Not all places on earth are experiencing global warming at the same rate. Let’s consider the U.S., the “lower 48 states.” Taking data from NOAA for the 344 climate divisions in this region, and computing the linear trend rate for each, we can see differences between different parts of the USA, with red dots for warming and blue for cooling, larger dots faster and smaller dots more slowly:
It seems that Sheldon Walker’s main disagreement with the danger of global warming isn’t about whether or not it’s happening, or whether or not it’s man-made. He isn’t convinced that the consequences will be as harmful as is often claimed.
This isn’t so much a post, as a comment thread. It’s about the science, and what we can expect the consequences of global warming to be. Feel free to play rough — with ideas, with assertions, but not with people. Call an idea or claim “totally fucking stupid” if you want, but don’t call a person that. And, even when it comes to ideas, I suggest that calling them “stupid” isn’t likely to be persuasive.
This thread is also about discussing other scientific claims from Sheldon Walker — or from others who dispute the danger of global warming. But his opinion of the severity of the consequences seems to be our main point of disagreement.
There’s a lot to say on the subject. Please no “gish gallop.” When one sub-topic gets too hot, deal with it before resorting to another sub-topic. Yes, the other aspect deserves discussion too — but not as a refuge to avoid issues.
When somebody, anybody, asks a question, whether it be Sheldon asking others, or others asking Sheldon, let’s do the opposite of what most politicians do. To quote from “Braveheart,” quit changing the subject and answer the fucking question.
One last thing: if Sheldon participates in this discussion, he’s going to be outnumbered. That takes guts. Show some respect.
P.S. Other skeptics are welcome to participate too. I hope you will — I want ideas to be tested severely. But if you mention “eco-terrorists” or “leftist” your comment goes into the trash bin — and whatever valid points you have made with them.
I’ve launched a new blog. I’m not abandoning this one, just starting another.
The “YES” stands for “Youth Education in Science” because it’s about educating youth (including youthful 100-year-olds if they wish) about the science.
I can use help, in many ways. One is to visit the blog and drive up traffic. That’s an odd request because at the moment there’s only one post and it’s just a “welcome” — no science yet.
Another is to participate in comment threads. Answer questions. There’s quite a bit of knowledge among regular readers here, share it with others. Do be advised that the standard for civil discussion will be unbelievably high.
I will also, eventually, welcome guest posts. There’s certainly no hurry … I haven’t even made a scientific post myself yet.
And, anything you can do to spread the word will help.
As usual, donations to this blog will also help. I’ve decided not to solicit donations on the ClimateYES blog, I just want to keep it informative.
As I say, no need to hurry. But … think about it.
This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at My Wee Dragon
I call climate deniers “denier.” This angers some of them; they claim that I’m trying to liken them to Holocaust deniers in order to smear them by association with Nazis. That’s bullshit. I call them “denier” because they deny reality; saying that it’s about holocaust denial is just their attempt to get sympathy for themselves and smear us.
I quite agree that calling them “Holocaust deniers,” or associating them with Nazis, is out of line. They’re deniers, not holocaust deniers, and climate denial has nothing to do with Nazism.
So … where would you find something so despicable as an attempt to associate their opposition with the Nazis — an explicit connection, one that mentions Nazis by name? A post at the WUWT blog, that’s where.
Sea level isn’t just rising, it is accelerating. It did so during the 20th century, and has done so even more quite recently. ABC news reported the story, based on just-published research (Nerem et al. 2018), that the latest satellite data now show it plainly. The authors of the new study conclude:
When taken with a rate of sea-level rise of 2.9 ± 0.4 mm/y (epoch 2005.0), the extrapolation of the quadratic gives 654 ± 119 mm of sea-level rise by 2100 relative to 2005, which is similar to the processed-based model projections of sea level for representative concentration pathways 8.5 in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Stated alternatively, the observed acceleration will more than double the amount of sea-level rise by 2100 compared with the current rate of sea-level rise continuing unchanged.
When I grew up, I wanted to be like John Wayne. I won’t be insulted, I won’t be cheated, I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same in return. If you do, there’s going to be a fight.
It’s taken me a very long time to understand that John Wayne was wrong. Gandhi was right.