Climate change hoax exposed?

[jeffreyp]

I think it's been said that this winter has been the coldest here in florida in 30 years! It's not just here but globally in the northern hemisphere it's been a very cold winter. The religion of global warming has gone underground and is in hiding but mark my words it will be back for sure the next summer heat wave.

[Abnshrek]

I think it's been said that this winter has been the coldest here in florida in 30 years! It's not just here but globally in the northern hemisphere it's been a very cold winter. The religion of global warming has gone underground and is in hiding but mark my words it will be back for sure the next summer heat wave.

They'll be back in some slighted form to justify some fony experiment using tax dollars (a big waste of time & effort (if there is any, other than to rip us off))

[sbl]

I think it's been said that this winter has been the coldest here in florida in 30 years! It's not just here but globally in the northern hemisphere it's been a very cold winter. The religion of global warming has gone underground and is in hiding but mark my words it will be back for sure the next summer heat wave.

I guess you did not watch the Olympics. Not the coldest winter in the Pacific
NW--one of the warmest. Therefore the term Climate Change. As I said earlier --even before it happened, the cold wet winter in the Southeast was predicted due to the El Nino. Ocean currents dominate climate--warming of the ocean will reduce the Deep Ocean circulation--that will increase the frequency and effect of El Nino and Change Climates around the world.

[Caloosamusa]

Climate change has been a constant throughout Earth's geologic history. Ocean currents may be slowed by some processes but it depends upon which processes dominate.

Anthropogenic induced climate change may not be as dominate as some scientists first hypothosized. If the mid-ocean density currents slow or stop it could be disasterous, but man-made created changes in CO2 may not be as dominate a climatological input as first believed. Sun-spot cycles, thus increased or decreased solar energy output may far out-weigh anthropogenic inputs.

Differentiation of inputs may not be given their correct weights in some models of climate change. Just because the first models of climate change are inaccurate, or that some scientists lack integrity does not mean climate change is a hoax.

:2239:

[jeffreyp]

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming. Interestingly if the Cambrian period saw co2 levels 18 times higher than today why wasn't there a runaway greenhouse affect making the planet like Venus?

[Jack Daw]

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming. Interestingly if the Cambrian period saw co2 levels 18 times higher than today why wasn't there a runaway greenhouse affect making the planet like Venus?
Or The Steam Age or The Coal Age...

[Caloosamusa]

Steam, Coal, or industrial "age", has lasted a little more than a flash in Geologic time. The conditions of the Ordovician and Jurassic lasted for time periods measured in millions of years, not hundreds of years. Clearly the weight given to CO2 levels in many models of climate are not representative of reality.

:2239:

[Jack Daw]

Steam, Coal, or industrial "age", has lasted a little more than a flash in Geologic time. The conditions of the Ordovician and Jurassic lasted for time periods measured in millions of years, not hundreds of years. Clearly the weight given to CO2 levels in many models of climate are not representative of reality.

:2239:
Just trying to say that we've improved our behavior towards this planet during the last few decades. ;)

[Caloosamusa]

Then by now we should be on the "steeply sloped" part of the learning curve,
however as a species we create a whole new set of problems and we remain at the bottom of a new learning curve, constantly. We never really "learn."

The more knowledge we accumulate, the problems we create!

:2750:

[Jack Daw]

Then by now we should be on the "steeply sloped" part of the learning curve,
however as a species we create a whole new set of problems and we remain at the bottom of a new learning curve, constantly. We never really "learn."

The more knowledge we accumulate, the problems we create!

:2750:
Don't worry, if we get intolerable, this planet will solve the problem just like it did twice already and start over. :ha: :ha: :ha:

[Caloosamusa]

Da!

We will probably start that also ourselves. It has done it at least 5 times before, arguably 6 (mass extinctions).

:2239:

[Jack Daw]

Da!

We will probably start that also ourselves. It has done it at least 5 times before, arguably 6 (mass extinctions).

:2239:
Well we might be the first to imprint our signature into the universe. (EM waves and broadcasts). :woohoonaner:

[Caloosamusa]

Given the hundreds of billions of stars, and billions of chances of life, we are probably not alone, the other more "intelligent" species are intelligent enough to stay away from us or remain undetected.
:2239:

[bananadude]

It's just a natural cycle that takes place, the earth heats up and it cools down.....its been going on for millions of years..........beam me up scotty!

[Jack Daw]

Given the hundreds of billions of stars, and billions of chances of life, we are probably not alone, the other more "intelligent" species are intelligent enough to stay away from us or remain undetected.
:2239:
Maybe they are, maybe they are not. What was the human motto in one unnamed scifi? Learn to know, exploit, eliminate and conquer them. They'd better stay away from us or we're gonna mess up with their planet too! And by the time we are finished, they won't recognize it, just smog and concrete everywhere. :ha: :ha: :ha: :ha:


It's just a natural cycle that takes place, the earth heats up and it cools down.....its been going on for millions of years..........beam me up scotty!
But WHY does it have to be cold in most of the Europe when people are here??? Irony... we could have had tropics here. ;) :ha:

[Abnshrek]

But WHY does it have to be cold in most of the Europe when people are here??? Irony... we could have had tropics here.

Well if there wasn't disease & death with the tropics I'm sure the Venturers' of the new world would have stayed and shipped out the inhabitants to the cold fridged north to farm that land.. but they for the most part were smart they pilferred all that they could, and hauled while the gettin' was good (the ocean home)...to have their praises sang.. (glory hounds) :^) The only thing getting beamed up (& beamed back down) these days is some more bad tv :^)

[bananadude]

Maybe they are, maybe they are not. What was the human motto in one unnamed scifi? Learn to know, exploit, eliminate and conquer them. They'd better stay away from us or we're gonna mess up with their planet too! And by the time we are finished, they won't recognize it, just smog and concrete everywhere. :ha: :ha: :ha: :ha:



But WHY does it have to be cold in most of the Europe when people are here??? Irony... we could have had tropics here. ;) :ha:



Give it another million years and Europe will probably warm up and become tropical along with much of North America.....yee-hah!

[jeffreyp]

No one denies that the climate is changing.

[Jack Daw]

Give it another million years and Europe will probably warm up and become tropical along with much of North America.....yee-hah!
I have 80 at most. ;)

No one denies that the climate is changing. Only those who draw some benefit, or promise of future benefit, continue to deny that the climate change witnessed in the last century is similar to, but less dramatic, than the global warming that led to the Medieval Warm Period, and to the global cooling that led to the Little Ice Age. Both of these historic events occurred without the use of fossil fuel or human caused atmospheric carbon. The idea that human caused carbon dioxide - less than one percent of greenhouse gases - can result in all the doom and gloom predicted by Dr. Moench is preposterous. The climate has always changed. It will continue to change. It will change at the behest of the original Architect; not at the behest of Al Gore, Brian Moench, the IPCC, or because people burn gasoline and breathe out. The world temperature has not increased in 10 years and actually has decreased for the last three years. Those are the facts. Global warming has been over for a decade, but the global warming "scientists" are still ranting about the imaginary peril. The idea of blaming man for the earth's temperature is as ridiculous as blaming a flea for an elephant's weight. The sun provides the heat for our planet, but the output is not constant. When the sun is in a hot phase, most of our planet is reasonably warm and comfortable. When the sun is in a cooler phase, it can get real chilly. Global warming was harmless, but global cooling is a different kettle of fish. It's a question of how far the world temperature declines, and for how many years. The sun will, of course, revert to a warmer phase. It is a matter of when - 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, etc.
Isn't a warmer sun cycle about to start in 2012? I think I read so. Mayans predicted (calculated?) the end of one cycle, some Russian study claims it will make the sun warmer for the next generations to come...

[sbl]

I still say the warming will lead to the cooling and increasing CO2 is just speeding up the change. When enough glacial ice melts and the North Atlantic warms enough--deep water formation will stop. Then the ocean becomes a 2 layer system, and it will draw the CO2 down because the sinking carbon will be sequestered from the surface.

[jeffreyp]

Heinrich events have happened in the past without intervention from man. Interestingly, warmer water makes for saltier water and it's very evident in south florida if you've ever tried opening your eyes underwater or have had it splashed in your eyes. Within the North Atlantic, the saltiest part is the Sargasso Sea, an area of about 2 million square miles, located about 2,000 miles west of the Canary Islands. The Sargasso Sea is set apart from the open ocean by floating brown seaweed "sargassum" from which the sea gets its name. The saltiness of this sea is due in part to the high water temperature...up to 83º F

[sbl]

Heinrich events have happened in the past without intervention from man. Interestingly, warmer water makes for saltier water and it's very evident in south florida if you've ever tried opening your eyes underwater or have had it splashed in your eyes. Within the North Atlantic, the saltiest part is the Sargasso Sea, an area of about 2 million square miles, located about 2,000 miles west of the Canary Islands. The Sargasso Sea is set apart from the open ocean by floating brown seaweed "sargassum" from which the sea gets its name. The saltiness of this sea is due in part to the high water temperature...up to 83º F

The saltiest water in the ocean is on the bottom in deep cold pools--brine pools, however, for water that is saltier than the average seawater, it must be warm or it will sink. Salinity and temperature both contribute to the density of seawater. The saltiest surface seawater is in the Mediterranean, but it does begin sinking when it flows out of the Straits of Gibraltar.

