Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

dense wrote: »

See this??

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/skyscrapers-hurricane-harvey-houston-princeton-university-flooding-wind-a8633781.html

You have this amazing ability to filter out the information that you don't like from any news source don't you.

Half of the links you post support the consensus on climate change but you just ignore those parts, the other half of your links are from extremely unreliable sources.

Sylvia Enough Domino wrote: »

Seriously, you're looking at the wrong problem, This is the real issue.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46327634



Couple this with similar terraforming in many other areas on the planet and you'll see that the CO2 stuff is just a diversion, one that suits the people in power.

There can be more than one 'real issue' at a time.

The Amazon is under threat from logging and also from climate change. Because of the global focus on climate change, we are more likely to direct the necessary resources required to protect it than if we just focus on the logging alone.

The logging interests are hardly jumping up and down about climate change to distract us from their logging. These interests are just as opposed to acting on climate change because they know that the actions required to reduce climate change will also impact on their own industry.

What you're arguing is like saying:
'we shouldn't try to save the giant panda, we should save it's habitat'
when in fact the focus on saving the panda is much more likely to result in it's habitat being preserved than just focusing on the forests themselves

Sylvia Enough Domino wrote: »

If you preserve their habitat, you're also preserving the forests they live in and the Panda will look after itself.


Same with climate change, look after the planet and the climate will take care of itself, concentrating on CO2 is a diversionary tactic and the world leaders know it as doing things this way is better for business than tackling the real issue.

You're completely missing the point of what I'm saying

Sylvia Enough Domino wrote: »

I get the point alright, you just don't like the answer.

You clearly don't get the point.

Giant Pandas are iconic animals that the Chinese government are heavily invested in preserving. Preserving them requires preserving their habitat. If it wasn't for the Panda, the habitat would have been gone decades ago even if all the chinese environmentalists had campaigned day and night to save those bamboo forests.

Panda preservation efforts resulted in Panda reserves which exist only because of the pandas, and if those places weren't protected, they would have been lost decades ago. The Chinese implemented logging bans in these areas in 1998 specifically to protect Pandas.

Similarly with climate change and land use and deforestation. People have been campaigning against deforestation for decades and they have been ignored because their voices were weak and there are profits to be made, and governments viewed these as national natural resources to be exploited as they see fit.

Enter climate change, and we have a global focus on keeping GHG concentrations low, and this means both reducing emissions, and also pulling carbon dioxide from the air. Maintaining rainforests is a crucial part of this process and we are much much more likely to have global treaties to preserve nature reserves if they are tied to global warming, than if they are left up to sovereign governments to decide on their own.

Sylvia Enough Domino wrote: »

So you agree that preserving the habitat, safeguards the Pandas - which is exactly what I said.

That's what I said too, but I said it as an analogy to say that the habitat is saved because of the panda, not because of the habitat itself. In the same way preserving the rainforests can be done as a consequence of dealing with climate change, and not because of the rainforests themselves.

It's not working though, as you can see those treaties have done little to improve things, with the exception of the bank balances of those who benefited from the "green policies", make more stuff than ever before but put a "low carbon" label on it to sell even more.

I know it's not working. We need to take climate change seriously. There need to be binding targets with penalties for not meeting them. When policies are announced, they need to be implemented fully, not given lip service

International treaties need to have monitoring built into them to make sure that everyone is abiding by them

Thats what the Montreal protocal did and that was successful (although depressingly, CFCs are beginning to return as some unscrupulous companies are ignoring the regulations. Thankfully, these companies can be held to account by the mechanisms in the Montreal protocal once they are identified, they can be sanctioned and fined.

dense wrote: »

Let's look at what was being claimed before this study was published, that global warming was responsible for rainfall stalling over Houston, causing flooding, and rising sea levels.

Now it's skyscrapers that are being blamed.
Probably something in that seeing as it's been documented that wind farms are also causing climate change on a local level.

First of all, this is an initial study based on a single storm using a single model. It needs to be verified before it becomes a robust finding. There probably is an effect from urbanisation on rainfall, it's just exactly how much needs to be narrowed down through further study.

Secondly, They don't say that climate change isn't also having a serious impact on rainfall. In fact, the extra heat allows the air to hold more water, so if urban landscapes can concentrate rainfall onto the urban center, then extra water content in the atmosphere due to climate change is a very bad thing and it means we could be underestimating the risk of flooding on cities due to climate change if this effect has not been included in the models.

And thirdly, arctic amplification is also affecting the jet stream which is causing atmospheric blocking which affects the path of storms and can cause them to stall for a long period. This study does not contradict this.

Sylvia Enough Domino wrote: »

https://redpilledamerica.com/blog/demo-home/episode-7/



Interesting podcast with a group of sceptics who didn't trust the original "hockey stick" analysis and went to great lengths to try to verify the original data and methods to prove or disprove the results.
They were to first to receive the "climategate" files and how these revelations influenced Trump.

