Global Warming 30 Years Later

[dchris]

@paules

With several summers in a row breaking records

How long have we been recording temperature?

@paules

ncreasingly worse hurricane seasons hitting our coast,

How long have we inhabited and recorded hurricanes in the US?

@paules

and people dying of heat exhaustion in the Third World

How long have people died of heat exhaustion in the third world?

[Beyond_Beyond]

Apart from potential catastrophic failure which is fairly rare, you have nuclear waste. What do you do with it for the 40,000 odd years whilst its still radioactive? How and where do you safely store it, so it won’t seep into the water table? How do you stop it falling into the hands of people that shouldn’t have it, those that might use it to make dirty bombs?
Unfortunately nuclear won’t solve energy problems and will be an even worse problem than carbon for future generations.

[doogie]

From the article:
“Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t.”

“Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline.”

[strongmangoals]

Isn’t this exactly why we have Australia?

[EyeDentist]

@doogie

Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t.” [emphasis mine]

@EyeDentist

What happens is, one scientist publishes a dire prediction, and in the interest of grabbing eyeballs, the mainstream media latch onto it and splash it across the headlines with zero context; ie, it is presented as if it represents a consensus opinion, when in fact it doesn’t. And some time later, when the prediction fails to hold, who is there to remind us of it? The anti-change forces.

@doogie

“Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. [emphasis mine]

@EyeDentist

LIke I said, the anti-global-warming forces constantly amplify and harp on statements that can be construed, in hindsight, as inaccurate and alarmist.

[doogie]

My last post was response to paules who made those claims now, not in the far off past.

[EyeDentist]

I think my point still stands re: The anti-change forces’ habit of focusing on the predictions of an individual scientist as if they represent those of the field as a whole.

[ddinante]

If anyone had any scientifically-sound refutation whatsoever of anthropogenic climate change, the fossil fuel companies would make that person the wealthiest researcher that ever lived.

[doogie]

My pointy still stands…people are still claiming these things are happening today without looking at the facts.

[EyeDentist]

@ddinante

If anyone had any scientifically-sound refutation whatsoever of anthropogenic climate change, the fossil fuel companies would make that person the wealthiest researcher that ever lived.

Not only that–s/he would be a hero. Nobel prize(s), positions at the most elite institutions in the world, fame, glory, wealth–it would all be theirs. That is to say, the truly powerful incentives line up on the side of refuting AGW, not affirming it.

@doogie

My pointy still stands…people are still claiming these things are happening today without looking at the facts.

Who are the “people” to whom you refer?

[loppar]

Actually, the most fascinating thing is how global warning became a partisan issue in the 1990ies when the lobbying by energy companies started…

- YouTube

[doogie]

Paules is a fine example

[Basement_Gainz]

@loppar

Actually, the most fascinating thing is how global warning became a partisan issue in the 1990ies when the lobbying by energy companies started…

Global warming became partisan as soon as the green lobby discovered that government control of CO2 output means they could potentially exert control on everything in society. It’s a statist’s dream. They’re watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside.

[loppar]

@Basement_Gainz

They’re watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside.

Better dead than red, right?

[Basement_Gainz]

@loppar

Better dead than red, right?

Exactly. Because the clean power plan was going to save us all and stop this mess… upon further review cap and trade and the CPP weren’t going to do shit for global temperatures. Just make things cost more in the first world and give more bureaucrats jobs.

[EyeDentist]

@doogie

Paules is a fine example

Ah. Well, in that regard, you are just as fine an example yourself. Rather than ‘looking at the facts,’ you initiated this thread with a single article from a biased source, written by a discredited polemicist, and treated said article as the equivalent of a slam dunk on the topic of AGW.

[doogie]

Actually I posted it without comment

[doogie]

Are any of the facts in the article incorrect?

[EyeDentist]

@doogie

Are any of the facts in the article incorrect?

I have no idea; I’m not a climate scientist. (And assuming you’re not a climate scientist, you have no idea either.) But what I can say is the authors of the article are refuting (or purporting to refute) the predictions of a single individual, and presenting the result as an indictment (if not refutation) of AGW in general. Thus, even if we were to assume that every fact in the article is accurate, the authors’ conclusion seems unwarranted.

[anon71262119]

@EyeDentist

They are seeking to manipulate you–and apparently, it’s working.

Nice. Please tell us more. Maybe you can explain the environmental legislation of the past decade to me again, since you’re a real expert here, with that IQ and knowledge base way up above anyone else on the forum.