View Poll Results: What is your opinion on global warming?

Voters
173. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's happening and we're to blame

    87 50.29%
  • It's happening but it's not man made

    21 12.14%
  • It's not even happening, except according to the cycles of nature

    48 27.75%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    17 9.83%
Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 91516171819
Results 1,801 to 1,821 of 1821

Thread: Still Believe in Global Warming?

  1. #1801
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    I just quoted the report. Neither the point 2) or my response reference temperature. You're bringing that up. That's your diction. Unlike your signature, I know how to quote things.

  2. #1802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I just quoted the report. Neither the point 2) or my response reference temperature. You're bringing that up. That's your diction. Unlike your signature, I know how to quote things.
    Granary said global warming was natural.

    You're saying "warming" doesn't reference temperature?

    LOL.

    It's always a mistake trying to discuss complex things with climate advocates. So easily confused.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  3. #1803
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    ^That's ironic considering this whole thread is you taking a complex issue such as climate change and removing all nuance, context, and proper scientific method until it's simplified to a point where you can attempt to make it look unreasonable.

  4. #1804
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    I'm saying the concept of global warming involves things like greenhouse gases that influence temperature. Their claim was that global warming was a natural phenomenon. I provided a quote showing that the rate of change of C02, which causes global warming (and you have agreed with, and that reference notes) is unprecedented.

    My quote therefore is a response to global warming being natural and something that had been previously observed based on ice cores.

  5. #1805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I'm saying the concept of global warming involves things like greenhouse gases that influence temperature. Their claim was that global warming was a natural phenomenon. I provided a quote showing that the rate of change of C02, which causes global warming (and you have agreed with, and that reference notes) is unprecedented.

    My quote therefore is a response to global warming being natural and something that had been previously observed based on ice cores.
    What a crock of ****.

    Global warming advocates accuse "deniers" of everything they do.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  6. #1806
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    I don't understand your response. What did I accuse you of in my message you quoted (post id 1804)

  7. #1807

    Default

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #1808

    Default

    Climate change: Global sea level rise could be bigger than expected - BBC News
    Excerpt:

    “Scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than predicted, due to accelerating melting in Greenland and Antarctica.

    The long-held view has been that the world's seas would rise by a maximum of just under a metre by 2100.

    This new study, based on expert opinions, projects that the real level may be around double that figure.”


    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629




    Antarctic instability 'is spreading' - BBC News

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48249287
    Last edited by KC; 21-05-2019 at 06:59 AM.

  9. #1809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Climate change could render many of Earths ecosystems unrecognizable | National Post

    https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...unrecognizable
    An asteroid "could" hit the earth and destroy all life on earth. I wonder if that were to happen, and we were aware of it, if all the environmentalists would demand that we don't try to stop the Asteroid, because that would be humans interfering with nature?

  10. #1810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Climate change could render many of Earth’s ecosystems unrecognizable | National Post

    https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...unrecognizable
    An asteroid "could" hit the earth and destroy all life on earth. I wonder if that were to happen, and we were aware of it, if all the environmentalists would demand that we don't try to stop the Asteroid, because that would be humans interfering with nature?
    In the 1970s my cousin with a few others started one of the earliest “environmental” companies and did very well in that business. (Even had Maurice Strong on the Board - see bio link below.)

    I sure didn’t see my cousin as a fanatic. I feel most environmentalists are generally conservative. My cousin came from a conservative minded family (my cousin’s father was in the military in WWII and then a radio station manager and land owner, hunter, fisher, river boater, etc. and his mother an entrepreneur, President of a Chamber of Commerce, business consultant, etc. Gee my cousin was once even on the board of MEC - a retailer!)

    So I see many environmentalists like my cousin as seeing the trends of the day as just plain excessive and destructive. (Destroying waterways, wiping out old growth forests, etc.) He worked to introduce ideas around sustainable development etc. which is nothing new but has to be learned over and over again. Think of the old old practice of field crop rotation and cases where it has been forgotten. The risks of forgetting common sense and just pursuing profits and growth can introduce very bad practices with enormous negative consequences.

    Our societies have continued with the massive destruction on one environmental front or another and we’ll just have to deal with the consequences.



    Check out his background, and see if you think he was an environmental extremist:


    Maurice Strong - Wikipedia

    “Maurice Frederick Strong, PC, CC, OM, FRSC, FRAIC (April 29, 1929 – November 27, 2015) was a Canadian oil and mineral businessman and a diplomat who served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.[4][5]

    “Strong had his start as an entrepreneur in the Alberta oil patch and was President of Power Corporation of Canada
    until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978. He headed Ontario Hydro, one of North America's largest power utilities, was ...”


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong
    bolding mine


    Myself, I’m a lifetime member of one large environmental organization but I’ve had a V10 Excursion, and a dirty diesel tractor, and various toys. We minimize their use and bought a cleaner diesel SUV.) I’ve also minimized my footprint in a number of other ways. My family has owner and do protected nearly 3/4 mile of lakefront property plus a creek by not developing it and letting 95% of it stay wild.
    Last edited by KC; 21-05-2019 at 09:34 AM.

