Denial is Not A River in Egypt

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/22/cold-temperatures-set-regional-records-for-thanksgiving/f9XPnnJUpPuJc15I8P1uWP/story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-global-warming-intl-scli/index.html

The caboose at the back of the train has spoken, but will the idjiot at the front of the train listen?

Preventing any disaster is always a hard sell. Preventing a future global disaster by refusing immediate local rewards may be impossible to sell. The paradox for too many is how to survive long enough to experience a future disaster. What has always pi$$ed moi off is how deniers dismiss the science for no better reason than they don't like the results.

Because of the impending positive feedback loops about to engage I'm afraid the sacrifices needed to stop this global process are already too severe to be embraced by the world. The climate will be changing in ways few will enjoy.

On the positive side, I expect to miss the worst aspects of this slow moving problem.

Good Luck

"I expect to miss the worst aspects of this slow moving problem."

So will the self serving, money worshiping people who allowed caused it to happen.

Future generations of their offspring may not escape what they have wrought.

Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 concentration is just barely above the life-sustaining levels of 150 ppm. For life to have real buffer against mass extinction, CO2 needs to be closer to 1000 ppm.

Figure 2: Plant growth vs CO2 concentration. Plants really begin to suffer once CO2 concentrations fall below 500 ppm. Source: click here.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/

https://www.amazon.com/History-Atmospheric-Effects-Ecosystems-Ecological-ebook/dp/B000QCS48M/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1543084671&sr=1-1&keywords=9780387220697

Just as a year's worth of weather does not constitute climate change, a single, cheery picked citation will never support your blind following of an uninformed self centered administration, Hell bent on extracting as much money for themselves as possible, future generations be damned.

Maybe you'll have no one left on Earth when you die, but I will.

I'd like to try to make their existence something better than where we are headed now.

Facts don't lie! Politicians do.

Hey I helped save the ozone layer, probably saved all life on Earth once already.....

...but then those pesky unintended consequences kicked in....

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2097581-saving-the-ozone-layer-is-warming-the-planet-but-it-can-be-fixed/?cmpid=ILC|NSNS|2017-GLOBAL-inlinelink&utm_medium=ILC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=inlinelink

....and to add insult to injury...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2138753-ozone-layer-recovery-will-be-delayed-by-chemical-leaks/

No, saving the world is a young man's folly....I'm just going to endeavor to enjoy the time I have left...

Climate crisis as greenhouse gas levels reach record highs. New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/2186326-climate-crisis-as-greenhouse-gas-levels-reach-record-highs/

There are more, but.....................................why bother?

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

https://insights.globalspec.com/article/10552/plastics-other-products-prepared-from-carbon-dioixde?frmtrk=cr4digest&cid=nl&et_rid=420592511&et_mid=83769420

Yes Lyn, that USED to be the goal of parenting. To provide a better life for your children and children's children as Teddy would say. Today however the selfishness of the baby boomers has all but destroyed the future for their children and they don't even care. Frankly, to hear some speak you would think they had children ONLY because they were too STUPID to figure out how they happened. It is obvious they are not interested in protecting their childrens future, just their immediate comfort level.

Rubbish...

Why yes, Rubbish does contribute also. Landfills are not sustainable either.

But, the main contribution seems to be coming from that river in Egypt.

This looks more like an embarrassingly bad paper than a refutation of anything. The four plots in figure 2 have no more than six data points and as few as three data points to force a curve fitting. This implies to me that some additional aspect other than just CO2 levels (possibly N, P nutrient levels) are scattering an effect. As for figure 1, showing CO2 levels were greatly elevated when humanity couldn't survive here on Earth is kind of the reason for alarm in the rise of CO2 levels.

....but this study shows that the rate of rise has leveled off at 2 ppm annually, at that time, some 4-6 10-14 years ago.....

ps; oh and it seems the elevated co2 levels also seem to be helping to repair the hole in the ozone level...yeah remember the last big threat to humanity? ...you don't hear much about it any more...but it's still there....

pss; I meant man's ancestors...

and enough oxygen to survive...