North Atlantic Deep Water is the heaviest water because it is both cold and salty. Deep Water salinity ranges between 34.6 to 34.9 and temperature ranges from -1.0 C to 2.0 C.

[jeffreyp]

Tim Boyer of the US National Oceanographic Data Center and colleagues compiled salinity data gathered by fisheries, navy and research ships travelling across the North Atlantic between 1955 and 2006. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier.



Saltier North Atlantic should give currents a boost - environment - 23 August 2007 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12528-saltier-north-atlantic-should-give-currents-a-boost.html)

[sbl]

If it is on the surface, it is lighter than the deep water--it still needs the freezing process which removes freshwater to make it salty enough and cold enough to sink. If the surface water has gotten saltier, that just means it has also gotten warmer.

Recent measurements of the amount of deep water that is being formed show a significant decrease over the past decade or 2.

When you say CO2 was 7000 ppm millions of years ago and that the temperature at the time of the dinos was no warmer than today--where do you get that stuff? To my knowledge we do not have reliable sources of measurements from that time. Even if it was--what relevence does it have to more modern climate data--a lot of things were different then--the continents were not even in the same place.

I am not a modeller, I do not know if the models have CO2 weighted correctly. I do know that sun spot cycles are too short to explain the increase over the past century. We do know that the coincidence of orbital changes and changes in the earth's axis both with periods of 10s of thousands of years as well as changes in CO2 seem to be the dominant factors that lead to glacial and interglacial periods for the past million years.

I also know that there are many other reasons to curb CO2 emissions, like getting the arabs off our back, improving air quality. An I know that if the models are right there will be significant adverse consequences, if the climate modelers are wrong--we spend a few extra bucks a little early getting ready for the day when oil runs out.

The Anti-Climate change fanatics sieze on every cold spell, every wild idea and excuse to say that climate change is a hoax, is dead, or wrong--for what? To protect oil companies?

[Lagniappe]

None of these phenomenon will matter when the aliens come back...
:ha::ha::ha:

[djmb74]

2012 right?

None of these phenomenon will matter when the aliens come back...
:ha::ha::ha:

[sbl]

Oh Look! It really is getting colder!
File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png)

Maybe not!
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)

[jeffreyp]

The Anti-Climate change fanatics sieze on every cold spell, every wild idea and excuse to say that climate change is a hoax, is dead, or wrong--for what? To protect oil companies?

To protect ourselves from the fanatics that want to push additional taxes on us plebeians. Now if there were tangible things forced on industry to sequester or transform c02 exhaust from cars and factories rather than card games with carbon credits I am all ears. I think we ought to leave the air as clean as we found it, and that should not be limited to C02. The whole carbon credit idea is just a mess and imho efforts could be better spent pushing nuclear, solar, wind, sea, power generation along with green vehicle fuels.

[sbl]

As I said earlier, I am not an economist and I do not know what is the best way to accomplish the objective of reducing carbon emissions, but clearly there will have to be some some form of carrots and sticks. Everybody seems to be against taxes, tax credits will increase the deficit--how else can you get industry to convert to a more expensive form of energy? The carbon credit system allows industry to find the cheapest way to either reduce or sequester carbon and then trade any excess reductions. It is a system that worked well for air pollution.

[jeffreyp]

are you a climatologist SBL ?

[sbl]

The consumer always pays. And we will no matter which path we take--the only difference is when and how. You may not have noticed, but oil prices are going up--they will continue to go up and if there are no alternatives when supply gets too low, they will go up dramatically--as they did in the mid 70s and after the hurricanes hit the Gulf.

If we wait until alternatives are cheaper than oil, it will be too late--we will pay for it while alternatives are developed and we won't have time to make a lot of choices.

If we do it now, we won't be held hostage and we will have more time to make choices.

are you a climatologist SBL ?

No, I am a marine scientist.

[jeffreyp]

The consumer always pays. And we will no matter which path we take--the only difference is when and how. You may not have noticed, but oil prices are going up--they will continue to go up and if there are no alternatives when supply gets too low, they will go up dramatically--as they did in the mid 70s and after the hurricanes hit the Gulf.

I am not saying I am pro oil, in fact my vehicle burns ethanol I am just against meaningless new taxes. Feeling less guilty is great. For you. If you have to buy that feeling, so be it. But that purchase does nothing for people breathing auto fumes; it does nothing for people developing asthma by ports and airports; it does nothing to reshape a culture built on building waste; it does nothing to alleviate contaminated water sources -- for those who cannot afford to buy bottled water. Buying indulgences is just that: an indulgence. Fixing a carbon-contaminated environment is something different. Great to start somewhere, but the follow-up is what really matters. And danger of indulgences is that the buyer is relieved of following up. There is also the risk manufacturing will move to the 3rd world where there are no environmental constraints. The west will be cleaner but, will subject the third world to more misery and death. In the final analysis the carbon credit scam will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions and will create new layers of unnecessary functionaries and new rounds of financial chicanery.Voluntary carbon offsets typically sell for as little as $5. Each offset represents one ton of carbon dioxide said to be kept out of the atmosphere. The businesses are betting that the relatively cheap voluntary offsets they buy up now will count toward their cleanup obligation under any eventual rule. That is far cheaper for most companies than retooling their operations to curb their own emissions.

[sbl]

I wish I could find ethanol here. I checked all the places I found on the internet--including the one over in Fairhope when I was there, but none of them have it or the addresses are wrong--one address was an office building. I would definitely use it. I have been thinking about natural gas kits and using a low pressure home fill station since that is not widly available either.

As for air and water pollution, Pensacola water supply was at the top of the list of the worst cities for drinking water in the US. We also exceed atmospheric ozone limits pretty often during the summer--it certainly doesn't help my wife's allergies and asthma. I am all for a better environment--it pays for itself in the long run--especially if you consider the health consequences.

[Jack Daw]

I am not saying I am pro oil, in fact my vehicle burns ethanol I am just against meaningless new taxes....
Why would taxes be bad? THey will feed your governors, senators and other important people who contribute to evolution of mankind. ;) :ha:

If we wait until alternatives are cheaper than oil, it will be too late--we will pay for it while alternatives are developed and we won't have time to make a lot of choices.
There are alternatives, but are being artificially delayed. And this is my field of interest and studying, we got to technologies invented and already working since 1956. But why would someone give it for free, when he can earn from old resources?


I am all for a better environment--it pays for itself in the long run--especially if you consider the health consequences.
Agreed! There's nothing more beautiful than small children playing in the green forest in the middle of the city... Just like the one we have here, but it's getting smaller and smaller each year.

[sbl]

I am never surprised by the legnths that big industries will go to to push their products. The US had great trolly systems in many cities in the early 1900s--what happened to them? They were bought and scrapped by Ford and Firestone to force people to buy cars and use tires.

I know there are some that truly just don't believe global climate change is real, but I would not be surprised to find that big oil is behind much of the anti-climate change chatter.

[jeffreyp]

The Pope has spoken:

Gore Attaches Global Warming as Cause to Last Weekend's Storm in Northeast (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100316061540.aspx)

[Abnshrek]

I know there are some that truly just don't believe global climate change is real, but I would not be surprised to find that big oil is behind much of the anti-climate change chatter.

I wouldn't be surprised if Big Oil is the reason why the fuel efficiency (gasoline engines) for cars has gone down in the last 20 years (transmissions have more gears now days).... Influence.. Of course everyone drives 55 to get your optimum fuel milage (even on the interstate (70 mph) or toll road (75mph or higher in some states) ). There is no MPG's window sticker for those travel speeds. Yet millions of cars and trucks travel them everyday.

[sbl]

I recently watched a special on the science channel that showed some pretty dramatic effects that are already happening.

They showed a drought in the Amazon basin in 2005 that caused the headwaters of the Amazon to drop 35-40 ft. The cause was warmer water offshore that caused air to rise over the ocean and rain there instead of rising over land and raining in the Amazon basin. This could be part of the problem that Lorax is facing in Venezuela.

They showed an island in Alaska that has lost over 200 ft of shoreline since 2000--so much of the town has fallen into the ocean that the residents are having to evacuate the island. The October freeze line in the Arctic Ocean has retreated over 200 miles since 1975.

[jeffreyp]

I recently watched a special on the science channel that showed some pretty dramatic effects that are already happening.

They showed a drought in the Amazon basin in 2005 that caused the headwaters of the Amazon to drop 35-40 ft. The cause was warmer water offshore that caused air to rise over the ocean and rain there instead of rising over land and raining in the Amazon basin. This could be part of the problem that Lorax is facing in Venezuela.

