Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[RSL]

And here is an article that explores why the global temperature is not coming down, even fast enough to stay at no more than 1.5–2°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04931-6

Lot's of progress on renewable energy, but even more needs to be done to reduce the use of fossil fuel.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. to avoid dead links, I've added a PDF of the article as an attachment. It's an article worth reading. It's not a scientific peer-reviewed paper, but it's not in just some other tabloid either.

Hi Bart,

Your post reminds me of a skit I once watched (and unfortunately was involved in) at a long ago gathering in the officers' club. One guy pointed out that since we started flying, weather forecasting has improved 100%. It used to be accurate 2% of the time. Nowadays (in the middle sixties) it's accurate 4% of the time. To those of us who were flying that seemed about right.

Now it's improved a lot more than that. Of course it depends on where you are, but here in central Florida the forecasters can give me a pretty accurate picture of what the weather's going to be like by the end of the week (it's now Wednesday), and a fairly accurate picture of what the weekend's going to be like. But next week, forget it. For that, it's pretty close to what we used to call a WAG.

The climate folks are long-range weather forecasters. We call that kind of thing "climate." And you're telling me we (they) can forecast where global temperatures will be more than 80 years from now?

All I can say to that is 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The climate folks are long-range weather forecasters. We call that kind of thing "climate." And you're telling me we (they) can forecast where global temperatures will be more than 80 years from now?

I'm sorry that I have to repeat myself. Weather is not climate.
So your analogy is flawed.

We know that the average global temperature on Earth is higher than on the moon (while both are at approx. the same distance from the sun), and it's due to (the (side)effects of mostly) CO2 and water vapor which trap the heat that the sun produces when it heats up the earth's surface. Without CO2 and water vapor, almost all that heat would be radiated out back into space at night.

If you can accept that simple fact (which can be verified and quantified in a laboratory, because it's basic physics, and that works the same everywhere), it can also be calculated what amount of additional heat will be trapped when we produce a given cumulative excess of CO2. Basically, the only uncertainty is how much CO2 humanity will allow cumulating before we come to our senses. If we could know that amount for certain, the rest would be relatively straightforward.

Humanity is the main unpredictable factor, and this thread is proof of how irrational some of us can be in spite of the consequences.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

It's been real. I've enjoyed this thread very much. I have to thank those who've swallowed the climate change party line whole hog and who've been dependable and hard-working pinsetters for this game. They're the obverse of the "deniers." The antonym of "deniers" is something like "accepters," and that comes close to their relationship to the party line, but I think, considering that "deniers" is intended to be a putdown that a better word for those who aren't "deniers" would be "gullibles."

But it's time for me to move on and see if I can get back to photography, which I think we all agree is fun, even though we might disagree on the value of its various genres.

So as Slim Pickens sang as he rode his last bronco in Dr. Strangelove: "We'll meet again"

[digitaldog]

But it's time for me to move on and see if I can get back to photography, which I think we all agree is fun, even though we might disagree on the value of its various genres.

So as Slim Pickens sang as he rode his last bronco in Dr. Strangelove: "We'll meet again"

A. That's the soundest comment you've made.
B. No, Slim Pickens absolutely did NOT sing that song at the end of Dr. Strangelove; view it again, your memory of the film, like your ideas about climate change is flawed and wrong! 

[RSL]

Sorry Andrew, but one last correction for excessively literal minds. How do you know that Slim didn't sing that song on the way down? The same way you know what global temperature will be 82 years from now? You're an unusually good pinsetter.

[digitaldog]

Sorry Andrew, but one last correction for excessively literal minds. How do you know that Slim didn't sing that song on the way down?

Because I've seen the film dozens of times and own it! You're simply wrong, he didn't sing that song. Vera Lynn did and if you actually examined the accuracy (or in this case, inaccuracy) of your ideas before posting, we wouldn’t have to continue to correct you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ll_Meet_Again
Lynn's recording is featured in the final scene of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove,

As for your word and intent, seems we can't take that seriously either. Seems you didn't go very far in your quest to improve your photo skills:

But it's time for me to move on and see if I can get back to photography, which I think we all agree is fun, even though we might disagree on the value of its various genres.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Ray, that is a very sensible post which should be submitted to some well-read magazine, like Time, Guardian or National Geographic.

The same post has been made several times in various threads on the Coffee Corner.  There is not anything unique in what Ray said that he hasn't said before.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Yes. Obesity and being overweight is just one factor in contributing to bone fractures. There are probably numerous other factors, including excessive alcohol consumption.