Yes, the rate of rise has leveled. In other words the rising slope of CO2 has reduced. Can all of this reduction in the rate of climb in the last 4-6 years be attributed to more plant life on land and ocean? Maybe the actual study this article is referring to compared the global fossil fuel consumption to this decline but a simple search provided me this graph:

(Once again the CR4 decimation of image data has rendered an almost useless image. Clicking on the image will bring up the article and the interactive graph.)

It looks to me as though the nearly a half decade ago reduction in the rate of climb in fossil fuel consumption will be part of the reduction in the CO2 rate of climb. Will this explain all of it, probably not. Will it explain most of it, only a more in depth analysis of raw data might answer this. Will increased plant growth on land and sea halt the CO2 rise regardless of fossil fuel consumption, obviously it will not stop it although it certainly can and will help. That is if we don't cut down more plants for space or allow too many large scale vegetation fires to form.

<Please, a moment of silence for those who died in the recent California and other state and country wildfires. >

...."The 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy that was released earlier this month showed a new all-time high for global carbon dioxide emissions in 2017, which were 426 million metric tons higher than in 2016. This was 1.6% higher than carbon dioxide emissions in 2016, and was higher than the 10-year average growth rate of 1.3%."...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/06/29/global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-set-new-record/#2903e6d843a9

During the Cambrian "explosion" CO2 levels were 4000 ppm. Those levels gave the earth more life than ever before or since.

To the Ineffable All,

Man made climate change is silly science, like evolutionary theory. Atmospheric CO2 is 0.0391% of the air. Atmospheric water vapor varies from 0% in the Gobi Desert to 4% over the tropical oceans. Both CO2 and H2O have about the same heat insulating property. Therefore, because CO2 is a trace gas, and insulating is a physical process, CO2 can increase by 10 fold and still not compete with water vapor. So CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of global warming.

The reason so many folks promote this rubbish is that it puts a lot of dinners on the table for them. Think of all the government grants, endowed chairs to universities and government agencies that need something to regulate.

Ratch

"you've reached a new low."

Really?

How's the weather down there where you are? I can't see down that far for the smog!

It only counts if you do consensus truth. If enough people believe it, then it must be true...at least to those people.

Looking at the effects of CO2 on human health: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm

we have a good buffer outdoors before we will see the effects ourselves, but hiding indoors is much worse.

An observation ,,,

If you post a message using media sources in supporting global warming, you get a " Good Answer "

If you post a message showing graphs, analysis and scientific research, you get an " Off Topic ".

The current score is 5 2 1.

Google: us global change research program.

Scroll to bottom, see the 13 symbols.

I chose the department of agriculture

( the 13 agencies provided data for usgca to compile their report )

On USDA, I went to : office of chief economist / blog.

See: 06/08/15. Study finds increasing wood pellet demand boosts forest growth, reduces green house gas ( reduces ? And this from an agency that contributed to a climate change report ) emissions, creates jobs.

I wonder if I went to the other 12, if I could find similar stuff.

I practice good stewardship of the earth, but for all the doomsday bleating across the global community, here's wondering how many of the signatories of the so-called Paris "Agreement" are abiding by its aims to mitigate their anthropogenic global warming...

/trials and fibrillations

`

I have never found grown-ups in the AGW bleating community, only children. The last big and obnoxious one, Mr. Obama, never acted like there was a crisis yet continued—with his wife—to enlarge their carbon footprints as long as each had access to their Government jumbo jets; total AGW hypocrisy.

/And so it goes

`

And I suppose you think you're one of the grown ups. Have you stopped eating beef? Not likely. This is from a source you're sure to believe:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=7903722&page=1

grow up

I don't think there are any leaders of developed nations willing to purposely trash their own economy for the sake of iffy climate predictions in a distant future scenario....economic hardship takes lives just as readily as natural disasters do...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/climate/world-emissions-goals-far-off-course.html

Fossil fuels, carbon emissions, GDP, life expectancy, have all come hand in hand to provide the quality of life we now enjoy...

...."From 1750 to 2009, global life expectancy more than doubled, from 26 years to 69 years; global population increased 8-fold, from 760 million to 6.8 billion; and incomes increased 11-fold, from $640 to $7,300. Never before had the indicators of the success of the human species advanced as rapidly as in the past quarter millennium.

