Why is the climate change issue divided along party lines?

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Oerets

One paying attention must see the climate has changed for the warmer. In my local the winters are no longer drastically cold. This year it was almost 60* in January a month a few short years ago in the teens. My sons in their thirties unaware two years ago when it dipped below zero the need to leave water dripping.

I have see a ever steady warming and wetter weather pattern.

My grandson still have not used the snow toys we bought them a few years ago. Never snowed enough. In other ares the lack of rain is causing fires. Farmer are inundated with rain at opportune times destroying crops.

For one will be glad if my descendants think me silly for the belief in climate change. Rather then willfully ignorant of the signs and arrogantly probating nothing to see here move on attitude.

Last year was the warmest on record. If this weather pattern is cyclical the cycle is out of wack. As usual the ones with a large economic stake in keeping the status quo deny any problem.

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Last year was the warmest on record. If this weather pattern is cyclical the cycle is out of wack. As usual the ones with a large economic stake in keeping the status quo deny any problem.

Globally, 2019 was the second hottest year on record, behind 2016.

Of course the instrumental temperature records used for these comparisons only go back back to 1880, so we can only say that 2019 was the second hottest of the last ~140 years.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by anomalous

Globally, 2019 was the second hottest year on record, behind 2016.

Of course the instrumental temperature records used for these comparisons only go back back to 1880, so we can only say that 2019 was the second hottest of the last ~140 years.

I stand corrected, thanks.

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

I stand corrected, thanks.

De nada!

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by Oerets

One paying attention must see the climate has changed for the warmer. In my local the winters are no longer drastically cold. This year it was almost 60* in January a month a few short years ago in the teens. My sons in their thirties unaware two years ago when it dipped below zero the need to leave water dripping.

I have see a ever steady warming and wetter weather pattern.

My grandson still have not used the snow toys we bought them a few years ago. Never snowed enough. In other ares the lack of rain is causing fires. Farmer are inundated with rain at opportune times destroying crops.

For one will be glad if my descendants think me silly for the belief in climate change. Rather then willfully ignorant of the signs and arrogantly probating nothing to see here move on attitude.

I replied to your initial anecdote with actual data, and you replied to the data I provided with anecdotes, and more anecdotes.

Anecdotes can be important when we have no data to go by, but in this case we have very good quality data and lots of it.

So let's take the case of your sons in their thirties. Below is a plot of the actual NOAA data since 1980 for the CONUS, which spans this lifetime of your sons.

Eyeballing it you can see that the temperature anomaly averaged about -0.5 F from 1980 to 1998, and averaged about +0.75 F from 1998 to now. Thus the years from 1998 to now averaged about 1.25 F warmer than those from 1980 to 1998.

You can also see that last year (2019) was actually cooler (on average) than 1981, 1986, 1987, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.

So 2019 was #19 on the list of hottest years in the CONUS instrumental record.

Of course you are free to interpret these data however you wish, but in my opinion is that the data do not support your anecdotes.

Finally, note that the scale of the Y axis actually only spans ~5 F, thus greatly magnifying the extent of the temperature differences among the data points.

In the second graph the Y axis is adjusted to ~100 F, a range we are more used to for considering differences among temperature values.

Again, interpret this however you think reasonable, but the graph shows the average temperature anomaly of the CONUS over the last 40 years, on a scale we associate with comparing temperatures.

[Oerets]

We can have a conversation but little headway will be accomplished. Due to the fact of 40 billion tons of carbon is released annually for many years is evidently being ignored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle

Jump to the 1:18 to 1:30 time frame in this NOVA and see it put into a prospective.

https://www.pbs.org/video/polar-extremes-mfaum5/

Spoiler alert, a gal of gas = 5 lbs of charcoal so a mountain the size of 4 miles across by a mile high is sent up into the sky as CO2 a year.


Like have stated before, little will change your mind in what I can say. Believe what you want but I fear most humans secretly know the truth now. Just realize the drastic measures needed and put up their hands and accept it is to late anyway.

[Chicks]

Here are the facts, from NASA, which the Trumpkins haven't (yet) taken down.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

[Chicks]

How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable


https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...was-debatable/

[Oerets]

Took me a whole three minutes to find....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a6710121.html
""The countries that will be so hot by 2100 humans won’t be able to go outside""

""“If we don't limit climate change to avoid extreme heat or mugginess, the people in these regions will likely need to find other places to live.”

