Posted on Dec 28, 2018
2018 Was A Milestone Year For Climate Science (If Not Politics)
653
23
17
6
6
0
2018 was a hot year — in fact, the fourth warmest on record. The only years that were, on average, warmer were the past three, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
It has been warming for decades now. But 2018 brought several major new and markedly more precise reports from scientists about what climate change is doing to the weather and how dire they expect the consequences to be.
It has been warming for decades now. But 2018 brought several major new and markedly more precise reports from scientists about what climate change is doing to the weather and how dire they expect the consequences to be.
2018 Was A Milestone Year For Climate Science (If Not Politics)
Posted from npr.org
Climate Change
Meteorology
Science
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
It's going to get worse. It's going to continue even if we all stopped using coal, oil and natural gas tomorrow. The climate change scientists and politicians who want to tax the heck out of you with carbon taxes and setting up cap and trade markets don't want to realize that we are in between ice ages. All carbon capture mitigation and taxes will not change the inevitable.
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPL James S.
Alberta is the Texas of Canada. We probably have a hundred years supply of oil. This socialist Governor or premiere as they call it here in Canada has suggested billions of dollars in carbon capture and other ways to mitigate CO2. She is mad because the Canadian government put a supertanker ban on the West Coast. So even if she did get the oil to the Pacific Ocean, she can't ship it periods Provence to her West, British Columbia, is environmental Zealot Mecca. They believe in carbon taxes on fighting Alberta in court to prevent the pipeline from going across their territory. I know we have billions of plastic bags in the ocean. Why don't we stay with paper bags like they do at the Army Airforce Exchange? Plastic doesn't decompose while paper does. Canada has a big Lumber industry and they can always plant more trees and recycle the paper as well. There is a Dumb and Dumber in both the American and Canadian Society. Oil is the way to go for right now. Battery powered cars can explode and the lithium metal hydride or whatever batteries are a toxic issue as well. Also, batteries don't work very well in 40 below zero Canada. While the rest of the world is having warming, it's 10 degrees here today.
https://www.building.ca/rachel-notley-pulls-alberta-out-of-federal-climate-plan-after-pipeline-decision/
Alberta is the Texas of Canada. We probably have a hundred years supply of oil. This socialist Governor or premiere as they call it here in Canada has suggested billions of dollars in carbon capture and other ways to mitigate CO2. She is mad because the Canadian government put a supertanker ban on the West Coast. So even if she did get the oil to the Pacific Ocean, she can't ship it periods Provence to her West, British Columbia, is environmental Zealot Mecca. They believe in carbon taxes on fighting Alberta in court to prevent the pipeline from going across their territory. I know we have billions of plastic bags in the ocean. Why don't we stay with paper bags like they do at the Army Airforce Exchange? Plastic doesn't decompose while paper does. Canada has a big Lumber industry and they can always plant more trees and recycle the paper as well. There is a Dumb and Dumber in both the American and Canadian Society. Oil is the way to go for right now. Battery powered cars can explode and the lithium metal hydride or whatever batteries are a toxic issue as well. Also, batteries don't work very well in 40 below zero Canada. While the rest of the world is having warming, it's 10 degrees here today.
https://www.building.ca/rachel-notley-pulls-alberta-out-of-federal-climate-plan-after-pipeline-decision/
Rachel Notley pulls Alberta out of federal climate plan after pipeline decision
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says a court decision striking down the approval of the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is a national crisis — and she's pulling her province out of the federal climate plan until Ottawa fixes it. Notley also says her government hasn't ruled out acting on legislation it recently passed allowing it to cut oil flows both east and west to drive home the importance of Alberta's bedrock industry to the...
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
PVT James Strait Jim, I meant atmospheric explosion equivalent to 20 Mount Saint Helens are krakatoa's exploding what affects the climate and bring at least a little ice age or bigger.
(0)
(0)
CPL James S.
LTC (Join to see) - I will address some tangential issues you brought up first:
-Paper does degrade better than plastic, but considering the sheer volume for bags alone, it wouldn't be sustainable for long, especially given the fact that paper is *needed* for so many other things (TP comes to mind here). Check out how many bags Wal-Mart alone uses, then compare that to how long it takes to harvest from planting a tree with the amount of bags per tree potential in said length of time.
- another point WRT paper over plastic: trees not only sequester carbon, they also provide a service to us and the local fauna (and flora in cases).
-Batteries surely do have their problems and limitations, but we're also talking a technology that is in its infancy. We should be developing this technology for more reasons than just cars (exploration of space comes to mind here - battery plus fusion = colonization of space). The toxicity of metals used in batteries is negligible compared to the long term effects of CO2 increases and potential extinction.
- about oil: it is the most effective method for certain things *at the moment*, but that doesn't mean it's safe. It is still releasing Carbon into the atmosphere (and environs) which is a problem. Now, if we develop a means to capture carbon and sequester it while using coal, oil or carbon heavy fuels, then it would benefit us greatly in the long run as it would (hopefully) mitigate the problem and limit the destructive effects.
