just that one side gets better results.

 

[Red]

During a 20 minute Oval Office interview with the Washington Post Tuesday, Trump riffed on how he's too smart to believe the climate assessment report put out by his administration. We're lucky to have a stable genius in charge I guess....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...2f0184-f27e-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html

President Trump on Tuesday dismissed a landmark report compiled by 13 federal agencies detailing how damage from global warming is intensifying throughout the country, saying he is not among the “believers” who see climate change as a pressing problem......

.....“One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers,” Trump said during a freewheeling 20-minute Oval Office interview with The Washington Post in which he was asked why he was skeptical of the dire National Climate Assessment his administration released Friday.

“As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it,” he added.

.....“You look at our air and our water and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia , including many other places, the air is incredibly dirty, and when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small,” Trump said in an apparent reference to pollution around the globe. “And it blows over and it sails over. I mean we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific. It flows and we say, ‘Where does this come from?’ And it takes many people, to start off with.”

Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, said in an email Tuesday that the president’s comments risk leaving the nation vulnerable to the ever-growing impacts of a warming planet. “Facts aren’t something we need to believe to make them true — we treat them as optional at our peril,” Hayhoe said. “And if we’re the president of the United States, we do so at the peril of not just ourselves but the hundreds of millions of people we’re responsible for.”

Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M; University, struggled to find a response to the president’s comments. “How can one possibly respond to this?” Dessler said when reached by email, calling the president’s comments “idiotic” and saying Trump’s main motivation seemed to be attacking the environmental policies of the Obama administration and criticizing political adversaries.

 

[babe]

Are you using the Kelvin scale or something?

K scale differs from C scale only in the assignment of zero. C is water freezing point. K is absolute zero, -273 C.

lessee..... what's the difference starting 150y vs 100y, 1968 or 2018?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Dutch is correct here. 0.4 C on 100y, 0.9 C on 150y. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution was a slow start about 1840 (steam engine), some factories, not much. After 1868 is was pretty rapid. After 1910 the automobile was taking off, plus electric power plants. It looks like it's the Industrial Revolution to some..… but about 0.3 C was probably natural cycle coming off a dip about 1840. And then there was 1797.... the year of no summer for NE US.

 

[babe]

Here's some interesting stuff from a skeptic:

uhhhmmmmm….. what's this? Google censoring the site?

The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings « JoNova
joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
Feb 21, 2010 ... Global Temperature estimates over the last 65 million years. …


65 M years.... 1.3 M yrs of ice age cycles, part of a significantly cooler regime of climate for us. Pretty clear there are big factors on scales large in comparison to ACC/smudgepot world warming of the industrial age.

 

[One Brow]

K scale differs from C scale only in the assignment of zero. C is water freezing point. K is absolute zero, -273 C.

This is correct. Where the zero is assigned is relevant when you are talking about a percentage increase.

Dutch is correct here. 0.4 C on 100y, 0.9 C on 150y.

Even 0.4/25 would be a 1.6% difference, not a 3% difference, and 25C would be a high estimate for the average.

 

[One Brow]

At the present time the scientific professionals are scamming the world for fat checks from the political establishment.

I call them professional liars, nothing more.

 

[One Brow]

65 M years.... 1.3 M yrs of ice age cycles, part of a significantly cooler regime of climate for us.

What does this have to do with the disruptions of warming on our current agricultural system?

 

[DutchJazzer]

i see all your ******** scienc epaper about catastrophic climate change and trump it all wuith this kick *** song about big black clouds coming from smoke stacks!

 

[Red]

Just one more reason why I regard Trump as an enemy of life on Earth. These seismic tests sound every 12 seconds or so, and, in some cases for weeks or months at a time, with a range of 2500 miles. "Incidental" deaths will be tolerated.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/11/trump_administration_approves.html

WASHINGTON - The Trump administration is preparing to take an important step toward future oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic shore, approving five requests from companies to conduct deafening seismic tests that could kill tens of thousands of dolphins, whales and other marine animals.

The planned Friday announcement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the Commerce Department, to issue "incidental take" permits allowing companies to harm wildlife is likely to further antagonize a dozen governors in states on the Eastern Seaboard who strongly oppose the administration's proposal to expand federal oil and gas leases to the Atlantic. Federal leases could lead to exploratory drilling for the first time in more than half a century.

....Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee who will probably take over as chair in the next Congress, blasted the administration's decision to permit acoustic testing as "an alarming sign of [its] indifference to the fate of coastal communities and marine life, including the endangered north Atlantic right whale."

He bemoaned the timing of the announcement shortly after the climate report's release, saying, "there is nothing this administration won't do for the fossil fuel industry, including destroying local economies and ruining endangered species habitats."

According to one model prediction in a 2014 study released by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in 2014, nearly 2.5 million dolphins would be harassed or possibly killed by acoustic sound blasts each year in the middle and southern Atlantic, and nearly half a million pilot whales would be impacted.

Fewer than two weeks ago, the National Marine Fisheries Service pleaded with commercial fishermen to be careful not to harm Atlantic right whales after an unprecedented 20 deaths in 2016 and 2017 reduced their numbers to a mere 400 in the wild.

.....The Obama administration denied six permits for seismic testing weeks before Trump took office in 2017 out of concern for wildlife and fisheries. "In the present circumstances and guided by an abundance of caution, we believe that the value of obtaining the geophysical and geological information from new air-gun seismic surveys in the Atlantic does not outweigh the potential risks of those surveys' acoustic pulse impacts on marine life," said Abigail Ross Hopper, BOEM's director at the time.

 

[babe]

This is correct. Where the zero is assigned is relevant when you are talking about a percentage increase.



Even 0.4/25 would be a 1.6% difference, not a 3% difference, and 25C would be a high estimate for the average.

well, with something that's clearly an error, as % vs. 0.3 degrees C, it helps move the discussion along to discuss the more reasonable thing. I assumed Dutch meant degrees not percent. I see no reason to assume he understands 0K or -273 C or zero point energy, and almost all you can read in any article, whether news or scientific reports is always degrees, not percent. So I looked for what he meant as a 100y difference, and it's approximate 0.3C, so far as the data goes. The scientific conclusions for 0.9 C over 150y is quite impressively convenient to scare the little chickadees. You need to pick one of the low spots and compare it with one of the high spots recently recorded, and pound on the table and shout that there is no such thing as natural variance, it all has to be man-made. And you have to grab the right reports for estimating the carbon dioxide, too. See how wonderful science is. A politician frowns, points, tells the granting agencies what he needs, and pretty quick he gets something satisfactory.


always works that way. marvelous.

 

[DutchJazzer]

well, with something that's clearly an error, as % vs. 0.3 degrees C, it helps move the discussion along to discuss the more reasonable thing. I assumed Dutch meant degrees not percent. I see no reason to assume he understands 0K or -273 C or zero point energy, and almost all you can read in any article, whether news or scientific reports is always degrees, not percent. So I looked for what he meant as a 100y difference, and it's approximate 0.3C, so far as the data goes. The scientific conclusions for 0.9 C over 150y is quite impressively convenient to scare the little chickadees. You need to pick one of the low spots and compare it with one of the high spots recently recorded, and pound on the table and shout that there is no such thing as natural variance, it all has to be man-made. And you have to grab the right reports for estimating the carbon dioxide, too. See how wonderful science is. A politician frowns, points, tells the granting agencies what he needs, and pretty quick he gets something satisfactory.


always works that way. marvelous.

i menat percent .3% in 100 years can be a measuring ERROR! simple as that. climate is always changing! so what does constitute change less then .3% more then .3% whats acceptable chance? these climate delusional alarmist are ****ing crazy

 

[babe]

i menat percent .3% in 100 years can be a measuring ERROR! simple as that. climate is always changing! so what does constitute change less then .3% more then .3% whats acceptable chance? these climate delusional alarmist are ****ing crazy

But you are wrong to use the % in this context. What is the magnitude anyone could assume for a percent change estimate? 0 C or O K or 0 F. For any statement of percent change, that must be defined.

yes the absolute change in ambient heat is small. But assuming oh say 30 C or 70 F, something about average for global temps, you still need to go the K scale for that absolute magnitude. OK? So its 300 K which is the basis for "normal", and 0.9 degrees change would indeed be 0.3%.

You have to remember and respect the fact that dedicated progressive ideological hacks like OB are immersed in the absolute fiction of theor belief systems, and that is a natural consequence of being sold on a bill of goods that justifies lies as "good" if they advance their cause.