T.

Destroying the land certainly has an effect of weather and such things as
Clearing for cattle pasture, Colonization and subsequent subsistence, agriculture,Infrastructure improvements, Commercial agriculture, Logging could be major contributing factors. I remember watching a video where banana plants were planted in clear cut areas in a restoration project. They were planted to give small rainforest seedlings enough shade to grow and establish themselves and it worked! So another great use of banana plants!

:waving:

[sbl]

Destroying the land certainly has an effect of weather and such things as
Clearing for cattle pasture, Colonization and subsequent subsistence, agriculture,Infrastructure improvements, Commercial agriculture, Logging could be major contributing factors. I remember watching a video where banana plants were planted in clear cut areas in a restoration project. They were planted to give small rainforest seedlings enough shade to grow and establish themselves and it worked! So another great use of banana plants!

:waving:

Absolutely, burning of fossil fuel is just part the cause of the greenhouse effect. Conversion of tropical rainforest to pasture has a double or triple whammy-- added CO2 from burning the trees, reduced CO2 uptake, and the addition of cows increases methane production that is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas.

As for bananas, I also heard on the radio that bananas make a compound that is more effective at fighting AIDS than any of the current medications. Go Bananas!

[jeffreyp]

That's news to me, but did you know we share 1/2 our dna with bananas?

I've been watching closely the work done by Dr. Harold on hiv/aids in connection with soil selenium. Read more here:

http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2006/pdf/2006-v21n04-p193.pdf

[sbl]

Here is a link to an article about the compound BanLec:

Study: Banana extract prevents HIV infection, spread of AIDS (http://www.examiner.com/x-15966-Norfolk-Health-Care-Examiner~y2010m3d15-Study-Banana-extract-prevent-HIV-infection-spread-of-AIDS)

[jeffreyp]

ya ya I know big segue from the climate topic...but the article is definitely an interesting article, but the product is just a microbicide. On the other hand, Dr. Foster's work is on stopping the infection from progressing to aids. There is some scientific chatter that high cellular glutathione peroxidase levels may prevent hiv infection to begin with. Glutathione (Gpx) is a protein based on a few amino acids and selenium. Areas in the world that have high soil selenium levels have extremely low hiv infection rates. Selenium has alot of functions in mammals and when cellular levels of gpx drop white blood cell production drops, hiv is parasitic of selenium. How does this relate to plants? There are some implications for arresting or slowing plant viruses by planting trees in selenium rich soil as well as improving the immune function of those eating the fruit or leaves of trees grown in selenium rich soil. The best plant source of selenium are brazil nuts btw...

[sbl]

I don't disagree. I know selenium is important in the diet. It is supposedly one of the factors that helps prevent prostate cancer, and is important in the immune system in general. I know brazil nuts are high in selenium, I think onions are also a source, but that may depend on where they are grown.

I was just posting the link after I mentioned hearing about it on the radio.

[jeffreyp]

Except Viruses - Brief Article | Agricultural Research | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3741/is_9_49/ai_78861305/)

[sbl]

Interesting. I have also read that we now know of several cancers that are caused by viruses--some researchers think we may find many more involved.

here is a link to sources of selenium.
Selenium (http://www.wellnessletter.com/html/ds/dsSelenium.php)

[jeffreyp]

It's very true a little goes a long way as the upper limit is about 400 mcg per day. It's been proven that hiv, ebola, and coxsackie viruses encode for selenium so they deplete the host of selenium. According to foster's theory glutathione peroxidase is antagonistic to those viruses so supplementing with selenium, tryptophan, cysteine, and glutamine (the building blocks of the seleno-protein glutathione) reverses the symptoms. Selenium reverses problems caused by the coxsackie virus as well. It's obviously too dangerous to do a trial with ebola but theoretically it should keep the virus at bay. Interestingly the aids trials Foster has done in Africa has had incredible results. As someone who likes learning about natural cures and remedies it's fascinating stuff.

[harveyc]

Let's bring this old thread back to life. Today there is a report with dire predictions for global temperatures by the year 3000!

It makes me wonder how many weather monitoring stations they'll be down to by then. If you'd like to read a report on how data is being manipulated, check out http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf (12mb file) and look at page 11 and following to see how most weather stations in areas that had been cooling have disappeared.

BTW, every state in the U.S. except Florida presently now has snow cover. Pretty cool! :P

[tbaleno]

Did you see how the weather channel had a report on how "climate change" can cause colder temperatures. Every time there is a cold spell they feel the need to bring out their propaganda. I like how when "global warming" didn't pan out as several conferences were canceled by snow or some such cold weather all of a sudden they try to avoid "global warming" and use "climate change" instead.

I used to think hey, not a big deal better to be safe than sorry. So I was kind of okay with them putting money into funding research and such. But the more I hear, the more I see it as a scam. It is just putting money in peoples pocket and not doing much of anything else. I really pity those that believe in this hoax. They must lead very sad and depressing lives as tools of those propagating the hoax.

[momoese]

I really pity those that believe in this hoax. They must lead very sad and depressing lives as tools of those propagating the hoax.


So anyone who doesn't believe what "you" believe, even though you have no proof of anything, are "sad and depressed tools"?

nice

[Jack Daw]

So anyone who doesn't believe what "you" believe, even though you have no proof of anything, are "sad and depressed tools"?

nice
Yeah, that's the real problem, that most of the "climate change engaged public" haven't actually seen a Meteolab that keeps/records any temperature records, nor has climatological degrees, nor scientific background. The income information for these groups of people are not peer-reviewed journals, scientific literature, but their party's propaganda (either in the form of media, or claims), paranoid showcasters and other really reliable sources (such as internet blogs,...).

Interestingly enough, it really is a matter of "belief" for most of the people, rather than science. You can't really do much about it, because faith is a subjective personal conviction of absolute truth that is not constructed on reason and defended against all reason.

Those who actually are not climate scientists, but drag "belief" into this matter could just as well be going to a surgeon to have a brain operation done, but instead of relying on his skill, knowledge and practice, they would tell him explicitly what and how to do, and do nothing else. That's the analogy. Because they would "believe" that what they heard somewhere, is better, than any scientist/surgeon would know.

:lurk:


Climatology is a real science, and besides the political points (that reputable scientists have nothing to do with!), it really has its own literature, fora and all this "sciency stuff".

Why not check out the only site on the internet actually run by climatologists and read what they have to say, if it's so difficult to read it in scientific journals?

RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/)


------------------------

source: dicionary.reference.com
- the word belief used in this post has following meanings:
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

------------------------

To illustrate the point... People are smart, they can handle it.
YouTube - Inspiring flicbits - Imagine what you will know tomorrow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT6h2CUWLzQ)

[harveyc]

Jack, I've visited realclimate.org several times and have never found any information there to address why the number of reporting stations has been drastically reduced. If they're completely unbiased scientists, they should be up front and have no problem in addressing that concern.

Just reading the preface to the report I linked above should provide plenty of concern about the integrity of the data being relied upon as it quotes the people maintaining it.

[Jack Daw]

Jack, I've visited realclimate.org several times and have never found any information there to address why the number of reporting stations has been drastically reduced. If they're completely unbiased scientists, they should be up front and have no problem in addressing that concern.

Just reading the preface to the report I linked above should provide plenty of concern about the integrity of the data being relied upon as it quotes the people maintaining it.
They answer a mail, if you contact them. Or so they say. Maybe you could ask 'em, what's the reason. I don't watch this topic in such a detail to be able to say why. It's not my scientific field of interest.

[harveyc]

Any stories about the "real climate scientists" addressing this NASA report?
Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html)

[sunfish]

:2204:Any stories about the "real climate scientists" addressing this NASA report?
Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html)

[Abnshrek]

Let's bring this old thread back to life. Today there is a report with dire predictions for global temperatures by the year 3000!! :P
I hope my Banana's won't freeze by then, in my climate, but I wouldn't hold my breathe on that one.. :^)

[designshark]

We're all in trouble now! How about some of our tax money back we've paid over the years to help 'prevent' global warming. The list is too long to mention.

[caliboy1994]

Yes, climate change is a hoax. The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred in the past 12 years. 2012 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous 48 states, with 15,000 temperature records tied or broken in March of 2012 alone. Things have warmed up so much that hardiness zone maps have had to be redrawn to account for the warmer temperatures. Sea levels have risen 19.5 centimeters since 1870. Most of the continental United States has been in a devastating drought since 2010, which is on track to shatter the previous record-breaking drought that occurred from 1988-89. In July 2012, the Greenland ice sheet experienced the largest single melting event in recorded history.