  11. #1811
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,976

    Default

    Re KC's post #1808.

    The study being referenced in the BBC article is available here:

    https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../14/1817205116

    It is always preferable to look at the actual study if it is available online - as is the case here - if for no other reason that it makes it harder for global warming deniers to make false claims about alarmism and exaggeration.

    The study authors make it clear that they are looking at scenarios for sea level rise that deal with worst case unchecked emissions growth. This worst case scenario involves global temperature rising 5 degrees Celcius or more by 2100, not scenarios for GHG emissions growth that are most likely to occur. In other words, what might happen to sea level if nothing was done to curtail emissions growth.

    Key findings are as follows:

    We find that since the AR5, expert uncertainty has grown, in particular because of uncertain ice dynamic effects. For a +2 C temperature scenario consistent with the Paris Agreement, we obtain a median estimate of a 26 cm SLR contribution by 2100, with a 95th percentile value of 81 cm. For a +5 C temperature scenario more consistent with unchecked emissions growth, the corresponding values are 51 and 178 cm, respectively. Inclusion of thermal expansion and glacier contributions results in a global total SLR estimate that exceeds 2 m at the 95th percentile.

  12. #1812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Re KC's post #1808.

    The study being referenced in the BBC article is available here:

    https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../14/1817205116

    It is always preferable to look at the actual study if it is available online - as is the case here - if for no other reason that it makes it harder for global warming deniers to make false claims about alarmism and exaggeration.

    The study authors make it clear that they are looking at scenarios for sea level rise that deal with worst case unchecked emissions growth. This worst case scenario involves global temperature rising 5 degrees Celcius or more by 2100, not scenarios for GHG emissions growth that are most likely to occur. In other words, what might happen to sea level if nothing was done to curtail emissions growth.

    Key findings are as follows:

    We find that since the AR5, expert uncertainty has grown, in particular because of uncertain ice dynamic effects. For a +2 C temperature scenario consistent with the Paris Agreement, we obtain a median estimate of a 26 cm SLR contribution by 2100, with a 95th percentile value of 81 cm. For a +5 C temperature scenario more consistent with unchecked emissions growth, the corresponding values are 51 and 178 cm, respectively. Inclusion of thermal expansion and glacier contributions results in a global total SLR estimate that exceeds 2 m at the 95th percentile.
    The one-upmanship on who can predict the most catastrophic scenario in climate science is endlessly entertaining. But is it science?
    Even the IPCC does not endorse these extremes. Does that make scientists at the IPCC climate deniers?

    Always good for a laugh.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #1813
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust
    Always good for a laugh.
    This text is appropriate for whatever you post. I may continue to quote this in the future.

  14. #1814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Re KC's post #1808.

    The study being referenced in the BBC article is available here:

    https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../14/1817205116

    It is always preferable to look at the actual study if it is available online - as is the case here - if for no other reason that it makes it harder for global warming deniers to make false claims about alarmism and exaggeration.

    The study authors make it clear that they are looking at scenarios for sea level rise that deal with worst case unchecked emissions growth. This worst case scenario involves global temperature rising 5 degrees Celcius or more by 2100, not scenarios for GHG emissions growth that are most likely to occur. In other words, what might happen to sea level if nothing was done to curtail emissions growth.

    Key findings are as follows:

    We find that since the AR5, expert uncertainty has grown, in particular because of uncertain ice dynamic effects. For a +2 C temperature scenario consistent with the Paris Agreement, we obtain a median estimate of a 26 cm SLR contribution by 2100, with a 95th percentile value of 81 cm. For a +5 C temperature scenario more consistent with unchecked emissions growth, the corresponding values are 51 and 178 cm, respectively. Inclusion of thermal expansion and glacier contributions results in a global total SLR estimate that exceeds 2 m at the 95th percentile.
    The one-upmanship on who can predict the most catastrophic scenario in climate science is endlessly entertaining. But is it science?
    Even the IPCC does not endorse these extremes. Does that make scientists at the IPCC climate deniers?

    Always good for a laugh.
    I would call it the pursuit of accuracy. Assuming little to no change to the current trend eliminates a lot of assumptions that only bring criticism. So with that out of the way then improving the forecast through whatever means are available provided more accuracy to the model. Confounding variables though can still put off forecasts.

  15. #1815

    Default

    Very interesting article:


    Ross McKitrick: This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked | Financial Post


    “...
    n the second half of his talk, Pielke reviews the science as found in the most recent (2013) IPCC Assessment Report, the 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment, and the most up-to-date scientific data and literature. Nothing substantial has changed.

    Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent.

    And on it goes. There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heatwaves.
    ...”



    https://business.financialpost.com/o...cians-attacked
    Last edited by KC; 10-06-2019 at 12:35 PM.