Anorexia also leads to increased bone fractures.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Now now, boys (it is only boys, isn't it?), let's avoid insulting each other and play nicely.

We can confine argument to the certainties of science because, as Hilaire Belloc put it

Oh let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.

Jeremy

It seems that this thread is deteriorating just as I predicted back in the post you and other found objectionable.  this is simply not a topic that we can have a rational discussion on.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And to zoom in on the aspect of urgency, I'll fast-forward to the part of Prof. Richard Somerville's excellent presentation that, although somewhat dated by now (yet still accurate), also explains the part that postponement of taking corrective action will only increase the likelihood of not achieving our goals (making any effort in doing so more expensive than early/preventative action):
https://youtu.be/B4Q271UaNPo?t=1753

BTW. Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, is a world-renowned climate scientist.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

Because I've seen the film dozens of times and own it! You're simply wrong, he didn't sing that song. Vera Lynn did and if you actually examined the accuracy (or in this case, inaccuracy) of your ideas before posting, we wouldn’t have to continue to correct you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ll_Meet_Again
Lynn's recording is featured in the final scene of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove,

As for your word and intent, seems we can't take that seriously either. Seems you didn't go very far in your quest to improve your photo skills:

Oooo. . . That really hit your funny bone, didn't it?

I've watched the movie several times too, starting when it first came out. You seem not to want to tell us your age, so I don't know whether or not you'd have been able to do that.

But in the end, even though he was whooping and waving his cowboy hat as he left the bomb bay, you haven't the foggiest idea what he was singing the rest of the way down.

Now tell me you were able to hear him all the way to the detonation point.

One of the high points I always loved was the President's line: "You can't fight in here. This is the war room."

[digitaldog]

Oooo. . . That really hit your funny bone, didn't it?

You're back again?
Nothing funny about pointing out your errors.

I've watched the movie several times too, starting when it first came out. You seem not to want to tell us your age, so I don't know whether or not you'd have been able to do that.

You're probably too old to recall the actual ending and the fact that Slim Pickens absolutely doesn’t sing the song you think he did. Sorry; those are the facts.
IF you want to know my age, just ask!

But in the end, even though he was whooping and waving his cowboy hat as he left the bomb bay, you haven't the foggiest idea what he was singing the rest of the way down.

I do indeed, and again, it wasn't the song you said he did sing. In fact, he wasn't singing unless you define singing differently than others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y

Now tell me you were able to hear him all the way to the detonation point.

What I didn't hear was what you stated I should have heard: So as Slim Pickens sang as he rode his last bronco in Dr. Strangelove: "We'll meet again"
No, that's incorrect.
Now how are those new snapshots coming? 

[PeterAit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

Yes, there are other references that tell us two years of global cooling don't really interfere with or cast doubt on global warming and that "studies" and "computer models" tell us this is an anomaly within a great trend, and, as usual, you can believe anything you really want to believe. But what's interesting to me is that none of this has been reported in United States' "mainstream media." Golly. Anybody want to speculate about why?

Stand back. Here comes the thunder of posters rushing to explain why this is wrong.

I'll tell you why it hasn't been widely reported - because it is claptrap.

If you go back and find the year with the lowest Arctic ice extent, in this case 2012, then anything after is by definition going to be an increase. It's just like the deniers always choosing 1998 as the baseline for global temperature measurements, because that year was (until recently) the hottest on record. So anything after seems cooler. This is the most blatant form of data cherry picking and should be called out by any decently educated high school student.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This is the most blatant form of data cherry picking and should be called out by any decently educated high school student.

Agreed, but which apparently is already a challenge for several 'adults'.

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

Just came home from the library watching the Before The Flood movie by National Geographic, directed by Martin Scorsese and narrated by Lonardo DiCaprio about the effect of the pollution and climate change. Very powerful film, with a dramatic footage and a lot of pertinent information. The movie is available on iTunes, Amazon, and Google Play.

https://www.beforetheflood.com

I wish, I'd remember and could quote all information from the movie, but I'm still replaying it in my mind. Very pointedly, the presentation ended with this caption - "It's Up To All Of Us". I think, most of the participants in this discussion thread understand and are aware of the effects of causes and effects of the climate change, but they still may find the movie worthwhile to watch.
 
I'd like to thank you Russ for starting this discussion, and if the pictures of dying coral reffs, melting glaciers, disappearing forests, and floods in Miami don't alarm you, there is one more not so obvious aspect of the climate change, seen also by Pentagon and that is The National Security threat.

https://unfccc.int/news/climate-change-threatens-national-security-says-pentagon

[LesPalenik]

The same post has been made several times in various threads on the Coffee Corner.  There is not anything unique in what Ray said that he hasn't said before.

Exactamente. I remember many of Ray's posts about the lack of planning for homes in the flood areas.

For example, if the local government in a particular area allows people to build houses in a location that has been frequently flooded in the past, without imposing building regulations that require such houses to be protected from such floods and raised above the known levels of previous flood events in the area, then the government is clearly incompetent.

When the next flood occurs, perhaps, very sadly, causing a few deaths as well as massive property destruction, the media will tend to describe the event as the worst flood in living memory, or the worst flood ever recorded, or a once-in-a-century flood, and will reinforce the meme that this is yet another example of the effects of human-induced climate change due to rising CO2 levels.

This process, I admit, has a beneficial psychological effect. It protects the government from an angry backlash from the citizens affected - "Why didn't you build more flood-mitigation dams during the last drought, knowing that the drought would eventually end and be followed by periods of heavy rain?" and "Why did you allow us to build houses in a flood plain without informing us of the history of flooding in the area and explaining the need for elevated housing and changing the building regulations accordingly?'

A similar situation applies to the other types of extreme weather events, such as hurricane and droughts. It's very rare that any extreme weather event in modern times is actually the worst on record, in the general area, although it can sometimes happen, but probably because there are no reliable records that back far enough.

Solving such problems and simply plan for floods or hurricanes is much easier than to address the global pollution and climate change, and it is something that can be implemented relatively easily on local or state level. For example, in Ontario, Hurricane Hazel in 1954 changed the way we plan our cities. It highlighted the need for water management and for restricting building on flood plains. It prompted Ontario to strengthen the Conservation Authorities Act to enable watershed planning and land acquisition for flood control and recreation.

Regrettably, sometimes it's important to repeat the information to let it sink in. I have done it too, on occassions. For instance, pointing out the outdated and misleading information on the effects of dairy in a diet. You wouldn't believe but there are people out there who won't read the latest information on this subject and cling to the old practices and myths perpetuated knowingly by dairy and pharma industries, and unknowingly even by many seasoned medical professionals.

[pegelli]

Come on, Pieter, seems to me that even a blind man ought to be able to do better than this.

Yes, I'm right. I didn't mention anything about the magnitude of the subsidence because I don't know anything about the magnitude of the subsidence. I don't know about the magnitude of the rise in water level either, but since the place hasn't yet sunk into the ocean I can conclude that it's pretty small. As even Alan admitted "We don't have reliable sea level data going back as many years as we do average temperatures." In fact, we don't have enough data to make reasonable projections about any of this. But that's not gonna stop liars from figuring.

No Russ, your explanation is quite unbelievable. If you really didn't know anything about the rate of coastal subsidence your sentence in response to John and Alan doesn't make any sense. I know you are not blind (and neither am I) and write carefully so you can't get away this time. But given the fact you don't seem to be here to learn anything but just ridicule anybody who has a different opinion from yours I'm not surprized. However a post further down below is probably the (only) wise words and self reflection I have seen from you in this thread:

Nobody really knows anything about this subject.

I'll retract back to reading mode now, until I find another piece of blatent bullshit here that I can't control myself

[Jeremy Roussak]

It seems that this thread is deteriorating just as I predicted back in the post you and other found objectionable.  this is simply not a topic that we can have a rational discussion on.

No, your post was no more than a petulant demand from one who has no right to demand anything, accompanied by a confession of failure; it contained no prediction.

I have no present intention of closing the conversation which, while generally pointless and occasionally drifting into areas somewhat removed from the thrust of the topic, has been reasonably free from abuse. But I have my eye on it.

Jeremy

I want this thread closed down right now. Ray and I tried to keep this topic alive and failed.  Those who were responsible for the closing of that thread should not be allowed to raise the topic again. I'm completely serious about this!

[Alan Goldhammer]

No, your post was no more than a petulant demand from one who has no right to demand anything, accompanied by a confession of failure; it contained no prediction.

I guess the truth sometimes hurts.

[HSakols]

I'm sorry but Paul Ehrilch was a an exceptional ecologist who backed his work with very good research and papers as proof. To believe that he is a loser because we all are alive is not giving him credit for where he really shined. OK so do you disagree with the idea of exponential growth that explains an explosion of rabbits in Australia and how bacteria grow in a petri dish?  Do you not agree with density independent growth in a fluctuating environment?  Yes, you do not understand the idea of demographic stochasticity and the difference of a statistical study using powerful tools.  What about density dependent population growth is this also false? Proof it!