Fossil fuels are the chief energy source of modern civilization. Accordingly, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have increased rapidly along with life expectancy and per capita income. Goklany illustrates these trends with a graph that bears a striking resemblance to a hockey stick."...

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/12/27/the-real-hockey-stick/

Yes! GA This is the crux of the problem.

The rewards from burning fossil fuels are immediate. The dramatic consequences from burning fossil fuels are in the future. The presently observable effects from earlier use of fossil fuels are mostly subtle and to the untrained eye easy to dismiss. Unfortunately between now and when the effects are dramatic enough to become undeniable there is a projected point in time where no amount of mitigations can prevent the dramatic consequences from occurring.

Interestingly the NY Times article shows that India and China are predicted to have lower CO2 emissions than the Paris agreement levels they pledged. It also shows that the Paris agreement levels are not expected to prevent a 2°C rise in global temperatures.

The "dramatic consequences " are inferred by dodgy climate models, not set in stone as you seem to characterize here....In any case higher levels of CO₂ are a fact of life now, and the consequences, or perhaps benefits, will play out over time, a long long time....We won't know the whole truth for several hundred years I think....if ever...

Both links have one problem.

They are both headlining the name "Trump".

The difference is relatively small, one is designed for a direct Trump bashing and the other one is in preparation in a even more explicit Trump bashing.

What is your point in posting?

Oh and what is your point in reading these?

Climate change may be 'fabulous' after UN... - Business Insider

The UN report, which is based on more than 6,000 scientific references from 91 authors across 40 countries, outlines the impact of global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels The UN report warns that the world is rapidly running out of time before the planet will see catastrophic effects.

Again it's the UN report!

Administration report attributes climate change to 'human...

A new US GOVERNMENT REPORT delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts on the health and economy of the country.Coming from the US Global Change Research Program,A new US GOVERNMENT REPORT delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts on the health and economy of the country.

Again, it's a US GOVERNMENT REPORT!

I was hoping for more intelligent responses but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, guess not.

Incorrect my friend. If you remember we DID effectively mitigate and then reverse the damage that fluorocarbons where doing to the Ozone.

Granted this was a time before the oligarchy took over most governments so legislation was quickly passed, implemented, products removed from market, and companies fined for violations, and then things started to turn around. Today we are almost back to pre 1980 levels of ozone.

So Yes, we have beaten this kind of thing before, back when we were actually concerned about the future and not just how much money we could make, maintaining our comfort level, and denying responsibility while passing the damage and the cost on to our children, and our childrens children. Hardly a model of responsible adult behavior.

I don't know which kind of denier you're talking about, but it doesn't matter. It's true in both cases.

Are you sure about that?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/06/sorry-earth-the-ozone-layer-isnt-healing-itself-after-all/#106e83095418

Thanks for that SE, it does state clearly that the remediation efforts of the Montreal agreement were successful. The upper atmosphere is recovering as expected.

However, the lower atmospheric ozone later isn't. So it follows that what is effecting the lower ozone layer may not be dependent on the same mechanisms that the upper atmosphere is. Not that that should surprise anyone. (nor would it surprise me that it is auto emissions)

The simple truth is, we are still learning and doing the best we can. It's great big world and a far more complex system than we currently understand. That being the case is not an excuse for doing nothing as some would try. It is important to avoid the mistake of the captain of the Titanic. Hubris.

One of the biggest problems with deniers is their lack of scope. They nit pick and "drill down" until they find some tidbit they can cling to like a drowning man to buoy their world view for a few more years. Hence the title of the thread. To us in the human engineering field (psychology) these sort of self inflicted brain wounds is why we have jobs. LoL

Yeah they drill down and find mistakes....

"Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study"

November 16, 2018 by Joshua Emerson Smith

...""Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean," Keeling said. "We really muffed the error margins."

A correction has been submitted to the journal Nature.

According to the most recent IPCC report, climate emissions need to be cut by 20 percent by 2030 and then zeroed out by 2075 to keep warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

Authors of the recent study had previously claimed that emissions levels in coming decades would need to be 25 percent lower to keep warming under that 2-degree cap."...

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-contrarian-uncovers-scientific-error.html#jCp

So what? The author of one study out of 918,000 by this Google Scholar count admitted that they made a mistake. I have no idea how many scholarly studies from this search are measurements, theoretical extrapolations or what but one erroneous study does not invalidate all of them to anyone but a denier.