Whereas I'm no "fanatic", I do have a concern for our pollution and activities that can threaten our future generations.
IMHO, the best course of action for us would be a limitation of CO2 output (using technology or other means) with a considerable financial input to fusion and battery technology (and maybe sustainable energy). Pouring money into technology like that would only benefit us considerably in the long run as it has done not only with our historical colliders, but with NASA. We may not see an immediate return, but we will reap considerable reward in the long run.
Also, we should consider changing our education system to make children more scientifically literate in the basics. Far, far too many people don't understand enough of the basics to make an informed decision about science. This is most evident in the media attention surrounding Climate Science, but it is also demonstrated in physics and medicine.
-Paper does degrade better than plastic, but considering the sheer volume for bags alone, it wouldn't be sustainable for long, especially given the fact that paper is *needed* for so many other things (TP comes to mind here). Check out how many bags Wal-Mart alone uses, then compare that to how long it takes to harvest from planting a tree with the amount of bags per tree potential in said length of time.
- another point WRT paper over plastic: trees not only sequester carbon, they also provide a service to us and the local fauna (and flora in cases).
-Batteries surely do have their problems and limitations, but we're also talking a technology that is in its infancy. We should be developing this technology for more reasons than just cars (exploration of space comes to mind here - battery plus fusion = colonization of space). The toxicity of metals used in batteries is negligible compared to the long term effects of CO2 increases and potential extinction.
- about oil: it is the most effective method for certain things *at the moment*, but that doesn't mean it's safe. It is still releasing Carbon into the atmosphere (and environs) which is a problem. Now, if we develop a means to capture carbon and sequester it while using coal, oil or carbon heavy fuels, then it would benefit us greatly in the long run as it would (hopefully) mitigate the problem and limit the destructive effects.
Whereas I'm no "fanatic", I do have a concern for our pollution and activities that can threaten our future generations.
IMHO, the best course of action for us would be a limitation of CO2 output (using technology or other means) with a considerable financial input to fusion and battery technology (and maybe sustainable energy). Pouring money into technology like that would only benefit us considerably in the long run as it has done not only with our historical colliders, but with NASA. We may not see an immediate return, but we will reap considerable reward in the long run.
Also, we should consider changing our education system to make children more scientifically literate in the basics. Far, far too many people don't understand enough of the basics to make an informed decision about science. This is most evident in the media attention surrounding Climate Science, but it is also demonstrated in physics and medicine.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Israel Has a Submarine That Could Destroy Entire Nations (Armed with Nuclear Weapons)
And this is everything we think we know about it.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
One weird data point for 2018: No severe US tornadoes (F4 or F5). None at all. No mention of that fact in the article though. The article claims climate change causes "more water vapor in the air" according to Hoerling, and then 4 paragraphs later climate change is causing more fires because "Hotter, drier air sucks moisture out of soil". Does climate change make the air wetter AND drier?
(2)
(0)
CPL James S.
It has the potential to do both. A good example that is related is the destabilised jet stream which has produced cold snaps in the Eastern US. The science has shown that the global warming has forced changes in said jet stream and the current snaps were predicted back in the 1990's by Francis and Vavrus in a groundbreaking study that has been validated by several sources and observation.
One of the biggest problems with CO2 in the atmosphere is the cyclical feedback mechanism it has with water vapour as noted by Lacis et. al. in the groundbreaking 2010 study (since validated). This warming and destabilisation combine to move air and water in different ways that can redirect what we know as "regular" weather patterns in an area, so it can be drier in one place and wetter in another.
I always recommend seeking the science rather than simply accepting the news articles and their claims, so a good starting point is google scholar. There are a considerable number of sites that provide scientific breakdowns of the situation but can be politically divisive (like skepticalscience.com), so it is far more logical to stick to the science and get the information from the source rather than accept a news article from any location.
One of the biggest problems with CO2 in the atmosphere is the cyclical feedback mechanism it has with water vapour as noted by Lacis et. al. in the groundbreaking 2010 study (since validated). This warming and destabilisation combine to move air and water in different ways that can redirect what we know as "regular" weather patterns in an area, so it can be drier in one place and wetter in another.
I always recommend seeking the science rather than simply accepting the news articles and their claims, so a good starting point is google scholar. There are a considerable number of sites that provide scientific breakdowns of the situation but can be politically divisive (like skepticalscience.com), so it is far more logical to stick to the science and get the information from the source rather than accept a news article from any location.
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
CPL James S. - Thanks for your thoughtful response. I also recommend sticking to science, and I read the Lacis 2010 study. It is based on GISS 4° × 5° ModelE, which has been shown to lack sufficient detail to effectively capture the heat transfers and TOA flux. 4 degrees of latitude and 5 degrees of longitude can contain may thunderstorms, which the model simulates by pretending the entire 276 miles (north to south) chunk of airspace is partly cloudy. This does not work. We need more granularity in the heat transfer analysis...we're just not there yet.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/ [login to see] 3.htm
https://everythingclimate.org/emissions-climate-models/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/ [login to see] 3.htm
https://everythingclimate.org/emissions-climate-models/
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google