Climate change is a hoax? Really? 97% of all scientists agree that climate change is REAL, and that human activity is the main driving force behind it. Most of the other 3 percent consists of "scientists" that have been hired by the coal, oil, and natural gas industries in a failed attempt to "disprove" climate change. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on the subject of climate change, only 24 deny that it's happening. A study conducted by UC Berkeley that was funded by the Koch Brothers (two billionaires who have been pathologically denying climate change) in an attempt to disprove climate change actually ended up proving it, and pointed to humans as the main cause.

Why don't we take a look at NASA temperature records?

Youtube video by NASA : global warming : temperature map - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqBCzWTs3r4)

Based on this video, climate change is clearly a hoax. Yeah, it's some scam drawn up by 97% of the scientific community for whatever motives they have. They probably just want to scare you into treating our planet better, which is the only home that we have.

I would do some more research before automatically concluding that it's a "hoax" based on what you've heard from politicians who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject or from pseudo-journalistic media outlets like Fox News and WND. Look at the actual facts and figures, not some ignorant malarkey spewed by pundits and politicians.

[harveyc]

You seem to have it all figured out, hope you are teaching your instructors a thing or two.

I have some doubts as to the adequacy of the number and location of sensors to accurately measure global temperature. If earth is indeed warming, is it due to CO2 levels as those peer-reviewed journals suggest even though NASA says CO2 reflects the majority of energy from the sun away from earth? Is that just an inconcenient truth not worth addressing?

[caliboy1994]

The thing about climate change is that it's not just CO2 that's at fault. Other gases such as nitrous oxide and methane account for a very large portion of the perceived warming (I think almost half). Even if CO2 does reflect sunlight as well, the sunlight that isn't reflected would still get absorbed and converted into trapped thermal energy by the CO2.

[Yug]

Yes, climate change is a hoax. The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred in the past 12 years. 2012 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous 48 states, with 15,000 temperature records tied or broken in March of 2012 alone. Things have warmed up so much that hardiness zone maps have had to be redrawn to account for the warmer temperatures. Sea levels have risen 19.5 centimeters since 1870. Most of the continental United States has been in a devastating drought since 2010, which is on track to shatter the previous record-breaking drought that occurred from 1988-89. In July 2012, the Greenland ice sheet experienced the largest single melting event in recorded history.

Climate change is a hoax? Really? 97% of all scientists agree that climate change is REAL, and that human activity is the main driving force behind it. Most of the other 3 percent consists of "scientists" that have been hired by the coal, oil, and natural gas industries in a failed attempt to "disprove" climate change. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on the subject of climate change, only 24 deny that it's happening. A study conducted by UC Berkeley that was funded by the Koch Brothers (two billionaires who have been pathologically denying climate change) in an attempt to disprove climate change actually ended up proving it, and pointed to humans as the main cause.

Why don't we take a look at NASA temperature records?

Youtube video by NASA : global warming : temperature map - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqBCzWTs3r4)

Based on this video, climate change is clearly a hoax. Yeah, it's some scam drawn up by 97% of the scientific community for whatever motives they have. They probably just want to scare you into treating our planet better, which is the only home that we have.

I would do some more research before automatically concluding that it's a "hoax" based on what you've heard from politicians who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject or from pseudo-journalistic media outlets like Fox News and WND. Look at the actual facts and figures, not some ignorant malarkey spewed by pundits and politicians.

You seem to WANT strongly to believe it. In that case the best-supported evidence to the contrary would be meaningless for you. I'll not waste my time...

[sunfish]

Amazing how full of it some people are.

[caliboy1994]

I live in a state where the impacts of it can be quite easily seen. Not so much where you live. I'm sure you would believe it too if almost everyday of your August was over 100 degrees, or if your bananas started growing in the middle of January when they normally are dormant during that time. There is no refuting the empirical evidence for it either. Global average temperatures are on the rise, and that's a fact. The amount of temperature records that have been broken in recent years, both high and low, points to a warming trend. It's as true as the fact that the sun is shining and trees are growing. As I said, the few scientists who still deny it are employed by the fossil fuel industry.

What evidence do you speak of? "Climategate" was debunked long ago.

Climategate Debunked - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfX-94uLDio)

"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/12/01/climategate-exposed-conservative-media-distort/157590)

The claim that there has been no global warming over the last 16 or 17 years is also false.

No global warming for 16 years: Debunking climate change denial. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.h tml)

[harveyc]

Besides CO2, NASA's report also indicates that NO is also the other main gas that reflects the majority of sun's energy away from earth, yet you wish to assign it as a cause of global warming.

The past three winters have been colder than normal in NorCal. Last summer was normal after three years of cool summers. Localized weather over a few years certainly doesn't equate to "climate", however.

[caliboy1994]

NO is nitrogen oxide. I'm talking about nitrous oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Environmental), N2O, otherwise known as laughing gas. It's an extremely potent greenhouse gas and also an ozone depleting agent. It's mostly produced by large-scale agricultural activity. And yes, that is true, that localized weather does not equate to climate. But many of these same patterns of extreme heat have also been felt across the world. For example, the recent heat wave and drought that happened last summer in the heartland of the United States. And the record-shattering heat wave that was felt in Australia this January. The main point is this: we are having less cooler temperatures and more warmer temperatures.

[caliboy1994]

I just took a look at the NASA report (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/). It turns out that this article deals with the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, not the troposphere. So, these gases are acting in the upper atmosphere, reflecting some of the sun's rays back into space and keeping the air tens to hundreds of miles above the Earth's surface cooler. Climate change is acting on the troposphere, or lower atmosphere, where weather occurs; from the ground up to 11 miles above the Earth's surface. Down here, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas that traps light reflected off of the Earth's surface and re-radiates it at infrared wavelengths, causing a heating effect.

In other words, this article is completely irrelevant to the subject of climate change.

[harveyc]

Okay on the NO and N2O, been too long since I studied that.

So where did the CO2 in the thermosphere come from? Down below, right? Where did the sunlight that is being reflected off of the earth's surface come from? If CO2 and NO is reflecting the vast majority of sunlight even before it reaches earth, that is less light to be trapped in this so-called greenhouse. The article is only completely irrelevant to the climate change discussion because it does not fit what you want to believe.

[caliboy1994]

The original NASA article doesn't mention a thing about climate change. Also, here, note that it says:

"'Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,' explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. 'When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up [emphasis added], these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.'
...
Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
...
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

So, here, basically what is happening is the CO2 and NO are absorbing the energy released into the upper atmosphere and then release it again as thermal radiation in the infrared wavelengths. This is exactly what greenhouse gases do. They absorb light of higher wavelengths and re-emit it as infrared rays. In the case of the upper atmosphere, the air is so thin that the vast majority of this radiation is able to escape into space. Not so in the lower atmosphere, where the weather occurs. Here, most of this energy remains trapped, leading to a warming effect. Without this greenhouse effect, the Earth would in fact be much cooler.

And CO2 has always existed in all layers of Earth's atmosphere. It's not completely man-made, just the excess that we see today is. Also, the article does not say that the majority of all sunlight is reflected back into space. It says that the majority of all of the thermal energy from solar storms is scattered back out into space. It turns out that 69% of all solar energy makes it to the Earth's surface (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html).

Also, the article that you posted, Harvey, was from an online journal that's notorious for climate change denial (http://denierlist.wordpress.com/tag/principia-scientific-international/). It simply distorted the original NASA article in order to fit the climate change denial narrative. Clearly there's no bias there.

[Yug]

Amazing how full of it some people are.

:08:

[Yug]

Here is a link to an article where a Mr. Martin Hoerling addresses recent dry conditions in the U.S. that were blamed on (of course) Global Warming.

Article: study-last-years-major-drought-was-not-caused-by-global-warming/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/12/study-last-years-major-drought-was-not-caused-by-global-warming/)

-excerpts from the article - emphasis mine-

“This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years,” said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event.”

Researchers focused on six states – Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Iowa – but the drought spread much farther and eventually included nearly two-thirds of the Lower 48 states. For the six states, the drought was the worst four-month period for lack of rainfall since records started being kept in 1895, Hoerling said.

"Hoerling used computer simulations to see if he could replicate the drought using man-made global warming conditions. He couldn’t. So that means it was a random event, he said." :p

[Yug]

The science is settled... A concensus has been reached... (since when is science ever settled by concensus, and not study, research and fact?)

New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
April 3, 2013
By H. Schreuder & J. O’Sullivan
March 26th 2013
principia-scientific.org

A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

(snip)

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.

(snip)

Link to article (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html)

[CountryBoy1981]

Caliboy, have you ever heard of Global Cooling?

http://im41.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/cooling.jpg

Global Cooling was taught like Global Warming is today. It was a fact that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000. It was also a fact that our use of fossil fuels (which was much less back then) was going to put the world into an ice age before the turn of the century. Just imagine how many more scientific facts we will know in the future.

What are we running our cars on these days, it can't be oil because we were told that it was going to be gone 13 years ago.

[caliboy1994]

The science is settled... A concensus has been reached... (since when is science ever settled by concensus, and not study, research and fact?)

New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
April 3, 2013
By H. Schreuder & J. O’Sullivan
March 26th 2013
principia-scientific.org

A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

(snip)

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.

(snip)

Link to article (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html)

I already debunked that:

I just took a look at the NASA report. It turns out that this article deals with the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, not the troposphere. So, these gases are acting in the upper atmosphere, reflecting some of the sun's rays back into space and keeping the air tens to hundreds of miles above the Earth's surface cooler. Climate change is acting on the troposphere, or lower atmosphere, where weather occurs; from the ground up to 11 miles above the Earth's surface. Down here, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas that traps light reflected off of the Earth's surface and re-radiates it at infrared wavelengths, causing a heating effect.

In other words, this article is completely irrelevant to the subject of climate change.

[caliboy1994]

Caliboy, have you ever heard of Global Cooling?

http://im41.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/cooling.jpg

Global Cooling was taught like Global Warming is today. It was a fact that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000. It was also a fact that our use of fossil fuels (which was much less back then) was going to put the world into an ice age before the turn of the century. Just imagine how many more scientific facts we will know in the future.

What are we running our cars on these days, it can't be oil because we were told that it was going to be gone 13 years ago.

I have heard of that before, yes. The thing about science is exactly what you pointed out: The more we know in a field, the more accurate predictions we will be able to make. Today we know heaps more about Earth's climate systems than we did back in the 1970s. And still, the first time scientists began to think that excess CO2 in the atmosphere could cause warming was in the 1950s, although back then it was just a hypothesis. Now this has been observed.

And when we will run out of oil is still a subject of debate. Many scientists are debating whether we have already reached peak oil production. The reality is we don't know how much oil there is down there, and we keep discovering new (albeit harder to access) oil reserves. It could be 50 years, or perhaps even 100 years.

[caliboy1994]

Here is a link to an article where a Mr. Martin Hoerling addresses recent dry conditions in the U.S. that were blamed on (of course) Global Warming.

Article: study-last-years-major-drought-was-not-caused-by-global-warming/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/12/study-last-years-major-drought-was-not-caused-by-global-warming/)

-excerpts from the article - emphasis mine-

“This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years,” said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event.”

Researchers focused on six states – Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Iowa – but the drought spread much farther and eventually included nearly two-thirds of the Lower 48 states. For the six states, the drought was the worst four-month period for lack of rainfall since records started being kept in 1895, Hoerling said.

"Hoerling used computer simulations to see if he could replicate the drought using man-made global warming conditions. He couldn’t. So that means it was a random event, he said." :p

Nice job citing something from Glenn Beck. Once again, clearly there is no bias here.

And then, quoting from the SAME article:

"'This was natural variability exacerbated by global warming,' Trenberth said in an email. 'That is true of all such events from the Russian heat wave of 2010, to the drought and heat waves in Australia.'"

And then that same scientist who said climate change had nothing to do with it said this:

"Some regions should see more droughts as the world warms because of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, he said. But the six state area isn’t expected to get an increase of droughts from global warming – unlike parts of the Southwest – Hoerling said."

Even if climate change did have nothing to do with the recent drought, that doesn't mean climate change itself isn't real. Just look at the record-shattering droughts that occurred in the Amazon Basin in 2005 and 2010 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57564795/severe-droughts-in-amazon-linked-to-climate-change-says-study/). And of course Hurricane Sandy, which scientists say was exacerbated by climate change (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/climate-change-sandy.html). They key word here is exacerbation. Climate change cannot be directly tied to these events, but it is quite clear that it is worsening extreme weather events like this around the world.

[harveyc]

You did not debunk anything. I already addressed your claim of doing such.

[Yug]

Nice job citing something from Glenn Beck. Once again, clearly there is no bias here.
...
Oh, it's pretty obvious that you have a bias there. Cite a NASA study in favor of GW, and you swallow it 'whole-hog', but cite another NASA study that contradicts the first one, and you ignore it. Nope. No bias there at all.

(btw, Glenn Beck merely cited it, he didn't write it. So I cited Beck citing NASA. It is a NASA article, not a Beck article, but hey, don't let any facts there disuade you on your crusade) :waving:

[sunfish]

I have heard of that before, yes. The thing about science is exactly what you pointed out: The more we know in a field, the more accurate predictions we will be able to make. Today we know heaps more about Earth's climate systems than we did back in the 1970s. And still, the first time scientists began to think that excess CO2 in the atmosphere could cause warming was in the 1950s, although back then it was just a hypothesis. Now this has been observed.

And when we will run out of oil is still a subject of debate. Many scientists are debating whether we have already reached peak oil production. The reality is we don't know how much oil there is down there, and we keep discovering new (albeit harder to access) oil reserves. It could be 50 years, or perhaps even 100 years.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson:woohoonaner:

[Nicolas Naranja]

In Superfreakonomics there is a chapter about horse dung and they have some old New York Times articles about how the streets were so polluted, the city stank to high heavens, and there was no end in sight. Feeding horses consumed a lot of land and a lot of food. They had a meeting of the scientific minds of the era and doomsday was upon them. Then the automobile was invented...horse dung problem solved.

Crack a beer, someone will figure it out.

[caliboy1994]

That's what I'm hoping. We've just dug ourselves into a really deep hole. Thankfully, we live in the 21st century, an era where technology is advancing at a near exponential rate. I consider myself to be an optimist overall. There are just ways we need to clean up our act.

[caliboy1994]

The NASA article that supposedly is not in favor of global warming was dealing with the upper atmosphere. This is the third time I have said that. If you look at the original article, you'll realize that not once does it refer to global warming. This is because those gases in the upper atmosphere cool it when solar storms occur, exactly as the original NASA article said. What goes on with those gases up there has absolutely NOTHING to do with what goes on down here.

The article that you pulled off which discusses the NASA article comes from a notorious climate change denial website. This website simply distorted the original NASA article to fit their own narrative, claiming that because these gases cool the upper atmosphere in the event of a solar storm, CO2 suddenly does not contribute to the greenhouse effect, which is wrong. Just take a look at the effects CO2 has on Venus' temperatures (http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/venus.htm).

[Nicolas Naranja]

There are just ways we need to clean up our act.

Economics will be the driver of conservation. When I moved into my house I put in energy efficient appliances, a very efficient ac unit, and a programable thermostat. As a result, my energy bill for a 3400 square foot house rarely exceeds $200/month. The new LED or LCD TVs are much more energy efficient than the old CRT sets. Gasoline consumption in the US is declining, because people are making economic choices when they buy a new car. Every time I get dinged for $100 bucks for filling up my 2001 F-150, I think about getting a more fuel efficient truck. I see a lot of people carpooling into work, and I used to do it when I had someone nearby. I don't care much about my carbon footprint, but I do care about my bank account and the greener it is, the happier I am. Besides, according to Al Gore I'll be able to dock my boat in the front yard by the time I retire.

[caliboy1994]

Economics will always be a huge issue. The question is how do we address the current problems we have in ways that are economically efficient? It is possible to coexist with nature in a sustainable and harmonious way. But most of the problems that we are having comes from the way our infrastructure works. With the emergence of new technologies, that will hopefully all change. Solar power is already cheaper than coal in Australia, and it will be cheaper here too in the near future. Thorium energy in particular looks very promising, and fusion power will be feasible in perhaps 50 or so years. I know very well humans as a species are capable of adapting and changing their ways. It has to happen eventually.

[CountryBoy1981]

Economics will be the driver of conservation. When I moved into my house I put in energy efficient appliances, a very efficient ac unit, and a programable thermostat. As a result, my energy bill for a 3400 square foot house rarely exceeds $200/month. The new LED or LCD TVs are much more energy efficient than the old CRT sets. Gasoline consumption in the US is declining, because people are making economic choices when they buy a new car. Every time I get dinged for $100 bucks for filling up my 2001 F-150, I think about getting a more fuel efficient truck. I see a lot of people carpooling into work, and I used to do it when I had someone nearby. I don't care much about my carbon footprint, but I do care about my bank account and the greener it is, the happier I am. Besides, according to Al Gore I'll be able to dock my boat in the front yard by the time I retire.

The people who preach global warming have the biggest carbon footprint. Either they really believe in it and are terrible people or they are just using it to make money (GE, who used to own MSNBC and promote Green Week; carbon credits; etc.).

The younger generation (90's and 2000's) has been fed global warming through school as if it was as much of a fact as 2 + 2 = 4. To hear that GW may not be true will provoke a reaction from people who are told that 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

[caliboy1994]

Sure, some people are making money off of it. And there are plenty of hypocrites out there. I'm not promoting that. But as of now I have seen no conclusive evidence pointing to it not being true, especially after having observed its effects myself firsthand. 97% of the scientific community acknowledges that it is happening. And that's the things you have to realize about science. We keep discovering new things. I'm sure at school back in 1913 kids weren't being taught that E = mc^2 as if it's much as a fact as 2 + 2 = 4. Science advances. We learn more about the natural world and what drives it. It's a given.

[caliboy1994]

You also have to realize that most of the "deniers" are politicians, pundits, and "scientists" that are being funded by the oil and coal industries and basically paid to discredit climate science. Why is that? Because policies that will help mitigate climate change will hurt the profits of big oil and big coal. It really is as simple as that. The Koch brothers have spent tens of million dollars on pushing climate denial. To me, it's not surprising at all.

[Yug]

Yada yada yada - the big bad Koch brothers - yada yada yada. Now that I know what camp you are firmly entrenched in, it becomes obvious why you believe it...

In the initial stages, I will make some allowances for a person not being well informed, but after a certain point; you are responsible for your own continued ignorance. You are given a brain for a reason, you are given a measure of common sense for a reason, too. I don't think it too much to ask that you utilize these abilities, nor do I think I'm being too critical in pointing out one's being blinded to the truth, and not taking in to account how much the GW advocates at the highest levels (algore, et al) are making off this scam, and how much those pushing for a global tax for carbon production also stand to make by skimming some $$ off the top (and it is far more than the Koch brothers ever made); but hey, let's just keep up the mantra, and we will gain enough uninformed converts to keep spreading the lie for us. The global carbon tax will not be supported by China nor India, but it will be foisted on the foolish U.S. How effective could something of that level be, if not supported by those creating that level of pollution (china with all its coal-fired plants produces far more than any other nation)? Maybe, just maybe, it is merely to punish the U.S., and slow down our industry (what is left of it, that is thanx to o'bummer), so those other nations can gain ground? Maybe it is actually a scam to skim more $$ from us to support those pocket-tyrants in the UN that already hate/dispise us anyway? Pull your head out of your okole, follow the $$, and don't let yourself be led around by the nose by those that have something to gain by your foolishness. You blame the koch brothers (because you get fed this swill on a regular basis from the alphabet networks) because you say they make $$ off of it, but you look askance at all the $$ that algore and others have made off of it. Why the double standard? Are you just ignorant, or are you just a fan of the left and will not let any fact get in the way of an agenda?

Goldman Sachs (you know them don't you? The super mega-rich guys (far wealthier than the koch bros) that never ever are held responisble for any financial scams, and who dominate the fed rsv reps in govt) is connected to the carbon-credit trading scam, in addition to algore, and the guy that is responsible for the program to trade the 'credits' was also deeply involved (in a very profitable way) in the housing bubble fiasco, but instead let's be manipulated by the 'alphabet media' (CNN, ABC, C-BS, NBC, MSNBC, HLN, and even PBS at times) to look in a different direction, (hell, it clearly worked on you, so why not keep it up) and not look behind the curtian to see who has already profitted by the scheme, and who stands to continue to make $$ from it)

There are other technologies to produce energy, but those that make the most $$ selling energy will go to extreme measures to ensure they never come to market.

You also have to realize that most of the "deniers" are politicians, pundits, and "scientists" that are being funded by the oil and coal industries and basically paid to discredit climate science.
You must also realize that those pushing this mantra stand to gain (some have already) by continuing to push it. Why is that? Oh, because many will foolishly believe it, in spite of the hoax emails being exposed. They stand to gain far into the future by the trading of those stupid 'carbon credits' (you know what goldman sachs does don't you? trading?), and will one day have human beings themselves charged for carbon dioxide that they exhale - that's right, they'll tax your d@mn breath if you are stupid enough to let them. It is as simple as that.

[Yug]

Second-coldest-start-to-spring-in-us-history/ (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/second-coldest-start-to-spring-in-us-history/)

Must be more of that global-warming stuff...

(or somehow they will say that the global cooling is precisely due to global warming)

[Yug]

Arkansas locations experience record snowfall, low temperatures for May

Posted: Saturday, May 4, 2013 2:30 am

For the first time since written weather history began in Arkansas (1819), snow has fallen in the month of May. This snow has set records for the latest snowfall and latest measurable snowfall in the state.

record snowfall (http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/regional_news/article_826c709e-b48c-11e2-8626-0019bb2963f4.html)

(must be more of that global warming stuff... :08: )

[harveyc]

Yeah, but I bet it's a warm snow. ;)

[Worm_Farmer]

What about all the terraforming going on right now? Could that be a direct link to all this climate stuff?

[caliboy1994]

I think this article sums up the whole plague of climate change denial, and for that matter, the denial of objectively proven facts and science, quite well. Very nicely written with a sarcastic tone.

The Political Garbage Chute | A Politcalocalypse! (http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/its-the-environment-stupid/)

[Yug]

I think this article sums up the whole plague of climate change denial, and for that matter, the denial of objectively proven facts and science, quite well. Very nicely written with a sarcastic tone.

The Political Garbage Chute | A Politcalocalypse! (http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/its-the-environment-stupid/)

How's this grab ya?
Arctic Ice Sheet Grew 920,000 Sq Miles from 2012 to 2013
Global Cooling New Threat? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)
For those wanting a quick assessment - that is a whopping 60% increase. It has photos, too, for those sarcastic self-satisfied dupes that smugly assert that they have "objectively proven facts and science" against a "plague of climate change deny-ers". Although, if the self-delusion is complete, it may be irreversible in spite of the most compelling evidence. :coldbanana: An anti-anti-global-warming zealot could be freezing to death, and yet with their final foggy breath claim it was global warming that was freezing them.

[CountryBoy1981]

How's this grab ya?
Arctic Ice Sheet Grew 920,000 Sq Miles from 2012 to 2013
Global Cooling New Threat? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)
For those wanting a quick assessment - that is a whopping 60% increase. It has photos, too, for those sarcastic self-satisfied dupes that smugly assert that they have "objectively proven facts and science" against a "plague of climate change deny-ers". Although, if the self-delusion is complete, it may be irreversible in spite of the most compelling evidence. :coldbanana: An anti-anti-global-warming zealot could be freezing to death, and yet with their final foggy breath claim it was global warming that was freezing them.

How about the NOAA predicting a record number of hurricanes in the Atlantic due to global warming and so far not having one. The problem is that climate science is still in its infancy and still cannot measure how much of the number one greenhouse gas (water vapor) is in the atmosphere. We just don't know what's causing what and how much the sun is the cause. Yet we have people clamouring for a carbon tax that Australia is regretting.

[Yug]

How about the NOAA predicting a record number of hurricanes in the Atlantic due to global warming and so far not having one. The problem is that climate science is still in its infancy and still cannot measure how much of the number one greenhouse gas (water vapor) is in the atmosphere. We just don't know what's causing what and how much the sun is the cause. Yet we have people clamouring for a carbon tax that Australia is regretting.

I think the 'tax' is what was desired, and on a global scale (if they can get it) - it will no doubt be levied on all the most prosperous nations, and will be claimed to be going to all the other not-so-prosperous ones (while being filtered through the fingers of some already too-wealthy globalist scum so they can skim a portion off the top). Meanwhile, the worst polluters (china and its many coal-fired power plants first comes to mind) won't recognize anyone's right to carbon-tax them (and neither do I, for that matter), and will continue to pollute while the fools of the world (read: U.S.) will cave to this latest farce from the pro-globalist cabal.

[momoese]

Yug, your referencing a gossip site, and you sound a bit dickish, just sayin.

[ez]

How's this grab ya?
Arctic Ice Sheet Grew 920,000 Sq Miles from 2012 to 2013
Global Cooling New Threat? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)
For those wanting a quick assessment - that is a whopping 60% increase. It has photos, too, for those sarcastic self-satisfied dupes that smugly assert that they have "objectively proven facts and science" against a "plague of climate change deny-ers". Although, if the self-delusion is complete, it may be irreversible in spite of the most compelling evidence. :coldbanana: An anti-anti-global-warming zealot could be freezing to death, and yet with their final foggy breath claim it was global warming that was freezing them.The seasonal decline of extent through the month of August was slightly above average at 56,400 square kilometers (21,800 square miles) per day, but more than a third slower than the record decline rate in August 2012. This year’s August extent was the sixth lowest in the 1979 to 2013 satellite record. The monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 10.6% per decade.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31-350x261.png
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

The graph clearly show a decline of 10.6% per decade, one year increase doesn't make a trend.
http://www.bananas.org/Figure 3. Monthly June ice extent for 1979 to 201X shows a decline of X.X% per decade.||Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center |High-resolution image Figure 3. Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 10.6% per decade.Credit: National Snow and Ice Data CenterHigh-resolution image

[CountryBoy1981]

The seasonal decline of extent through the month of August was slightly above average at 56,400 square kilometers (21,800 square miles) per day, but more than a third slower than the record decline rate in August 2012. This year’s August extent was the sixth lowest in the 1979 to 2013 satellite record. The monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 10.6% per decade.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31-350x261.png
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

The graph clearly show a decline of 10.6% per decade, one year increase doesn't make a trend.
http://www.bananas.org/Figure 3. Monthly June ice extent for 1979 to 201X shows a decline of X.X% per decade.||Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center |High-resolution image Figure 3. Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 10.6% per decade.Credit: National Snow and Ice Data CenterHigh-resolution image


Have you ever heard the news on the Antarctica ice caps or have you only heard about the Artic ice caps?

While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. Continued decreases or increases could have substantial impacts on polar climates, because sea ice spreads over a vast area, reflects solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface, and insulates the oceans from the atmosphere.

In a study just published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice satellite records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year period.

The image on the left shows the average number of days that the ocean surface was covered by sea ice from 1979 to 1999. The image on the right shows the change in duration of sea ice coverage over that period. Blue and green colors show areas where the sea ice is lasting longer, while orange and red colors represent a decrease in the number of days the ocean is frozen. The larger area covered by longer-lasting ice indicates an increase in the amount of Antarctic ice.

Increasing Sea Ice around Antarctica : Image of the Day (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2734)

Why is it that you only hear on the news about the Artic ice caps decreasing in size but yet you never hear about how the Antarctica ice caps are increasing? Could it be selective fact selecting to prove a point in order to move the county into one political position?

[caliboy1994]

Climate change is not a "political position." It is a phenomenon that has been measured and has been shown to be happening. The politicians and pundits who say that climate change is a "hoax" or isn't happening are either misinformed and ignorant or are being prodded and bribed by big oil and big business to deny that it's happening in the first place. It doesn't matter what they say about the reality of the subject anyways. They are by no means experts. What they should be asking themselves is what should be DONE about it. Obviously the left and right would have different methods of dealing with the whole issue, but as of late our politicians have been sucking off to corporate lobbyists and super PACs rather than actually getting anything meaningful done. To answer your question about the Antarctic sea ice:

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm)

As you can see from this article, there are other factors that are affecting Antarctic sea ice extent, particularly the ozone hole and the decrease in salinity of the Southern Ocean. Climate change is not just about sea ice anyways. Its effects are present throughout the entire planet's climate system. It played a part in Hurricane Sandy and Katrina, the record-shattering Midwest drought of 2012, the unprecedented Amazonian droughts of 2005 and 2010, and many more devastating events that occurred in the past few decades. It has also worsened the drought that is occurring in Syria right now that is partly responsible for the ongoing Syrian Civil War. On top of that, it is responsible for the 18 or so centimeter sea level rise that we have observed and documented since the 1800s (most of this is due to the thermal expansion of ocean water rather than the melting of polar ice caps). In the future, we will CONTINUE to see more heat waves and less cold spells, shifting precipitation patterns, the melting of glaciers and ice caps that feed the world's major rivers, sea level rise, and an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events. All of what has been going on that we are seeing as of late is consistent with climate change. There is no denying that. Now, the question is, how do we address the problem?

[ez]

Originally Posted by CountryBoy1981 Have you ever heard the news on the Antarctica ice caps or have you only heard about the Artic ice caps?


Here's some news about the Antarctic ice sheet.

Ice Melting Faster in Greenland and Antarctica in UN Leak
Ice Melting Faster in Greenland and Antarctica in UN Leak - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-05/ice-melting-faster-in-greenland-and-antarctica-in-un-leak.html)


Antarctic ice melting at record rate, study shows
Antarctic ice melting at record rate, study shows | Environment | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/15/antarctic-ice-melt-record-rate)


Summer Ice Melt In Antarctica Is At The Highest Point In 1,000 Years, Researchers Say
Summer Ice Melt In Antarctica Is At The Highest Point In 1,000 Years, Researchers Say (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/antarctica-summer-ice-melt-antarctic_n_3082750.html)


East Antarctic ice sheet 'vulnerable' to temperature changes
BBC News - East Antarctic ice sheet 'vulnerable' to temperature changes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23868841)

[Yug]

HA!! Tell me it's NOT political - you have cited 4 left-leaning sources. :coldbanana:


Here's some news about the Antarctic ice sheet.

Ice Melting Faster in Greenland and Antarctica in UN Leak
Ice Melting Faster in Greenland and Antarctica in UN Leak - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-05/ice-melting-faster-in-greenland-and-antarctica-in-un-leak.html)


Antarctic ice melting at record rate, study shows
Antarctic ice melting at record rate, study shows | Environment | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/15/antarctic-ice-melt-record-rate)


Summer Ice Melt In Antarctica Is At The Highest Point In 1,000 Years, Researchers Say
Summer Ice Melt In Antarctica Is At The Highest Point In 1,000 Years, Researchers Say (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/antarctica-summer-ice-melt-antarctic_n_3082750.html)


East Antarctic ice sheet 'vulnerable' to temperature changes
BBC News - East Antarctic ice sheet 'vulnerable' to temperature changes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23868841)

[Yug]

Yug, your referencing a gossip site, and you sound a bit dickish, just sayin.If one must be dick-ish, to counter the fool-ish, then I'll wear it proudly. Plus, did you see the post that cited bloomberg, the guardian, huffpo, & bbc?!? They are certainly not objective sites by any means. In fact, they are only slightly better than the daily KOS, and the rolling stone. I checked algore's data when he first started this scam (which has made him lots of $$$, incidentally), and what I found was that when you examine it VERY closely, you find that the temps rose prior to the CO2 levels, sometimes by as much as a 100 yr gap. Makes perfect sense, higher temps, more green stuff globally, more critters living off of all the green stuff, more CO2. However, he presented his argument as just the opposite. I imagine few even took the time to check the data that closely - it fit the mantra of the fanatics that won't be happy 'til we are once again living in caves, and has the added benefit of creating a pot of carbon-tax $$ to loot while claiming to be doing good with it.

Top that off with the email showing a concerted effort to alter the data to fit the agenda, and placing of temp sensors in areas that were more industrialized (resulting in higher temps in the immediate area - concrete and asphalt don't absorb as much heat as green stuff, they reflect it) falsely preresenting the temps as rising, and all the record cold temps, or record snowfall when they hold one of these global-warming 'events' (maybe God has a sense of humor), then the name switch to 'climate-change' since the global warming just wasn't panning out, and you'll see why the global-warming zealots just irritate the crap out of me. I don't care if they believe it, but I don't intend to just sit and take it when they try to convince me or any others of their delusion.

Like I said, they could be freezing to death, and with their last foggy breath, they would STILL blame it on global warming :coldbanana:

[ez]

Originally Posted by Yug HA!! Tell me it's NOT political - you have cited 4 left-leaning sources.Bloomberg and BBC News left-leaning sources?

[Yug]

And interestingly enough, here is a link to a story about a global cooling trend for the last 2000 years - I found quite a few storys that said the same thing, too. Global Cooling Trend for the Last 2000 Years. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm)

If you want a little more history, check this out...

For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

* 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
* 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
* 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
* 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
* 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
* 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
* 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
* 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
* 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
* 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
* 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
* 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thru out the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
* 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
* 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
* 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
* 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
* 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
* 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
* 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
* 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
* 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
* 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
* 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times

but, but, but... The science is settled; we have reached a concensus!!! (btw, science is NOT done by concensus, unless you are pulling a 'snow' job)

So, is it any wonder that these climate-change-hoaxers are getting to be annoying? Same old crap as before, but now they want to take $$ away from us, too.

[caliboy1994]

HA!! Tell me it's NOT political - you have cited 4 left-leaning sources. :coldbanana:

Whether these sources tend to lean left or right when it comes to political issues does not matter. The causes and effects of climate change are a question of science, not of politics. As long as the article contains factual information, no matter WHERE it is from, then it is trustworthy. Besides, the consensus about it among scientists is nearly unanimous.

http://www.jamespowell.org/files/stacks_image_733.jpg

[Source: Home Page (http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html)]

Politicians are not the authority on the issue. Neither are pundits. Or even for that matter religious right figures who claim that climate change cannot exist because God wouldn't allow it (these people are often the worst, not because they are religious, but because they tend to be anti-intellectual). What they say about climate change existing or not existing is irrelevant. The scientists are the authorities. They study it for a living. If you truly think you can disprove climate change, why don't you study up on how our planet's climate system works, write a scientific paper, get it peer-reviewed, and collect your Nobel prize?

[CountryBoy1981]

Whether these sources tend to lean left or right when it comes to political issues does not matter. The causes and effects of climate change are a question of science, not of politics. As long as the article contains factual information, no matter WHERE it is from, then it is trustworthy. Besides, the consensus about it among scientists is nearly unanimous.

http://www.jamespowell.org/files/stacks_image_733.jpg

[Source: Home Page (http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html)]

Politicians are not the authority on the issue. Neither are pundits. Or even for that matter religious right figures who claim that climate change cannot exist because God wouldn't allow it (these people are often the worst, not because they are religious, but because they tend to be anti-intellectual). What they say about climate change existing or not existing is irrelevant. The scientists are the authorities. They study it for a living. If you truly think you can disprove climate change, why don't you study up on how our planet's climate system works, write a scientific paper, get it peer-reviewed, and collect your Nobel prize?

