Climate Change Mega Thread

[captkirkcanada]

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-polit ... l-chevron/



In the flatness of the southern half of Crane County, where a clump of mesquite trees can count as a landmark, you can see a new hundred-foot column of salt water from five, maybe ten miles away. It shoots into the air under extraordinary pressure, as if someone had aimed a fire hydrant straight at the sky. Beginning on New Year’s Eve or in the early hours of 2022, an estimated 25,000 barrels of briny water has emerged from the earth with a dull roar each day, turning the surrounding West Texas landscape white with salt and other minerals.

Even so, as is often the case in the Permian Basin, what’s happening above ground is far less interesting than what the hell is going on underground. “I’ve never seen anything like that in West Texas,” says Bruce K. Darling, a former exploration geologist for Pennzoil who is now a hydrogeology consultant in Austin. “That’s definitely not natural pressure.”


This is the future for north east BC

[Babba_not_Gump]

It's the end of the world as we know it....

[77TA]

I can't wait till I can grow palm trees around my patio. Please buy more electric cars to help speed this up thanks.

[Jlabute]

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-polit ... l-chevron/



In the flatness of the southern half of Crane County, where a clump of mesquite trees can count as a landmark, you can see a new hundred-foot column of salt water from five, maybe ten miles away. It shoots into the air under extraordinary pressure, as if someone had aimed a fire hydrant straight at the sky. Beginning on New Year’s Eve or in the early hours of 2022, an estimated 25,000 barrels of briny water has emerged from the earth with a dull roar each day, turning the surrounding West Texas landscape white with salt and other minerals.

Even so, as is often the case in the Permian Basin, what’s happening above ground is far less interesting than what the hell is going on underground. “I’ve never seen anything like that in West Texas,” says Bruce K. Darling, a former exploration geologist for Pennzoil who is now a hydrogeology consultant in Austin. “That’s definitely not natural pressure.”


This is the future for north east BC

?? WTH. Seriously? This is off topic from climate. Completely inconsequential too.

What is happening above ground?

[captkirkcanada]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is approaching a level not seen in 15m years and perhaps never previously experienced by a hominoid, according to the authors of a study.

At pre-lockdown rates of increase, within five years atmospheric CO2 will pass 427 parts per million, which was the probable peak of the mid-Pliocene warming period 3.3m years ago, when temperatures were 3C to 4C hotter and sea levels were 20 metres higher than today.

But it seems we must now go much further back to see what’s ahead.

“A striking result we’ve found is that the warmest part of the Pliocene had between 380 and 420 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere,” one of the co-authors Thomas Chalk, said. “This is similar to today’s value of around 415 parts per million, showing that we are already at levels that in the past were associated with temperature and sea-level significantly higher than today.”

“Currently, our CO2 levels are rising at about 2.5 ppm per year, meaning that by 2025 we will have exceeded anything seen in the last 3.3 million years.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... dApp_Other


Doesn't sound fun at all

[Jlabute]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is approaching a level not seen in 15m years and perhaps never previously experienced by a hominoid, according to the authors of a study.

At pre-lockdown rates of increase, within five years atmospheric CO2 will pass 427 parts per million, which was the probable peak of the mid-Pliocene warming period 3.3m years ago, when temperatures were 3C to 4C hotter and sea levels were 20 metres higher than today.

But it seems we must now go much further back to see what’s ahead.

“A striking result we’ve found is that the warmest part of the Pliocene had between 380 and 420 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere,” one of the co-authors Thomas Chalk, said. “This is similar to today’s value of around 415 parts per million, showing that we are already at levels that in the past were associated with temperature and sea-level significantly higher than today.”

“Currently, our CO2 levels are rising at about 2.5 ppm per year, meaning that by 2025 we will have exceeded anything seen in the last 3.3 million years.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... dApp_Other


Doesn't sound fun at all

It is not fun, but, only to you, LOL.

So? We have also had much higher temperatures and higher sea levels just 7000 years ago, with less CO2. CO2 could likely mean nothing.

[foenix]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... dApp_Other


Doesn't sound fun at all

It is not fun, but, only to you, LOL.

So? We have also had much higher temperatures and higher sea levels just 7000 years ago, with less CO2. CO2 could likely mean nothing.

