Everything Climate Change

[Uncle_Si]

Does this mean you're for or against tanking?

I don't think it'd have to be a full tank. It could be necessary, I don't know. Just better be a solar powered tank if were going that route.

[hateslosing]

So let's just get a few facts straight:

Climate change is occurring (artic ice is melting, can't argue with that fact) and the green house gas effect is real (just basic heat transfer, nothing to revolutionary there). If you disagree with these basic premises, I question your scientific literacy.

Humans add some level of green house gases to the atmosphere by releasing CO2 that was previously stored as oil: ipso facto, humans contribute, somewhat, to climate change. You can say that our contribution is small compared to other factors, and that may be true, but the reality is that the planet is getting warmer and it is at least partly due to more greenhouse gasses, due to the points mentioned above.

Everyone good so far?

So your options for what to do:

1. Cut back on Green house gas emissions to slow the progress of the change. It won't stop it, which is something no one talks about, this thing has already entered a flywheel effect with the ocean (acidification and rising temperature releases more CO2) and unless you start pulling CO2 (and all the other lovely gasses that cause the effect) out of the atmosphere this thing is just going to continue.

2. Do nothing. We talk about whether or not this is happening all the time, but realistically, what is the consequence if it is? Do we get wiped out? Do polar bears go extinct? Does it flywheel endlessly due to the solubility pump effect in the ocean and we turn Earth into Venus? What is the realistic consequence of no action and is that consequence serious enough to necessitate action. Basic risk management.

3. Learn how to engineer the climate. The only option that makes sense IMO. We have an issue with too much CO2? How about we figure out how to pull it out of the atmosphere more effectively. Ocean's getting hot? How much money would it take to build a cooling system? Can we scatter glass in the upper atmosphere the reflect light and cut inputs? Can we move Earth a few million km's? Can we blow up the moon (not sure how this would help but people like blowing things up and the moon s awful snooty up there)?

For some reason no one talks about our options it's all a debate about if it's real and if it is, well let's just shut down all this fossil fuel business to control emissions. No talk about the actual value to the climate associated with these cuts.

[mcHAPPY]

So let's just get a few facts straight:

Climate change is occurring (artic ice is melting, can't argue with that fact) and the green house gas effect is real (just basic heat transfer, nothing to revolutionary there). If you disagree with these basic premises, I question your scientific literacy.

Humans add some level of green house gases to the atmosphere by releasing CO2 that was previously stored as oil: ipso facto, humans contribute, somewhat, to climate change. You can say that our contribution is small compared to other factors, and that may be true, but the reality is that the planet is getting warmer and it is at least partly due to more greenhouse gasses, due to the points mentioned above.

Everyone good so far?

So your options for what to do:

1. Cut back on Green house gas emissions to slow the progress of the change. It won't stop it, which is something no one talks about, this thing has already entered a flywheel effect with the ocean (acidification and rising temperature releases more CO2) and unless you start pulling CO2 (and all the other lovely gasses that cause the effect) out of the atmosphere this thing is just going to continue.

2. Do nothing. We talk about whether or not this is happening all the time, but realistically, what is the consequence if it is? Do we get wiped out? Do polar bears go extinct? Does it flywheel endlessly due to the solubility pump effect in the ocean and we turn Earth into Venus? What is the realistic consequence of no action and is that consequence serious enough to necessitate action. Basic risk management.

3. Learn how to engineer the climate. The only option that makes sense IMO. We have an issue with too much CO2? How about we figure out how to pull it out of the atmosphere more effectively. Ocean's getting hot? How much money would it take to build a cooling system? Can we scatter glass in the upper atmosphere the reflect light and cut inputs? Can we move Earth a few million km's? Can we blow up the moon (not sure how this would help but people like blowing things up and the moon s awful snooty up there)?

For some reason no one talks about our options it's all a debate about if it's real and if it is, well let's just shut down all this fossil fuel business to control emissions. No talk about the actual value to the climate associated with these cuts.

I stopped reading at the bold as it is in fact wrong.

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ing-after-all/

[mcHAPPY]

If the data doesn't fit the narrative....adjust the data!

[Nilanka]

If the data doesn't fit the narrative....adjust the data!

What's the source of this data?

Why are we using data from Maine to make global conclusions?

[Uncle_Si]

This is also interesting. An under water volcano melting ice caps....

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/82...arctic-ice.htm

[Bendit]

I stopped reading at the bold as it is in fact wrong.

Re: The Forbes article....the foll. is an excerpt of a rebuttal. The link to the full piece is below.

Cherry-picking limited data to illustrate a point on climate change is not a compelling argument, whether it is done by those who advocate for a warming planet, or those who advocate for the opposite. Publications including arguments of this type either lack a basic understanding of science or are intentionally misleading in order to promote an agenda.

Indeed, the last time global sea ice ventured into positive territory for a more than a
few months (2008).

A similar article was published in the Washington Post declaring that there was no reduction in global sea ice. Soon after, the Washington Post Ombudsman published a letter suggesting
that the Post should avoid distorting facts to bolster arguments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...22702334.html?


Forbes and other media outlets would be well-served by following
the Washington Post’s advice on this.

https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlch...e.response.pdf

[hateslosing]

I stopped reading at the bold as it is in fact wrong.

Can't speak to the sources bias but here is the first trend I see when I google sea ice. From http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml



Or from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/



Plus Bendit's post.

So yah, maybe go read the rest now .

[mcHAPPY]

It is a good thing ice grew by 33% in 2013 and in 2014 there was 25% more than found between 2010 and 2012.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33594654



It is cycles people.

[slaw]

I wonder what the collective carbon foot print is of all these global warming heroes flying to Paris.

Once the people who keep telling me it's a crisis start behaving like it's a crisis I'll pay attention. For example, until David Suzuki sells his 5 mansions I'm not really interested in hearing from him on how we all need to cut back and do with less. So... yawn.

[mcHAPPY]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-plummet.html


Probably going to be begging for global warming in a few more years.

It is cycles.

[raptors999]

Once the people who keep telling me it's a crisis start behaving like it's a crisis I'll pay attention. For example, until David Suzuki sells his 5 mansions I'm not really interested in hearing from him on how we all need to cut back and do with less. So... yawn.

Probably won't impact my life so I really don't care. Future generation better learn to swim or start inventing crap, because its not looking good for them.

[mcHAPPY]

Probably won't impact my life so I really don't care. Future generation better learn to swim or start inventing crap, because its not looking good for them.

Why do they need to swim?

Because the ocean is rising due to melting ice caps? Nonsense.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-FREE-now.html

[hateslosing]

It is a good thing ice grew by 33% in 2013 and in 2014 there was 25% more than found between 2010 and 2012.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33594654



It is cycles people.

From the same article:

Satellite observations have documented a decrease of around 40% in the extent of sea ice cover in the Arctic since 1980

.

The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year.

No on is arguing that the temperature doesn't fluctuate, the argument is that there is a trend to warmer weather. Please don't cherry pick data, all the graphs posted above show a cycling in the amount of ice, it's not just straight down. But if you look over years since 1980, there is a clear reduction in sea ice that seems to correlate with both CO2 and average temp.

Beyond all this, the theory of more CO2 (or any gas that is radioactively active) in the atmosphere causing an increase in total heat is pretty rock solid, scientifically speaking. Just look at Venus, which is much hotter than Mercury due to the same effect, despite being further from the sun. So unless you are arguing that the amount of CO2 hasn't changed (others have posted graphs showing otherwise) you have no ground to stand on.

Now we can certainly argue the extent of the problem and like I mentioned earlier, what the actual consequences of this will be but there is no reason (short of assuming all these scientists fabricated their research) to just straight deny the phenomenon.

[raptors999]

It's good exercise and there are too many fat, ugly kids running around

http://communitytable.parade.com/227...m-this-summer/

Nobody wants to see fat adults when global warming starts