These studies are all part of modelling software that is predicting the future based on assumptions...If you believe people can predict the future, how about feeding us some lottery number winners, or football game winners, or political office winners, or really anything at all.....let's see if you can predict your local temperature high for two weeks hence, that should be child's play compared to 50 years out....nobody can predict the future...Why isn't the greening effect mentioned in the reports? It will have an impact....was it overlooked? What does that tell you?

You asked for a football prediction, I predict that half of the NFL teams playing this Sunday will win. As for Powerball, I predict 5 numbers will be selected between 1 and 69 and 1 red number between 1 and 26 will be selected next.

I also predict that not only will you likely not ever read any actual climate change scientific papers. I also predict that from the articles you do read about climate change you will not understand what the scholarly papers are predicting and what they are not predicting.

Weak, very weak....

http://www.espn.com/nfl/picks/_/week/12

https://www.weather.gov/forecastmaps

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate

Yet still 100% true. You asked for anything and I delivered. Now, what was I saying about those who cannot admit an error?

Claiming something is true before it has happened is just the kind of cockiness, on a much grander scale, that we are talking about here...What if one of the games is halted? What then? Will you admit you were wrong, or try to weasel out with some explanation?

I'm beginning to think you are deliberately misunderstanding me. You are stuck in denial. There is no question about that.

Ya Know SE, that is kinda funny. To think NASA just got lucky. That years of "modelling, and predictive analysis is not what allowed InSight to make a perfect touch down exactly where they intended it too years ago when it was launched.

Your contention is they got lucky because such mathematical analysis and predictive modeling is worthless because its all theory.

You call your self an engineer? Please inform us of the things you have designed and built so we can avoid them because by your own argument your numbers are worthless and your skills all smoke and mirrors.

Now obviously I don't believe you are an incompetent idiot so I'll have to declare shenanigans on that argument. But I did enjoy the giggle it gave me. Thanks.

OH NO! You spelled the wrong "two", "too" in that reply. This means that everything you say and you have ever said is a deceptive lie!

2 troo

Says the guys who just said:

Nice try but did you think a denier would accept any kind of actual data as true.

In science the tool to dismiss a theory is to falsify the proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis, and prove it wrong. A falsification therefore becomes hard data and fact!

You might actually start reading some papers instead of just reading the press propaganda. You will be surprised how many "mistakes" the peer process tolerates and how the wording in the papers can remind you of snake oil selling.

I do read scientific papers. That is part of my job. A majority of the technical errors are caught by peer review before publication but this process is certainly not perfect. (That's the problem with using people to review a paper.) When a paper with errors gets published and those errors are discovered a respected scholarly author publically acknowledges the error. That is precisely what this author did.

As for the wording in these papers, this is a perpetual problem with multi-cultural authors and with laymen misinterpreting the intent from the words chosen.

This error detection and writing process do not mean the system is so flawed that nothing can ever be known, quite the contrary. This is precisely how new knowledge is forged.

"18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 45th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 15 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:"...

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year

You really should refine these apocalyptic predictions for this coming year into two categories.

1.) apocalyptic predictions

2.) apocalyptic predictions based solely or even partially on a political agenda

I have found that topics posted like this, that are brought up are from the later category. No matter how legitimate a topic could be, one that is well referenced, with statistics, facts and empirical data, because its from the latter category, is polluted and because of that, most don't care to separate the legitimate data from the political pollution.

Climate change is not an apocalyptic "Prediction."

I am going to assume you are playing devils advocate here.

Actually, going by the climate cyclic history repeats itself, it is.

Which is how it "appears".

But as anyone with training in scientific method knows, history only works as a guide when you remove our influence.

But we are here and we are changing numerous climate variables, most without any understanding of the consequences of those changes.

For instance, our atmospheric gases are not equal to any historic record because well, there has never been 7 billion people on the planet before. This is a unique situation that historic record can not predict or even guide.

Science, rigid for a reason.

Plants may get a growth boost from higher CO2, but they are not impervious to the damage of drought, floods, storms, extreme temperatures both hot and cold.