  16. #1816
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,221

    Default

    McKitrick is a pretty committed denier who has no actual scientific background in climatology. So it's no surprise on what side of the argument he'd fall. Looks like Pielke was not as good at it, though: https://skepticalscience.com/Roger_Pielke_Jr_blog.htm

    https://skepticalscience.com/fivethi...e-damages.html

    Note that while Pielke's post has received extensive criticism (e.g. Climate Progress, Things Break, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Columbia Journalism Review), some have claimed that criticism is because he "flunked the green purity test" (i.e. National Journal). The latter argument falls prey to the false "honest broker" narrative. Pielke isn't criticized because of a lack of "purity," he's criticized because he consistently provides a skewed representation of the body of peer-reviewed science, downplaying links between climate change and extreme weather and only focusing on areas where those links are uncertain. On FiveThirtyEight he's done even worse, making a number of false claims, including about his own research. That is why those of us who care about accurately representing the scientific literature criticize Pielke.The bottom line is that many types of extreme weather are being intensified by human-caused global warming, and that will continue in the future. And there is evidence that climate change is adding to the costs of extreme weather damage. There's an important lesson for FiveThirtyEight to learn here – sometimes conclusions are counter-intuitive because they're wrong.

  17. #1817

  18. #1818

    Default

    thanks. This we good(see below).

    The thing is, these are complex issues. The previous research likely didn’t look at the data the way he did, thus he was able to challenge previous research. So every analyst adds new perspectives. It’s just too bad that everyone is using their own research as giving the definitive results.



    “However, Pielke's research does not account for the costs and avoided damages associated with mitigation efforts, for example improved building codes and hurricane path forecasting. This point was made by climate scientists Judith Curry in 2007:
    "The second problem with the analysis is that the paper does not account for major engineering improvements that rendered these regions in Florida less susceptible to damage."

    and Kevin Trenberth in Science in 2010:

    "He completely ignores the benefits from improvements in hurricane warning times, changes in building codes, and other factors that have been important in reducing losses."

    ...”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hange-research

  19. #1819

    Default

    The always insightful BP Statistical Review of World Energy is released.

    https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/bu...ull-report.pdf

    Worth reading in full. But I just wanted to highlight the commentary from BP’s chief economist here:

    My guess is that when our successors look back at Statistical Reviews from around this period, they will observe a world in which there was growing societal awareness and demands for urgent action on climate change, but where the actual energy data continued to move stubbornly in the wrong direction.

    A growing mismatch between hopes and reality. In that context, I fear – or perhaps hope – that 2018 will represent the year in which this mismatch peaked.
    Digging into the data further, it seems that much of the surprising strength in energy consumption in 2018 may be related to weather effects. In particular, there was an unusually large number of hot and cold days across many of the world’s major demand centres last year, particularly in the US, China and Russia, with the increased demand for cooling and heating services helping to explain the strong growth in energy consumption in each of these countries.

  20. #1820
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,221

    Default

    Yeah, I thought one of the most interesting stats was that of the increase in world energy consumption last year, roughly a third was from renewables. So that's good! Another third came from coal. Not so much.

  21. #1821

    Default

    In terms of consumption I was astounded at the popularity of home air conditioning systems in Edmonton.

    How America became addicted to air conditioning | Energy | The Guardian


    “Only now is the US waking up to the environmental cost of such massive energy consumption – and to the chilling prospect that the rest of the world may follow its example. The proportion of homes in Chinese cities with air conditioning rocketed from 8% to 70% between 1995 and 2004.
    US statistics are bracing. A nation with 318 million people accounting for just 4.5% of world population consumes more energy for air conditioning than the rest of the world combined. It uses more electricity for cooling than Africa, population 1.1 billion, uses for everything.
    ...
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...r-conditioning


    Global Air Conditioning Market Will Reach USD 292.7 Billion By 2025

    “The global air conditioning market is likely to grow significantly in the upcoming years, due to improving economic conditions, rising per capita income, and increasing pollution levels. Technological advancements witnessed in developing countries are also driving the air conditioning market globally. The rising level of air pollution is harming not only the environment but also the people living in that particular environment. Pollution is giving rise to fatigue and headaches, which are common symptoms caused by poor air quality. This is further propelling the global air conditioning system market. However, the high cost of air conditioning system may hinder this market’s growth. As air conditioning has become more of a necessity keeping aside the needs and wants, the challenge for air conditioning manufacturing companies will be to make air conditioning systems cheaper and more effective than before.”

    https://globenewswire.com/news-relea...-Research.html


    The air conditioning paradox | National Observer

    “China leads the world with 569 million units installed, and now spends 68 times more electricity for cooling than it did in 1990. With a burgeoning middle class, China's demand for air conditioners is rising faster than anywhere else in the world.”

    https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...ioning-paradox

    Last edited by KC; 12-06-2019 at 12:40 PM.

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 91516171819

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •