Why is the climate changing. (Page 21)
theHating: or is your professional opinion that the world shouldnt need to worry about predicting climate models for the purposes of anticipating crop yields?
theHating: well, i am not convinced, you dont have any answers except for links to circular denialists.
and that 24 hours bit was literally just to get you to stop asking me stupid questions, i can debunk this cloud theory in a single sentence, ive had the link since last Thursday.
ghostgeek: Science is all about asking questions. So, why did the earth warm in earlier periods of human history when there was no industrial activity to change the level of CO2 in the atmosphere? Also, and this is crucial to the current debate, why has this mechanism, so active in earlier periods, been suspended in our own time of rising temperature? Fail to address these questions and you show yourself sadly lacking in objectivity. In other words, you are a prisoner of dogma.
(Edited by ghostgeek)
theHating: lol, im a prisoner of dogma, i love when denialists think dogma is such a bad thing.
do you know how every bit of code hashes in the Iphone? probably not, but you understand how to download apps and browse the web, so why is dogma so bad?
im lacking in objectivity? lmafo, i asked you to make a climate prediction based on your climate model that you plagiarized from oil shills, and all you can tell me is "hot, then cold", and the model claimed by some 1300 international scientists has been able to replicate historical records and accurately predict sea level rise, storm instensity, its effects on the el niño, and many more.
you dont know where to begin predicting climate because YOUR dogma is rooted in the denialists warped views, and it has nothing to do with the actual argument FOR designing a climate model.
i could say literally anything, as long as it supported AGW, you wouldnt even bother tracking down my source because it doesn't come from your denialists resource, so you are projecting that onto me by saying im dogmatic because i dont understand what professional scientists dont understand. lmfao, ghost, go read the IPCC report, your argument is pathetic
theHating: i could link you thousands of independent studies that debunk svensmark and watts and support the consensus's climate model, im wondering why i should even do that when you have an inherent bias, you probably wouldnt read any of it because you dont have watts sitting next to you reading from websters dictionary and guiding your bias.
instead, im just gunna let you keep believing your climate model is right. this denialism shit doesnt deserve to be dignified with supporting evidence if you refuse to accept said evidence exists. your argument isnt even relevant to the argument for designing a climate model. if you suddenly dropped your ridiculous ideology and accept that you dont know what you are talking about, maybe your ego will be able to handle a refutation of facts. but as it stands, you have an inherent bias, you project it onto me, which is a defense mechanism that is very characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder.
if you were a REAL skeptic, you wouldn't have an inherent bias, ghost.
theHating: why would we desire a climate model, ghost? isnt that the first question you should ask as a skeptic?
kittybobo34: Ghost,, the warming in the Roman time was predicted by the Milankovitch cycle, the earths orbit brought it closest to the sun during winter (so mild winter) and farthest during the summer (so mild summer), the other hemisphere got the opposite so overall sea levels didn't change.
You keep trying to tie it all to co2, but that is a small part of the whole equation. The gaia effect allows for co2 to add some insulation during the winter and remove it during the summer., but like the analogy to cars with the windows rolled up it can get hot even in the shade.
The excess co2 is overbalancing the natural cycle toward sliding into the next ice age. Instead we are on a steep up swing that looks like it won't stop until its tropics at the poles
(Edited by kittybobo34)
theHating: whats funny, kitty, is that ghost posts links that refute co2 effects on the greenhouse, and they make claims that scientists dont make, one being the idea that co2's effect on temperature is not linear, well if you bothered to read the IPCC reports, scientists have never claimed a linear relationship. they claim they observe a linear relationship because of the effects of other aresols that are being studied, that is what scientists are "debating" on, but as far as co2 goes, scientists have accounted for its effect in the absence of the aeresols in many simulations to correct for the effects these aeresols have in the atmosphere and in every sim, the co2 water vapor feedback is the biggest contributor to earths climate. okay, so you are just not understanding basically why we need a climate model, how the systems science accounts, corrects, and aggregates data, you believe the outdated "planetary goldy locks" theory, and you have internalized cherry-picked refutations that if you had any background in geology or oceanography, you would probably laugh so hard at anthony watts that milk would fly out of your nose like hot vapor from Ol' faithful
theHating: you can see the bias from the title, the mott and bailey fallacy; the climate changes, true, but why is it changing so drastically now, and how can be prepare ourselves for increasing stronger storms and drought/rain seasons. you cannot determine these things by relying on sun cycles because the sun cycles since 1950 are much noisier than the warming trend.
sure, if you look at solar cycles from 1988 and set that over the temperature record, the lines follow eachother for a little while before continuing the warming trend despite solar activity. any idiot can look at the solar record and the temperature record in their entirety from 1950 to present and still wonder how you are correlating warming with solar activity, because its is simply too noisy and doesnt appear to have a greater affect than, you guessed it -- CO2
theHating: so when solar activity continues to cycle up and down in the record, you can see it has essentially the effect of a source of energy provided to the system (climate). when you change the values in terms of ppm co2, in the chemistry of earths atmosphere in a simulation, and pit the lowest values in the absence of the human carbon footprint-- when scientists run a model without man's emissions, the results from those tests yield a tempurature record with global COOLING.
so if co2 has little greenhouse effect, why is the earth still warming up? its not because of the sun, the sun is a source of energy to the system, sure, but if the chemistry of the atmosphere and biosphere didnt have such an influential system of feedback, then shouldnt the moon be habitable? it is in the planetary goldilocks zone, so this is when your argument begins making zero sense by reducing the observable effect that the atmosphere has in relation to THE REST OF THE FRICKIN SYSTEM, not just the sun.
theHating: other planets have different compositions and material layers and spin at different rates and have differentiated magnetospheres, but the chemistry is always inclusive of the atmospheric feedback with the surface chemistry in response to energy input into the system. so that is why it becomes difficult to model other planets that we do not live on, but that is not to say we shouldnt be looking at them to confirm our physics.
theHating: it is true, we would like more data on stuff. but how can we gain more knowledge in the midst of deniers that want to oversimplify the steps and are to willing to leave huge amounts of space for errors in using their model to predict storm intensity or future climate sensitivity.
this is like when the solar system was being modelled by scientists, and the dogmatic deniers scoffed because of the implications of a heliocentric model of our solar system meant their religious texts begged the question of the existence of god. well, that is demonstrably bullshit, because the motive for developing the model of stellar bodies was NOT to refute god, but to gain the ability to make future predictions about things like moon phases. the deniers didnt want people asking questions because it refutes and begs the question of "is their authority righteous?".
theHating: Climate-science denial is quick to recognize opportunity. And its action follows a predictable, two-stage pattern. Step one: invent a false narrative claiming that the mainstream scientific community expects climate change to proceed as an uninterrupted, ineluctable process. Step two: pounce on any divergence from said narrative as evidence that said understanding of climate science is flawed.
ghostgeek: It's interesting about the Milankovitch cycles. A little digging brought this to my attention:
Dome C isotope ratios and their associated temperature estimates in combination with astronomical data provide ample evidence that astronomical forces control warming and cooling cycles. Because the astronomical processes affecting significant climate changes are beyond human control our focus should be on adaptation rather than climate manipulation. It is not a question if cooling will occur but simply a question of when.
[ https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/paleoclimate-cycles-are-key-analogs-for-present-day-holocene-warm-period/ ]
theHating: lmfao, when will the cooling happen? lol thats what we are still asking, a decade after he posted that discredited crap to his blog because the earth isnt cooling down anytime soon if we keep pumping co2 out and destroying sequester tanks
theHating: the focus of agw IS about preparing for a changing climate, particularly a WARMING climate
theHating: lmfao, in a couple decades all you deniers are gunna be in tiny coffins like the anti-vaxxers. ignorance sure is bliss when you're sleeping for eternity, isn't it, denialists?
theHating: im gunna dox the shit out of myself to explain to you why we need accurate climate models and how AGW is used to make climate predictions that weathermen and media-orologists wish they could predict.
i hope you like to read stuff that IS credible, because by the time im done with you, we will likely never see another climate change denialist in the forums ever again
theHating: Climate change in Montana
Read in another language
Watch this page
This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents.
Main article: Climate change in the United States
Köppen climate types in Montana.
The US state of Montana has taken legislative steps towards reducing the possible effects of climate change.
According to the IPCC, possible effects on water systems for the Montana region include less water available in some areas. Warming in mountain states is projected by the IPCC to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows. This may increase competition for water resources.
Montana is a headwater state, and consequently, potential climate change effects that impact Montana's water resources reach far beyond the state borders. The Department of Environmental Quality, Montana, has determined that climate change will affect essential water resources in Montana as water quality and ecosystems may be compromised when contaminants and sediment are carried by spring run-off at unnatural times.
A report from the University of Lethbridge found climate change may alter stream flow and water supply volume by lowering snowpack which may cause low reservoir storage in the spring and dangerously low flows in the summer making perennial streams potentially intermittent. The Montana Conservation Wilderness society is concerned that warming water may also change patterns of some species such as native bull trout require colder water than other fish and would have a difficult time surviving if waters warmed.
Montana's forests sequester up to 23.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually—approximately 62 percent of the state's gross emissions. The state also contains 8.9 million acres thought suitable for afforestation with a potential sequestration capacity of up to 15 million metric tons.
The impacts of climate change upon Montana's forests could result in feedback: assuming a shift to a 'drier' precipitation and temperature scenario, the sequestration capacity of Montana's high-elevation forests could be reduced or even eliminated entirely.
The effect of climate change on agriculture varies among regions and Montana's agricultural production may not change substantially as global temperatures continue to increase over the short term according to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Major challenges are projected for crops that are near the warm end of their suitable range or depend on highly utilized water resources .
Adverse health impacts from climate change have already been documented, and are expected to increase during the twenty-first century. Montanans will experience health impacts from increased temperatures and decreased stream flows that are similar to those in other parts of the country. Decreased summer stream flows will lead to heavier concentrations of pollutants including toxic metals, microbes and nutrients. Higher temperatures and increased forest fires will adversely affect air quality, increasing incidences of asthma, lung and heart disease. On average, climate change has already extended the allergy season by 20 days annually since 1950.
State adaptation and mitigation
In April, 2005, Montana established a renewable energy portfolio which requires all public utilities to derive at least 15% of their electricity from renewable energy resources by 2015. Part of Montana's renewable energy development plan is to stimulate rural economic development by requiring public utilities to buy renewable energy credits and electricity generated by community-based energy utility companies. From 2010-2014, public utility companies in Montana must purchase 50 MW from these rural community-based utility companies. Beginning in 2015, that figure will grow to 75 MW. Any utility company serving more than 5,000 people is required to create a renewable energy standard which promotes renewable energy development, with specific emphasis on rural economic development.
Currently, Montana's renewable energy is derived primarily from wind energy, geothermal energy and solar energy. Montana offers many tax incentives and loan programs for individuals and businesses to promote renewable energy development at all levels in both the private and the public sector. This renewable-energy promoting legislation includes production incentives, utility grants and loans, a green power program, property tax exemptions, and production tax reductions.
In 2009, Montana received $10.3 million in federal Recovery Act funding to improve the energy efficiency of state buildings and expand renewable energy use and recycling infrastructure in the state. The funds will also be used for grants to encourage use of new clean energy technologies that have moved into the production phase but are not yet well known or utilized in the state. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will also extend low-interest loans to consumers, businesses, and nonprofit organizations to install various renewable energy systems, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and biomass.
Montana is ranked among the top five states in the nation for wind power generation potential. As of 2009, Montana produced 820,924 MWh of wind-generated electricity, which represented more than three percent of all electricity generated in Montana that year. Montana is ranked first in the nation for wind speed of class 3 and above, with the majority of wind sites located in areas of low population, near communities that favor wind energy development. Montana Department of Environmental Quality maintains monitoring data from current wind-powered facilities and provides that data to people who are interested in wind energy investment opportunities in the state. The Energy Promotion and Development Division "facilitates a wind and transmission working group that consists of industry, government, academic and other stakeholders. The group has been meeting quarterly since April 2008 and it convenes to identify obstacles to transmission and wind development and to develop strategies to overcome those obstacles."
Large-scale wind farms in Montana currently include Glacier wind farm near Shelby, Judith Gap wind farm in Wheatland County, Diamond Willow wind farm near Baker, MT, and Horseshoe Bend Wind Park near Great Falls. Detailed wind power maps are available on MDEQ's official site.
In May, 2005, the State of Montana, Department of Energy (DOE) and Sage Resources of Missoula, Montana established the Montana Geothermal Program. Montana's potential for large-scale geothermal energy development is still being evaluated. DOE's Geopowering the West program indicates that Montana has more than 25,000 square miles of high-potential sites and areas.
Currently, Montana has 15 high-temperature sites located near White Sulphur Springs, Helena, Ennis, Bozeman, Butte and Boulder, and more than 50 designated geothermal areas of varying temperatures across the entire state. A total of twenty-seven known sites have surface temperatures ranging from 110 °F to above 149 °F, and current temperature estimates for deep reservoirs exceed 350 °F. An interactive topographic map providing details about Montana's principal geothermal sites is available on MDEQ's official site.
