Anthropogenic Global Warming ... how hot is it ?

xtx6Gx9.png



Yq2dmSM.png


MxU2tki.png


CONTINUED
 
Shiftless2 said:
MxU2tki.png
#102
Click to expand...
I'm having a hard time reading this one. I gather the zero point zero C deg. line is flat, and the red 2023 line is temperature "anomaly" above the norm, through November.

Reportedly OPEC has throttled production not for environmental benefit, but to keep the price high by limiting supply.
Trump has campaigned in 2023 committing to his audience, "drill baby drill".

I don't know if my attitude qualifies as genuine apathy. At my age, the serenity prayer begins to hold rank akin to the golden rule. Me getting worked up about this is pointless. I'm delighted to provide the forum anyone in the solar system with Internet access can review, on this, and other important matters.

It's for others to fuss about now, or not.

PS
What ever happened to California's drought? Did they call that off?
 
It's called climate change ...

ON8U8AG.png


Not the original source for the pic but a good explanation

Understanding the Arctic polar vortex

Polar vortex expert Amy Butler and Arctic expert James Overland offer perspectives on the February cold snap in the southern U.S., the polar vortex, and how the Arctic might influence mid-latitude weather.
www.climate.gov www.climate.gov
 
Re #105 - somebody got upset when I posted that on another board. Claimed it wasn't Trump's fault that oil prices went as high as they did - he didn't mean for that to happen.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"Re #105 - somebody got upset when I posted that on another board. Claimed it wasn't Trump's fault that oil prices went as high as they did - he didn't mean for that to happen." #108
Click to expand...
That person needs rudimentary education in "supply-&-demand" economics.
I've observed two different categories of ignorance in these fora.
- They know they don't know.
- They do not know they don't know.

I deduce your correspondent belonged to the latter category.
 
Perhaps Trump thought an OPEC production reduction would raise U.S. energy producer profits.
 
Shiftless2 said:
he didn't think ... of unintended consequences ...
Click to expand...
This may be a prime candidate for Trump's epitaph.

- and -
Not only did Trump get more support in Iowa than any other Republican presidential primary candidate, Trump got more than all the other Republican candidates combined.

Mass hysteria?
 

US climate scientist Michael Mann wins $1m in defamation lawsuit​

Scientist wins award against conservative writers who said his work was ‘fraudulent’ and that he ‘molested and tortured’ data
Guardian staff and agencies

The high-profile climate scientist Michael Mann has been awarded $1m by a jury in a defamation lawsuit against two conservative writers who compared his depictions of global heating to the work of a convicted child molester.

The case stretches back 12 years. In a statement posted on Mann’s X account, one of his lawyers said: “Today’s verdict vindicates Mike Mann’s good name and reputation. It also is a big victory for truth and scientists everywhere who dedicate their lives answering vital scientific questions impacting human health and the planet.”

Mann rose to fame for a graph first published in 1998 in the journal Nature that was dubbed the “hockey stick” for its dramatic illustration of a warming planet. It showed average temperatures in the northern hemisphere changing little for 900 years, until they started to rise rapidly in the 20th century.

The work brought Mann, then at Penn State University and now at the University of Pennsylvania, wide exposure. It was included in a report by a UN climate panel in 2001 and a version of it was featured in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning 2006 climate change documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

Emails from Mann and other scientists were leaked in 2009 in an incident known as “Climategate”, with climate denialists claiming Mann manipulated data. Investigations by Penn State and others, including an examination of the emails by the Associated Press, found no misuse of data by Mann.

Regardless, in 2012, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian thinktank, published a blogpost by Rand Simberg that compared ...

CONTINUED
 

‘Smoking gun proof’: fossil fuel industry knew of climate danger as early as 1954, documents show​


1500.png


Documents show industry-backed Air Pollution Foundation uncovered the severe harm climate change would wreak

The fossil fuel industry funded some of the world’s most foundational climate science as early as 1954, newly unearthed documents have shown, including the early research of Charles Keeling, famous for the so-called “Keeling curve” that has charted the upward march of the Earth’s carbon dioxide levels.

A coalition of oil and car manufacturing interests provided $13,814 (about $158,000 in today’s money) in December 1954 to fund Keeling’s earliest work in measuring CO2 levels across the western US, the documents reveal.

Keeling would go on to establish the continuous measurement of global CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. This “Keeling curve” has tracked the steady increase of the atmospheric carbon that drives the climate crisis and has been hailed as one of the most important scientific works of ...

CONTINUED
 
Part A:
Shiftless2 said:

"‘Smoking gun proof’: fossil fuel industry knew of climate danger as early as 1954, documents show" #115​

Click to expand...
I'm an unpersuasive advocate for cataclysmic global genocide. But there is another side to this story.

Consider the tobacco industry including a familiar brand like Phillip Morris, competing with other lesser knowns including Altria Group, among others.
The health affects of tobacco abuse were well recognized in modern medicine.
Yet the tobacco industry churned on. In ignorance?
Or was it that as members of the board they had legally binding obligations to their shareholders?
They compete AGAINST one another for market share. But they teamed as one to survive government intervention that would threaten their global $dollars for $human lives scam.

That may not legitimize much. But it may help elucidate the complication. "A man with two masters serves neither."
That doesn't deny the ethical obligation to humanity.
But it helps identify a competing interest.
The former is ethical. The latter is legal.
To indulge the former to the detriment of the latter would mean among other consequences, joining the unemployment lines, a sacrifice some tobacco industry employees seemed disinclined to do.

And then, both in tobacco and fossil fuel, there's Sorites Paradox *.
Where do we draw the line?
CERTAINLY fossil fuel consumption causes environmental havoc.
The plastics industry doesn't? The oceanic garbage patch has been killing sea creatures for years.
And even what a layman might be inclined to dismiss as insignificant, "micro-plastics", pervade our environment, and even our own bodies.

None of that is intended to dismiss the emergencies we find ourselves in, have placed ourselves in.
But it is intended to explicitly recognize an essential question. "Where do we draw the line?"


* Sorites paradox: Logical paradox from vague predicates

The sorites paradox (sometimes known as the paradox of the heap) is a paradox that results from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are removed individually. With the assumption that removing a single grain does not cause a heap to become a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times that only one grain remains: is it still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap
Wikipedia

Part B pending:
 
Part B:
In danger there is opportunity.
Many a coal miner may regret the demise of the industry that employed them. BUT !!
The renewable energy sector in the U.S. economy & around the world is thriving. There's:
- manufacturing
- transporting
- installing
- maintaining
photo-voltaics, wind-turbines, and related technologies.

The automotive cliché was the demise of the buggy whip craft that would result if the horse & buggy were replaced by the "horseless carriage", aka automobile.
Atmospheric Carbon may be detrimental to the coal industry in the Virginias.
Is it really such a sacrifice to transition that portion of our labor market to safer, cleaner, more well-$paying jobs, even at the risk of rescuing humanity from anthropogenic cataclysm?
"Every Presidential campaign is an epidemic of economic illiteracy, but this year is a particularly egregious case when talking about the manufacturing [jobs] crisis. What that means is manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment is declining. True. [It] Has been for 60 years. We make steel today, we made steel 20 years ago. We just make 1/3 more steel today with 2/3fewer steel works who have gone on to other points of employment. If we have a crisis in manufacturing ... we have a calamity in agriculture, because in 1940 19% of our employers were in agriculture, 4% by 1970, 2% today. That's a triumph of American productivity, not a problem." George Will
Click to expand...
 
c1CmTF3.jpeg



"The impacts of the AMOC’s collapse could be catastrophic. Some parts of Europe might see temperatures plunge by up to 30 degrees Celsius over a century, the study finds, leading to a completely different climate over the course of just a decade or two.“

No realistic adaptation measures can deal with such rapid temperature changes,” the study authors write.

Countries in the Southern Hemisphere, on the other hand, could see increased warming, while the Amazon’s wet and dry seasons could flip, causing serious disruption to the ecosystem.

The AMOC’s collapse could also cause sea levels to surge by around 1 meter (3.3 feet), van Westen said."
 
Shiftless2 said:
"Some parts of Europe might see temperatures plunge by up to 30 degrees Celsius over a century" #118
Click to expand...
Not to in any way diminish this.
But something to bear in mind, if the temperature drops there, the heat that would otherwise be there will end up someplace else.

It's not merely temperature.
A lot of humanity's food is grown in relatively concentrated areas, the American great plains, Ukraine, etc.
Climate region migration may impose more than fashion adjustment. Flood (mentioned in #118), famine, and less familiar consequences. Animal habitats are migrating. Will disease ranges migrate too?

OTO
Old people don't have too much to worry about. It's the grandkids that will suffer the penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top