I listened to the whole episode and it was really one sided and misleading. What parts of it do you find convincing and we can talk about those

Sylvia Enough Domino wrote: »

The refusal to release the source data alone is telling, and then the refusal to divulge exactly how they came to the conclusions.

The podcast never mentioned the fact that there were multiple enquiries that exonerated CRU of any wrongdoing apart from a failure to respond properly to all of the FOIA requests. The podcast glossed over the fact that McIntyre orchestrated a nuisance FOIA campaign against CRU with them receiving 80 requests over the span of a few weeks.

The podcast also never mentioned that the raw data McIntyre was requesting was already publicly available to anyone who was qualified to analyse it and anyone could have reproduced the Datasets and verified the CRU data that way instead of badgering them with FOIA requests instead.

The podcast never mentioned that Mcyntire's published studies have been discredited due to basic errors in his methodology or that Anthony Watts surface stations project has been wound down because even he had to admit that poor citing of some stations has a negligible effect on the overall temperature record.

Most of all, what the podcast fails to mention is that all of the concerns raised by skeptics have been taken seriously by climate scientists, studied in depth, and found to be baseless.

The skeptics never mention all the work done by others attempting to verify their claims and instead finding that they hold little water. For them, the claims raising doubts about climate science on their own are the end product. They're selling doubt, not producing science.

is there any information on the possible school marches this friday 15th, thank you?

I am terrified to see an article with such content. Is the website where this article comes from trusted and/or famous?

Sylvia Enough Domino wrote: »

Done some (shallow) digging, and it appears to be a right leaning news agregator, possibly sympathetic to the fossil fuel industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

But the article itself is repeating what has often been stated by sceptics when it comes to using data from locations that have been terraformed by humans. It is obvious to anyone who wants to look beyond the headline temperature readings that the local environment will have an affect on the figures.

A weather station that was rural 50 years ago could be surrounded by concrete and tarmac today so it will show higher readings than another station that remained rural. These figures will inflate the warming, no doubt about that at all.

Urban areas are far warmer than they were in the past for many reasons, a fact that should always be considered before claiming global warming.

And scientists know about this, so the UHI effect has been accounted for.

Anthony Watts had a site years ago called Surfacestations.org dedicated to the Urban Heat Island effect. Berkeley Earth tested their hypothesis and found it was completely unfounded
https://skepticalscience.com/WattsandBEST.html
Every now and then Watts will try to reinglate his old canard, he never mentions the BEST data that proves him wrong

Sylvia Enough Domino wrote: »

The UHI is real and it also includes areas that have agricultural influences, the main issue is that a large percentage of the planet's surface has been terraformed by humans to a greater or lesser extent over the past century, all forms of terraforming will have an affect on local climate.

To say that global climate change is driven primarily by humans is not proven, but local climate changes are close to 100% caused by human activity is proven by the differences in change between urban monitoring stations verses rural ( non agricultural areas) stations.

The unanswered question is still what percentage of global climate change is directly caused by human activity. Something that is very hard to accurately determine when most of the data is collected from sites that are "tainted" by the affects of direct human activity.

Hold on, on one hand you said that global climate change is not proven to have an anthropogenic cause, and in the same post, you say that a large percentage of the world has been terraformed by humans and that any change to local environment definitely has an effect on it's climate...


Look, you may or may not trust climate monitoring stations, but there are so many other reasons to believe that global climate change is real and primarily caused by greenhouse gasses

1. The Arctics are melting (yes even antarctica https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190114161150.htm)
2. Glaciers all around the world are melting (not all of them, just the vast majority of them)
3. The coral reefs are dying because temperatures are rising
4. There are heatwaves of previously unprecedented intensities happening on a regular basis (are you surprised anymore when temperatures in France reach 40c?
5. Animal and plant species are migrating
6. Rainfall patterns are changing
7. The physics behind the greenhouse effect are undeniable and accepted by pretty much every single qualified physicist
8. All of the predictions by the few scientists who oppose the consensus on climate change have been proven to be false (you can disprove this by finding me a prediction from 5 or more years ago that has come true)
9. Satellite measurements confirm global climate change. These measurements are completely independent of the network of weather stations (even the 'skeptics' at UAH show significant global warming despite their datasets fundamentally understating the increases in global average temperature)
10. Global sea levels are rising
.... I could go on and on and on and on

cnocbui wrote: »

Well that's simply unacceptable. A network of NOAA temperature monitoring stations built across the US in non urban locations, have recorded no warming for the last 15 years. Those figures must be wrong and should be adjusted immediately.

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html

Have a read here:

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate-education-resources/climate-change-impacts

It explains the readings and how they concluded climate change is real and happening now (see "is it happening everywhere" section and heatmap).