Dr. Howard Frumkin, dean of the University of Washington school of public health, who wasn't part of the research, told the Associated Press that the implications of the paper for the Gulf region “are frightening”.

“When the ambient temperatures are extremely high, as projected in this paper, then exposed people can and do die.”


https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/f...iddle_east.pdf


I was wrong it was at Austrian mountain lake town of Weissensee. Not in the mountains of Italy



https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.co.../view?id=54724

[anomalous]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Took me a whole three minutes to find....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a6710121.html
""The countries that will be so hot by 2100 humans won’t be able to go outside""

""“If we don't limit climate change to avoid extreme heat or mugginess, the people in these regions will likely need to find other places to live.”

Dr. Howard Frumkin, dean of the University of Washington school of public health, who wasn't part of the research, told the Associated Press that the implications of the paper for the Gulf region “are frightening”.

“When the ambient temperatures are extremely high, as projected in this paper, then exposed people can and do die.”


https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/f...iddle_east.pdf


I was wrong it was at Austrian mountain lake town of Weissensee. Not in the mountains of Italy



https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.co.../view?id=54724

Thank you for providing these links, let's take a look at them one-by-one.

First, I will quote your original statement: "Whole swaths of the planet getting to be too hot to be outside during the day."

Now to me at least, these words imply that this is already happening; i.e. parts of the planet are getting too hot to be outside during the day. Which is a potentially serious issue to be sure, not being able to go outside for fear of death.

Your first link is to a newspaper site article summarizing a recent study published in a scientific climate change journal. Admittedly I have not yet read this paper, but I doubt you have either.

But to summarize the news article: If some of the current climate models are correct, then maybe, by the year 2100, parts of the Middle East will experience heat waves, "...too hot for the human body to survive."

Note that this prediction is for 80 years from now, and is a fair distance from the very misleading title of this article, "The countries that will be so hot by 2100 humans won’t be able to go outside". Considering that very few, if any, of the published climate change models have come remotely close to their predicted extremes to date, I think we all are safe going outside for the foreseeable future.

Do you honestly believe that in your lifetime (or in your children's lifetime) it will become too hot to go outside in some parts of the world for risk of death? This is absurd at face value.

The second link you provided is an obviously hypothetical examination of what may happen to Middle East security issues, on the chance that some of the current climate models prove to be correct.

It is filled with "Climate change may..." after "Climate change may...", did you actually read it?

Now your third example is interesting, I learned something. It apparently is a link to a CBS news promotion for an upcoming "60 Minutes" episode.

I will just exact quote the relevant parts:

"The Elfstedentocht ice-skating race is the longest, most-punishing outdoor speed-skating race in the world, and it’s been an essential part of Dutch life since 1909. Held in the northern province of Friesland, the 125-mile race links 11 cities over frozen canals and waterways. But climate change has changed all that, and now the race is under threat. Bill Whitaker reports on an alternative race in the Austrian Alps that’s drawing thousands of Dutch skaters, on the next edition of 60 MINUTES, Sunday, March 8 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. It hasn’t been cold enough to hold the Elfstedentocht in the Netherlands since 1997. A group of enthusiasts in 1989 began holding an alternative event 750 miles away in the tiny Austrian mountain lake town of Weissensee."

Now after reading this you might be forgiven if you came to the conclusion that this "Elfstedentocht" ice skating race is an indelible part of Dutch history and culture, and has taken place every year since time immemorial, until "climate change" spoiled everything.

However, just a quick internet search will reveal that this Elfstedentocht race is actually a rare event, having only taken place fifteen times total in its history.

The last year the race took place was in 1997, and it almost happened in 2012. The longest gap between race years is the current gap of 23 years, between now and 1997.

However the second longest gap between races was 22 years, between 1963 and 1985; and the third longest was 12 years, between 1929 and 1933. What caused these gaps which occurred (mostly) before what is considered the era of global warming?

The only thing that could be answered to this question is of course "weather".

It is curious how events that took place before ~1980 are considered "weather", while essentially identical events taking place after 1980 are uniformly caused by "global warming".

Of course the evidence is "incontrovertible" and the science is "settled", so we now know that the delineation between "weather" and "global warming" is 1980. That is probably an SAT question these days.