Even in the Southeast (with far less noticeable effects than the north) there are some documented changes which are not beneficial to agriculture:

"Rainfall is among the most important climate variables for agriculture and water resource management. Since 1895, annual total rainfall in the three Southeast states shows great year-to-year variability, with rainfall increasing about 10% for all three states during the past century (Figure 4). State and regional averages of annual total rainfall mask a great deal of the variation among and even within counties and variability in timing of rainfall within each year. Southeast rainfall totals are strongly influenced by tropical storms. One notable change over the past century is an increased frequency of rainfall events of two inches or more. While these storms increase the total annual rainfall, they are less useful to agriculture than smaller rainfall events distributed evenly during the growing season."

https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/climate-change

IMO the fact that someone doesn't care, has a relatively fortunate situation, and wishes only to live out his days in peace and comfort, should not prevent that person from a rational understanding of what is happening globally, and the basis for the well-founded concerns of others.

Denial is not a seasonal tide that deposits the delta of the mind with fresh nutrients for new thoughts and ideas.

New study shows vegetation controls the future of the water cycle

April 2, 2018, Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-vegetation-future.html#jCp

There was some discussion at the SE climate link about the impact of forestation in your region. It's really interesting!! Tx for the link.

There have been a lot of reports cited in this thread. If you are not going to identify which one then I'm not going to claim that I read it.

I was referring to the original poster's subject federal report.

Ok, who is Tony Heller and why should I accept anything he says as even empirical?

Just because he has 10,000 subscribers? .

I don't watch videos. I read. I usually start with the Bona vidas and then move to the body of data before reading conclusions. This way I consider the source, then whether or not the data is verifiable, and then see if the conclusions follow. That way I am not influenced by things not pertinent to the discussion.

I have to assume this was to make a point, so please by all means elaborate.

Apparently, Tony Heller is not even his real name.

Have you done a fact check on any of the reports?

I have.

Unfortunately the video is accurate in many respects. I say unfortunately because much time and treasure goes into the political and regulatory arena because of badly corrupted junk science. I was able to observe first hand the application of large government grants to support a research project leading to regulation change and increased individual costs based on a research program postulated with a largely unsupported "If" as the starting point.

I despair for the future generation that has been taught not to think critically and not to put in the effort to drill down and seriously review the raw data before reaching a conclusion.

We've reached the point where if you want to publish, you get reviewed by sympathetic peers. If you need a legal injunction, you find a sympathetic judge. It's to the point that "my gang is bigger than your gang, so I must be right" and everyone else follows their own pocketbook.

Of course, some of the reports accurately identify errors. Cherry picking will always find outliers. Claiming errors without citing the specific errors is one of the bastions of denial. Nothing can be refuted or explained. Often an apparent error is due to nothing more than a misunderstanding of the report.

Then again, nothing can persuade a denier.

Oh, I don't doubt there are Facts sprinkled in the video.

It's just one of those old Midwestern things, We don't go looking for milk from horses.

YouTube, like Fox, are chartered as entertainment. I don't expect solid science from YouTube and I don't expect actual news from Fox.

Does that mean they won't occasionally have those things on their services, not at all, it just means they are not reliable and usually it will take too long to work around the bias, specially if they are trying to hide it or deceive you.

Again, if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck....

Aphorisms, as always, are cheaper by the bakers dozen.

Time to grab the bull by the horns and let the chips fall where they may. Time to knock the chip off your shoulder, I'll get the axe. A chain is no stronger than it's missing link. False is like, as in false teeth.

It's the magician waving one hand while pocketing the vanishing quarter with the other.

Aphorisms, cliches, as we learned in anthropology, these things become timeless intentionally because they state a basic truth in a humorous or memorable way so that the knowledge can easily be passed from generation to generation. It was part of that, "we are responsible for the world we leave our children" thinking that seems to be lacking now days and does not bode well for the future of mankind.

Aphorisms are also used to perpetuate stereotypes and broad brush generalizations, such as, Why did the chicken cross the road? To show the possum it could be done. A very degrading anti-possumist stereotype.

Well ya know J, we need to pass a law to protect the rights of possums from unfair characterizations and then we need to create a government agency to enforce them.

Won't happen until they allow possums to register and vote.

Possums got rights, too.

I miss Walt's wit.