Currently, most of Montana's solar energy projects are undertaken at the residential or small-scale municipal level in homes, ranches, schools, community buildings and business. The feasibility of larger-scale solar energy generation facilities in Montana continues to be researched. Eastern Montana receives an annual average of 5 hours of full sun, and western Montana receives an annual average of 4.2 hours, so Montana has adequate solar resources to support more widespread development of solar energy in the future.
The State of Montana currently offers numerous tax incentives and revolving loan programs to encourage solar energy development projects. Details of those programs can be also be found on MDEQ's official site.
In 2007, Montana published its comprehensive Climate Change Action Plan and became the seventh U.S. state to join the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). Shortly thereafter, numerous local governments across the state began to develop formal climate change policies and greenhouse gas emission standards to be implemented at the local level. The standards published in the local climate change action plans are largely patterned after Montana's comprehensive Climate Change Action Plan.
In 2009, Helena issued its community climate action plan.
In 2011, Bozeman released its final climate action plan and so did Missoula County.
Additionally, Montana State University and University of Montana also issued climate change action plans for the campus communities.
In late 2011, Missoula County's Clark Fork Coalition began the process of developing climate action strategies as well.
In the mid 1990s the federal government purchased a large tract of property neighboring Yellowstone National Park in order to prevent a proposed gold mine from being developed on the land. As a result of the land transaction, Montana stood to lose substantial revenue from mining royalties and requested that the state be compensated for the loss. After a period of negotiation the federal government agreed to transfer its ownership in the Otter Creek coal tracts to the state. The Tracts were located in south eastern Montana, in an area rich with coal but largely undeveloped. At the time of the sale, the Tracts were surrounded by a checkerboard pattern of private property owned by a large real estate company; Great Northern Properties. Several years after Montana took ownership of the Tracts, Great Northern Properties sold its interest in the surrounding properties to Arch Coal, Inc., the second largest coal developed in the United States.
In 2009, the Montana State Land Board, the body responsible for deciding how Montana's state lands will be managed, voted to seek bids from development companies interested in the Otter Creek Tracts. After the initial bidding period ended with no bids received, the Land Board lowered the price per ton and resubmitted the Tracts for bidding. Arch Coal was the only bidder for the Otter Creek Tracts In March 2010, the Land Board voted 3-2 to accept Arch Coal's bid for the Tracts.
In reaching its decision to lease the Tracts, the Land Board was not required, under state statute, to consider any environmental impacts or consequences that would result from the proposed mine. After the Land Board approved the leases, Northern Plains Resource Council and other conservation groups filed suit in the Sixteenth Judicial District in Broadus, Montana. The groups argued in court documents that the Land Board did not consider the impacts on climate change that the new mine would have and that the Land Board did not consider a single alternative to the full development of the mine, as required by the Montana Environmental Policy Act. Montana moved the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that lacked legal standing to challenge the Land Board's decision, that the Montana Environmental Policy Act did not apply to decisions of the Land Board, and that the statute allowing the Land Board to not consider any environmental impacts was constitutional. After hearing argument on the issues, the court denied Montana's dismissal of the suit and allowed the case to proceed on the merits. As of November 2011, the case is still being litigated in the Sixteenth Judicial District.
Other pending lawsuits
Climate change trust litigation
In May, 2011, several parents filed suit on behalf of their minor children in the Montana Supreme Court. The parents argued that the atmosphere was a public resource held in trust by Montana for the benefit Montana citizens, and that the state had an affirmatively duty to protect that resource from harms like climate change. The petition to the Montana Supreme Court listed many climate change related impacts that were occurring within the state and argued that "public trust" was impacted by these changes.
Initially, the state did not respond to the lawsuit filed by the parents. The Montana Supreme Court however, ordered the state Attorney General’s office to respond to the petition. When the state Attorney General’s office did respond, they did not attack the merits of the parents’ argument but rather challenged the procedural posture of the case. The parents had filed their case under the "original jurisdiction" of the Montana Supreme Court, rather than an appeal. The original jurisdiction of the Montana Supreme Court was limited by the Montana Constitution. The Attorney General's office argued that the parents had failed to establish that the case fell within the bounds of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction and argued that the high Court deny the petition in favor of the normal, lower court process.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Attorney General's office and dismissed the petition for original jurisdiction. The Court stated that the complexity of the case and the amount of factual determinations that had to be made were better suited for a fact-finding lower court, rather than the state's high court.