 

[babe]

We do. It just that one side gets better results.

funny. You are so determined to believe the lies.

Even w/o the granting and public agency support, the real scientists get a more truthful report out than the pros you swim with in the progressive sewer of determined propaganda and phony "science".

 

[babe]

So here's the best anyone can do with the present reliable information. We have scattered research and sparse data prior to the year 1900, using tools that were not adequately calibrated. Most thermometers in use clear up to the 1970s had both precision and accuracy problems leading to systematic errors on the scale of around 2 degrees C. The core drillings are very sparse..... expensive and sparse.... only a few data points scattered over the whole earth.

The reports we have cannot rule out "noise" in the data on the scale of 2-4 degrees C. What does that mean?

It means for freakin' damn certain than anyone claiming to see a difference on the scale of 1 degree C is within the statistical level of certainty that loosely translated says.... "you don't know crap".

It is true that scientific thermodynamic principles are well-established, that we know the specific heats of most common materials very well. Lots of lab data done under carefully planned protocols that eliminate most variables except the one we want to evaluate.

From that data, we "know" that greenhouse gases.... any polyatomic molecule in the air.... has a much higher heat capacity than the diatomic molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. Water is a very abundant polyatomic gas in the atmosphere that outweighs everything else by at least an order of magnitude. Water requires absorption of heat to evaporate, and releases it into the clouds when it condenses. Water in the soil makes a tremendous difference in how the ground heats and cools. Water covering 3/4 of the earth surface is the single greatest climate factor on planet earth, excluding of course the sun which is not actually "here" on planet earth.

Nobody to date has done the basic work required to establish a factual relationship between what carbon dioxide releases actually do in quantitative terms. There are rapid changes going on from the moment of release.... absorption into water being major, sequestration in minerals.... absorbed into carbonate rock that has been heated in the sun to create a surface that is carbon dioxide depleted.... and oxides in the soil that react with it. Lots of green stuff with chlorophyll grabbing all that can be taken for photosynthesis..... It's really a pretty complex "curve", not just linear in terms of CO2 releases.

Plus we don't have any data, really on atmospheric CO2 levels going back very far.....

Until somebody does all that research reliably, we don't know squat about it.... really.

 

[babe]

Just one more reason why I regard Trump as an enemy of life on Earth. These seismic tests sound every 12 seconds or so, and, in some cases for weeks or months at a time, with a range of 2500 miles. "Incidental" deaths will be tolerated.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/11/trump_administration_approves.html

WASHINGTON - The Trump administration is preparing to take an important step toward future oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic shore, approving five requests from companies to conduct deafening seismic tests that could kill tens of thousands of dolphins, whales and other marine animals.

The planned Friday announcement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the Commerce Department, to issue "incidental take" permits allowing companies to harm wildlife is likely to further antagonize a dozen governors in states on the Eastern Seaboard who strongly oppose the administration's proposal to expand federal oil and gas leases to the Atlantic. Federal leases could lead to exploratory drilling for the first time in more than half a century.

....Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee who will probably take over as chair in the next Congress, blasted the administration's decision to permit acoustic testing as "an alarming sign of [its] indifference to the fate of coastal communities and marine life, including the endangered north Atlantic right whale."

He bemoaned the timing of the announcement shortly after the climate report's release, saying, "there is nothing this administration won't do for the fossil fuel industry, including destroying local economies and ruining endangered species habitats."

According to one model prediction in a 2014 study released by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in 2014, nearly 2.5 million dolphins would be harassed or possibly killed by acoustic sound blasts each year in the middle and southern Atlantic, and nearly half a million pilot whales would be impacted.

Fewer than two weeks ago, the National Marine Fisheries Service pleaded with commercial fishermen to be careful not to harm Atlantic right whales after an unprecedented 20 deaths in 2016 and 2017 reduced their numbers to a mere 400 in the wild.

.....The Obama administration denied six permits for seismic testing weeks before Trump took office in 2017 out of concern for wildlife and fisheries. "In the present circumstances and guided by an abundance of caution, we believe that the value of obtaining the geophysical and geological information from new air-gun seismic surveys in the Atlantic does not outweigh the potential risks of those surveys' acoustic pulse impacts on marine life," said Abigail Ross Hopper, BOEM's director at the time.

You are about as funny as OB on this. OK, so you have this little club of 5000 bought and paid for push organizations... NGOs, "news", politicians, the Sierra Club, whatever. Clapping seals all making stuff up. The better it sounds the more you clap.

At nonsense.

The tools used in acoustic sounding or seismic geological surveys have an incentive to focus their signals for better recovery of reflected of diffracted waves.

That means, or should mean, they're not just rolling 5000 lb bombs off the deck of their ship and blowing up the fish.

What they do is use long tubes which like a gun direct the energy downward. And they lower these pipes nearly to the ocean floor. You could be swimming a mile away and not feel the pulse, most likely.

What's really wrong with these articles is that the writers don't care for the truth. They are systematic, programmed liars paid to spread these lies.

And you wanna believe them.

 

[Red]

What's really wrong with these articles is that the writers don't care for the truth. They are systematic, programmed liars paid to spread these lies.

And you wanna believe them

That's what you choose to believe. The problem with that is that you know, and I know, that you're just a liar, paid or not, determined to spread bs on Jazzfanz. Nobody believes a word of your screeds. You have no idea what you are talking about, but you live for the effort to make believe you know more then you do. Personally, I think you're actually sick, and not just doing what you do for the yucks you get alone. It's likely you have a mental illness of some sort which has caused you to conclude scientists are part of an evil elite out to pull the wool over all our eyes. And for what? Only you, in your sickness, really know.

Your interpretation of the world we live in is based in the deranged visions of Infowars and nutcases like Alex Jones. You're the Alex Jones of Jazzfanz, and most people here understand you are just a verbose sicko, wallowing in your paranoid delusions. So screed on, @babe, nobody believes you, nobody takes your bs seriously.

It's comical to think you actually might believe you are taken seriously in this subject. There is not a single subject known to man that is immune from your nutjob rants, but your lunacy is transparent. You should at least know that, if you don't already. Your ego must rival Trump's. Yesterday was the 1st of the month, and I received my monthly stipend from George Soros. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, you silly man.


https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-p...industry-conduct-violent-destructive-assaults

"This action flies in the face of massive opposition to offshore drilling and exploration from over 90 percent of coastal municipalities in the proposed blast zone," said Diane Hoskins, campaign director at Oceana. "These permits were already denied because of the known harm that seismic airgun blasting causes. President Trump is essentially giving these companies permission to harass, harm and possibly even kill marine life, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale – all in the pursuit of dirty and dangerous offshore oil. This is the first step toward offshore drilling in the Atlantic and we're going to make sure coastal communities know what's happening and fight this."

Michael Jasny, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at NRDC, said the president's action is totally detached from the reality of the threats the world's ecosytems now face.

"Just one week after issuing dire warnings on the catastrophic fallout of climate change to come, the Trump Administration is opening our coastlines to for-profit companies to prospect for oil and gas—and is willing to sacrifice marine life, our coastal communities and fisheries in the process," fumed Jasny. "This is the first step towards drilling and scientists warn that seismic activity alone could drive the endangered North American right whale to extinction. We'll stand with citizens, coastal businesses, scientists, lawmakers, and commercial and recreational fishermen who oppose seismic blasting, and we will fight this illegal action."

 

[DutchJazzer]

lol when you betray your people to globalist, and put the needs of people of other coutnries first. you turn your country into a warzone.


all cus of soime stupid carbon tax because of a measurement error of .3%

 

[yamers]

the truth has a few sides.

Trump is wrong, but he's not wrong that the USA despite it's enormous pollution is still far under the pollution present in other countries, especially China. If you have ever been to asia you'll know what I mean, pollution levels in south Korea, china, Vietnam, and so on are abysmal. I'd like to see China do something instead of talking about doing something, because you have no idea how bad china is with laws. They will straight dump chemicals into rivers. Korea does the same thing and then blames it on China. This is polics are usual from china and nothing will change on their part no matter how much you pressure them.

I would also like to see trump embrace the issue of pollution. He is very wrong about his beliefs on it.

 

[Scat]

We do. It just that one side gets better results.

Your wording here is interesting.

 

[One Brow]

Even w/o the granting and public agency support, the real scientists get a more truthful report out than the pros you swim with in the progressive sewer of determined propaganda and phony "science".

It the predictions of the mainstream scientists that have passed the test of time.