Except that occurred over thousands of years not hundreds.

[Jlabute]

It is not fun, but, only to you, LOL.

So? We have also had much higher temperatures and higher sea levels just 7000 years ago, with less CO2. CO2 could likely mean nothing.

Except that occurred over thousands of years not hundreds.

So? Are we currently in a warm period? How long will it last? There is nothing unusual about temperatures over the last 100 years. Sea level rise is not accelerating and is 5 to 15 feet lower than 7000 years ago. CO2 did not do it.

[Jlabute]

Let's have a refresher.....

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data (see Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements). Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites starting with the 1978 TIROS-N, where different satellites had similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satel ... re_dataset


Here's another.....

November 2011 marked the 33rd year of atmospheric temperature measurements from satellite instruments. Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama (UAH) were effectively the originators of the satellite temperature record. Unfortunately, they marked this anniversary with a press release propagating much of the same misinformation about global climate change as they have throughout their careers at UAH. Spencer and Christy not only made a number of misleading statements in the UAH press release and in subsequent blog posts about it, they also ignored a body of scientific literature that contradicts their views on global climate change.

The press release starts off with a rather subjective and unsupported claim by John Christy:

"While 0.45 degrees C of warming is noticeable in climate terms, it isn’t obvious that it represents an impending disaster"

This statement is true, but misleading. By itself, 0.45°C warming of the lower atmosphere does not obviously represent an impending disaster. Add the fact that this warming occurred over a period of just 33 years, and the data becomes rather more alarming. Add the fact that this warming was predominantly caused by greenhouse gas emissions (more on this later) which continue to accelerate with no end in sight, and it becomes more alarming yet.

What Christy has done here is take a number out of context and present it in a way which makes it sound benign. We're not worried about the ~0.5°C over the past 30 years. We're worried about the 4°C to come over the next century if we continue on our current emissions path (Figure 1). And that undoubtedly would represent an impending disaster.

......and this here....

2021 is now the 8th warmest year on record. Hardly worth mentioning.

It's worth mentioning because

Nineteen of the hottest years have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998, which was helped by a very strong El Niño. The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the hottest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880

2014 to 2016 was also a strong long lasting El Nino. When climate is warming, which isn't a bad thing, all recent years will be the warmest, LOL. Be glad the globe is not cooling, and the globe will never be static. Unfortunately the horrible warming places 2021 in 8th spot with doesn't make it sound like an emergency.

You're really stuck on bad-skeptical science I see (John Cook - the guy you always quote that dresses up in Nazi uniforms. Like Trudeau always doing black-face)

Skeptical Science site is far from skeptical, and the author is a cartoonist by trade.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/0 ... ience.html

We all know the issues with UAH6 and ALL THE OTHER temperature data sets. At least with UAH, we know the issues and make adjustments. UAH is accurate, plus it measures the entire globe, unlike GISS that has a limited set of thermometers and many of the data collection sites have issues.

Do you know all the adjustments that have been done to GISS? Without the adjustments the raw data shows very little warming if at all. GISS tends to run hotter today, but not in the past. Even GISS shows no correlation with CO2.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/ ... justments/

[captkirkcanada]

while russia an west play war games , china is securing it lead in the energy wars.

[foenix]

2014 to 2016 was also a strong long lasting El Nino. When climate is warming, which isn't a bad thing, all recent years will be the warmest, LOL. Be glad the globe is not cooling, and the globe will never be static. Unfortunately the horrible warming places 2021 in 8th spot with doesn't make it sound like an emergency.

....except as usual, you've glossed over this part......

Nineteen of the hottest years have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998, which was helped by a very strong El Niño. The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the hottest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880

It's not just a couple of years.....it's been over 2 decades where we've had record setting ever increasing temperatures.....nudge me when it starts to get cooler for the next 20 years perhaps you might have a case.

[foenix]

You're really stuck on bad-skeptical science I see (John Cook - the guy you always quote that dresses up in Nazi uniforms. Like Trudeau always doing black-face)

Skeptical Science site is far from skeptical, and the author is a cartoonist by trade.

You know one's lost an argument when one has to resort to name calling ....but I don't mind getting in the trenches

If Skeptical Science is bad science, what's whatsupwiththat then? ......it's a bafflegabble of misleading, untruthful pseudo science, run by an ex TV weatherman funded by the climate denier think tank Heartland Institute. At least John Cook has a PhD in cognitive science and trained in solar phsics.....what's your guy got? .....oh yeah another Mike Roberts.

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy". Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary.

[foenix]

We all know the issues with UAH6 and ALL THE OTHER temperature data sets. At least with UAH, we know the issues and make adjustments. UAH is accurate, plus it measures the entire globe, unlike GISS that has a limited set of thermometers and many of the data collection sites have issues.

Do you know all the adjustments that have been done to GISS? Without the adjustments the raw data shows very little warming if at all. GISS tends to run hotter today, but not in the past. Even GISS shows no correlation with CO2.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/ ... justments/


MSU UAH GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 AndCO2 NEW.gif

GISS GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958 AndCO2 NEW.gif


AllCompared GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958 AndCO2.gif

Are we talking about Steve McIntyre of the Climate Fraudit that unsuccessfully tried to debunk the hockey stick?

Steve McIntyre is a former statistician and minerals prospector and currently a prominent global warming denier.......He managed to get a shoddy paper attempting to "debunk" the "hockey stick" published that has itself been repeatedly debunked since its publication

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.........

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

[Jlabute]

You know one's lost an argument when one has to resort to name calling ....but I don't mind getting in the trenches

Since you actually started the 'source' denigrating and do it in practically every comment, I would assume it is your primary mode and you don't even realize you are doing it. I'm just giving you a heads up on the author wo likes to pretend he's a Nazi. I only use WUWT sometimes. Certainly you've seen his pictures by now.

If Skeptical Science is bad science, what's whatsupwiththat then? ..... it's a bafflegabble of misleading, untruthful pseudo science, run by an ex TV weatherman funded by the climate denier think tank Heartland Institute. At least John Cook has a PhD in cognitive science and trained in solar physics ... what's your guy got? ..... oh yeah another Mike Roberts.

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy". Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate skepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicized commentary.

"The Guardian"? LOL. The most biased and ridiculous activist mag.

John Cook is a cartoonist and trained as a web developer for most of his career. He did do physics. They are trying hard to cover a lot of this up. WUWT has a Top 100 science site award. All you know about WUWT is you don't agree with their opinions and ignore actual studies. This is not a mode of operation for Skeptical Science. They only push their own opinion and ban counter opinions.

WUWT also highlights ridiculous studies and claims which they publicly refute. They don't ban the climate people but talk to them. This is what most climate science is today, opinion, politics, and baseless non-scientific claims. The Heartland institute has many knowledgeable climate scientists behind them. many of these people get to speak before congress and offer their knowledge about climate. Don't you think it is strange that 97% of the 'believers' think it is the 3% holding the rest behind? LOL. Not that the consensus is true obviously. It is another John Cook invention.

[Jlabute]

We all know the issues with UAH6 and ALL THE OTHER temperature data sets. At least with UAH, we know the issues and make adjustments. UAH is accurate, plus it measures the entire globe, unlike GISS that has a limited set of thermometers and many of the data collection sites have issues.

Do you know all the adjustments that have been done to GISS? Without the adjustments the raw data shows very little warming if at all. GISS tends to run hotter today, but not in the past. Even GISS shows no correlation with CO2.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/ ... justments/

Are we talking about Steve McIntyre of the Climate Fraudit that unsuccessfully tried to debunk the hockey stick?

Steve McIntyre is a former statistician and minerals prospector and currently a prominent global warming denier.......He managed to get a shoddy paper attempting to "debunk" the "hockey stick" published that has itself been repeatedly debunked since its publication

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.........

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

No one can dispute the fake hockey stick. The data and techniques used by Mann are proprietary to him as he says, and he has not released his work for public scrutiny. The 'idea' of the hockey stick doesn't hold true in light of many other studies and current climate trends. The validity of temperature relating directly to CO2 is failing.

Of course, Chinese scientists do not have a 'hockey stick'. MOST consider the hockey stick as a failed attempt at proxy analysis. If you look at the trees that Mann ignored, you don't see a hockey stick. Many studies conclude a cyclic nature to temperature.

https://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chine ... -til-2068/