Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100

Climate change

Here's the culpable, you see it every day.



Also overpopulation.

 

Huh, how did scientists not think of this?!?!

 

Back during the 1970's there were still more than a few scientist who haven't come down from their LSD trips yet.

LSD is a major mind alternating drug, look what it did to the Democratic party.

 

The idea that we can just pour **** into the air ad infinitum with no ill effects is so naive and absurd no one truly believes it.

 

Interesting. Can you help us understand how the Earth has managed to warm despite the Sun dimming over the past 6 decades?

 

They did.

But to many want to blame man for climate change.

Man figures into the equation, there are to many people in the word today.
And people fart a lot.

 

Right. The fundamental ideas are so very simple. We are taking fixed carbon out of the ground and adding it to the carbon cycle. This adds greenhouse gases to our atmosphere and acidifies our oceans. This isn't exactly rocket surgery.

 

What does this have to do with climate change?

 

You can just say, "Almost all". "Many" is too vague.

 

Can you show us a bad prediction that is widely accepted by the scientific consensus?

Why do you think the lower atmosphere on Venus is so warm while the upper atmosphere is so cool?

 

It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer."


Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008.




Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.

The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980.

Figure 2 shows how much different factors have contributed recent warming. It compares the contributions from the sun, volcanoes, El Niño and greenhouse gases. The sun adds 0.02 to 0.1 °C. Volcanoes cool the Earth by 0.1-0.2 °C. Natural variability (like El Niño) heats or cools by about 0.1-0.2 °C. Greenhouse gases have heated the climate by over 0.8 °C.



Figure 2 Global surface temperature anomalies from 1870 to 2010, and the natural (solar, volcanic, and internal) and anthropogenic factors that influence them. (a) Global surface temperature record (1870–2010) relative to the average global surface temperature for 1961–1990 (black line). A model of global surface temperature change (a: red line) produced using the sum of the impacts on temperature of natural (b, c, d) and anthropogenic factors (e). (b) Estimated temperature response to solar forcing. (c) Estimated temperature response to volcanic eruptions. (d) Estimated temperature variability due to internal variability, here related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. (e) Estimated temperature response to anthropogenic forcing, consisting of a warming component from greenhouse gases, and a cooling component from most aerosols. (IPCC AR5, Chap 5)

Changing Sun, Changing Climate?
https://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm

Now the inconvenient really bad news.
Liberal Martians on Mars are blaming Martians for global warming !!!

Mars is warming
"Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto."

It gets even worse, the entire solar system is warming !!!

• Other planets are warming
• It's cosmic rays
• Jupiter is warming
• Mars is warming
• Neptune is warming
• Pluto is warming
• The sun is getting hotter
• It's cosmic rays

 

Doesn't surprise me a bit. Well done catching it.

 

The political left politicized climate change.

 

Umm...you do realize that this article comes from Skeptical Science which is a website dedicated to debunking denial myths right?

Again, these come from Skeptical Science. The article titles are in reference to denial myths.

I have to ask...did you read any of the stuff you just posted? Because I'm really confused as to what just happened here.

 

I wont be alive in 82 years and neither will my children. I also do not know what technology will be available in 82 years. But I do predict with certainty that it will be cold in the upper midwest in the next 90 days

 

Climate Change Bigot

 

I won't say without some sort of incentives, whether taxes are part of it or not.

 

The US government is the biggest polluter of all, but yeah, the govt can help.

 

I am not a climate change denier. Also, I have not read any journal articles stating that we are beyond a tipping point.

I would like to point out that there are some things that agriculture could do that would reverse the greenhouse effect, as well as other good things.

The emerging field is agro-ecology, which is designing agricultural methods that mimic ecology. Another name for it is regenerative agriculture, because the focus is on soil regeneration. The effect is that the soil becomes a carbon sink. These methods are being researched at Texas A&M University as well as Michigan State and others.

Here is a link to a study that talks about how these methods are reducing agricultural rainwater runoff, which is the cause of dead zones like the red tide in the Gulf of Mexico that killed hundreds of sea turtles this summer.

Here is another link to research showing these methods result in pasture grasslands becoming a carbon sink.

 

Page 206 of 500 has table 5.4.2-7 with various predictions for change in surface temps. Some of the predictions go above 6 degrees.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld_cafe_my2021-26_deis_0.pdf

 

I don't really value doomsday predictions

 

No, it's trump's kakistocracy at work, destroying the country.

 

here is a list of failed doomsday predictions back from the time of the first earth day in the 70s

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

and here is a video of more..

 

its just physics. if you are heating anything and you have a fixed energy source the temperature increases on a logarithmic scale.
To maintain a linear temperature increase you would need to keep applying more and more energy.

 

You haven't thought this through. Just because one factor is a warming driver does not mean there are no other warming drivers. And, as it turns out, scientists thought of this before you did. They know how much of the warming is caused by solar activity and how much isn't. Maybe if you didn't stop reading about the topic the moment you heard something to snap fit to your narrative, you would know a little more and not make so many basic errors.

 

Haha...listen to yourself. "It's just physics", eh? You are implying not only that scientists don't know much more abkut ohysics than you do (guess what, they do), but that they didn't think at all to consult the physical laws of the universe. What you are saying is absurd and you should feel embarrassed to imply such absurd things.