Where does the money come from to study climate science? Who decides how much goes to it? Who decides who gets what to study what? What would happen to all of the climate scientists who went to college to get those degrees if global warming was proven not to be happening?

Scientists are individuals and humans who depend on their research to earn a paycheck. You don't get the funding from politicians if what you want to research isn't important to them. If your findings disagree with what they want you to find for their political issue then those research funds dry up. I'm not saying scientists are these evil lying people but you seem to believe that scientists are objective and altruistic people whose only motivation in life is to find out the truth.

Like you and everybody else they work for money and that money does have some amount of influence. Science is political and it will be until it is not funded from the federal government.

[caliboy1994]

Where does the money come from to study climate science? Who decides how much goes to it? Who decides who gets what to study what? What would happen to all of the climate scientists who went to college to get those degrees if global warming was proven not to be happening?

Scientists are individuals and humans who depend on their research to earn a paycheck. You don't get the funding from politicians if what you want to research isn't important to them. If your findings disagree with what they want you to find for their political issue then those research funds dry up. I'm not saying scientists are these evil lying people but you seem to believe that scientists are objective and altruistic people whose only motivation in life is to find out the truth.

Like you and everybody else they work for money and that money does have some amount of influence. Science is political and it will be until it is not funded from the federal government.

Given the peer review process, it's certainly more objective and altruistic than the agendas of those who push climate change denial. If a scientist wanted to push a false agenda, the peer review process will likely kill it off before it even enters into mainstream science. If a scientist's work is falsified and proved to be falsified, then they will lose funding, reputation, and will probably be ostracized from the scientific community. Science funding is so diversified in terms of who is doing the funding that it is virtually impossible for them to be conspiring for some grand "agenda." What would the objective be for making up such a hoax? Crash the world economy? Highly unlikely. Climate change mitigation strategies involve new technologies that will actually push society forward in a better direction and improve the quality of life for billions of people. Climate change deniers, on the other hand, are mostly getting funded by the fossil fuel industry, who in turn funds conservative "free market" think tanks like the Heartland Institute. Why? The reason is simple. Because they want to protect their profits. This is no secret. Their efforts will be in vain anyways, as renewable energy technology (especially solar power) will become so cheap that in about 20 years it will be able to provide us with 100% of our energy needs. The only issue is that this change isn't happening quickly enough, at least in this country (see Germany for a good example of what SHOULD be being done).

And to answer your question, most of the funding for science comes from corporations (for R&D mainly, but the BEST study was funded by the Koch brothers and actually ended up proving climate change, but began as an attempt to DISPROVE it), universities, and the federal government. The federal government also funds things like NASA, and medical research. Look where those things got us. I'm not complaining at all about federal funding of scientific research, because it benefits society. In times like these, we need more technology to help solve the world's problems.

[caliboy1994]

And interestingly enough, here is a link to a story about a global cooling trend for the last 2000 years - I found quite a few storys that said the same thing, too. Global Cooling Trend for the Last 2000 Years. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm)

If you want a little more history, check this out...

For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

* 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
* 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
* 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
* 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
* 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
* 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
* 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
* 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
* 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
* 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
* 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
* 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thru out the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
* 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
* 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
* 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
* 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
* 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
* 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
* 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
* 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
* 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
* 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
* 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times

but, but, but... The science is settled; we have reached a concensus!!! (btw, science is NOT done by concensus, unless you are pulling a 'snow' job)

So, is it any wonder that these climate-change-hoaxers are getting to be annoying? Same old crap as before, but now they want to take $$ away from us, too.

Also, Yug, I find it interesting how all of these studies were done during or before 1974, when we knew less about how the Earth's climate systems work. Sure, some of them pointed towards global warming, but their predictions on the effects of this were inaccurate at best. Yes, there was a small cooling trend from the '40s to the '60s, but this was not caused by man, it was the result of a natural climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that occurs every few decades. The Earth's biosphere and atmosphere and the ways they interact are so complex that back then we didn't even have much of a rudimentary understanding of it. Now, we have worlds of more knowledge regarding how our planet works, so we are able to make predictions and measurements that are orders of magnitude more accurate. That, coupled with the reversal of the PDO (which coupled with manmade climate change produced a more pronounced warming effect), is why we see a large shift in the scientific consensus beginning in the 1970s.

[CountryBoy1981]

Also, Yug, I find it interesting how all of these studies were done during or before 1974, when we knew less about how the Earth's climate systems work. Sure, some of them pointed towards global warming, but their predictions on the effects of this were inaccurate at best. Yes, there was a small cooling trend from the '40s to the '60s, but this was not caused by man, it was the result of a natural climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that occurs every few decades. The Earth's biosphere and atmosphere and the ways they interact are so complex that back then we didn't even have much of a rudimentary understanding of it. Now, we have worlds of more knowledge regarding how our planet works, so we are able to make predictions and measurements that are orders of magnitude more accurate. That, coupled with the reversal of the PDO (which coupled with manmade climate change produced a more pronounced warming effect), is why we see a large shift in the scientific consensus beginning in the 1970s.

The issue is that we still don't know very well how Earth's climate system works. I used to believe, like you, in global warming while I was in college because it was in the textbooks and because it was "peer reviewed." Students aren't taught to question what is in the textbook, it is taken as gospel. If global warming on earth is caused by man, why is it that Mars is also experiencing a warming period?:

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. (This comes from the right wing National Geographic)

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

If the arctic ice caps are melting and Mar's south pole ice caps are melting also, then humans must also be causing the warming on Mars also under the current climate science theory.

[caliboy1994]

The issue is that we still don't know very well how Earth's climate system works. I used to believe, like you, in global warming while I was in college because it was in the textbooks and because it was "peer reviewed." Students aren't taught to question what is in the textbook, it is taken as gospel.

And why do you think it's taken as "gospel?" It's because most of it has been proven using observation, experimentation, and objective fact by experts in the field. The parts that aren't proven are theory that is supported by observation, experimentation, and objective fact and has not been successfully disproven. That's what scientists do. They attempt to learn about the natural world through what they observe. If you remember the scientific method, it is in itself biased AGAINST what a scientist is trying to prove. Why is this? Because the moment evidence mounts that something science has previously been used to prove may be wrong, the entire thing is questioned and must be proven true again without being disproven. Students aren't taught to question what is taught in the textbook; they are given the scientific method as a tool to prove or disprove it. It's a completely different thing. This is not about questioning something. This is not philosophy. This is science, and there is methodology to it. And the moment something in a textbook is disproven, the next textbook series should acknowledge this. Sure, I agree that students should be taught to use critical thinking skills, but I also think that they should not be taught to simply "question" established scientific fact without trying to disprove it first.

So far, there has been no credible scientist to disprove climate change and have it become widely accepted through the peer review process, which is a safeguard built into the scientific method that hampers the dissemination of false information and rigged experimentation. Until that happens, climate change will remain scientific consensus. And given the observations we have been making regarding changes in Earth's weather patterns, the chances of this happening is second to nil.

And regarding the Mars thing:

"Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years.""

Apparently this scientist is dismissing the greenhouse effect and claiming that the Earth will cool drastically in 15 to 20 years, and this has been going on since the 1990s. This is directly the opposite of what we have been observing, and have observed in the Earth's long-term climate history. The 2000s were the warmest decade on record, and things show no sign of stopping. Additionally, temperature records of the past few hundred thousand years show an extremely strong correlation between CO2 levels and global average temperature (the data has been collected mostly from ice cores, which are a very accurate long-term record of Earth's climate history).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

It's no wonder that this scientist's work has not been well-received by the scientific community. What he is saying goes against mountains of observations and evidence that has been observed by countless other scientists. What is going on on Mars has nothing to do with us and has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect on Earth, unless we have been doing something along the lines of shooting nukes at Mars' ice caps. Besides, a positive feedback effect could be contributing to the current warming on Mars, where the melting of the planet's ice caps increase average temperature due to excess CO2, and this would cause more melting, which would lead to more CO2, and the cycle just continues. A single unusually warm summer could have set this off, and what we are just seeing now is the ongoing effect of this feedback loop.

If this scientist were to disprove climate change, he would have to prove his claim that CO2 has little to no effect on Earth's climate. All of the evidence that we have seen regarding the correlation between CO2 and climate points to CO2 being the largest player in moderating the greenhouse effect on a global scale (water vapor, which is a weaker greenhouse gas and is more abundant than CO2, only affects things regionally and temporarily, because atmospheric H2O concentrations vary widely across the planet and its lifetime in the atmosphere is extremely brief). Good luck to him in disproving over 150 years of scientific knowledge regarding the greenhouse effect.

[caliboy1994]

THREE TROPICAL CYCLONES ARE HITTING ASIA RIGHT NOW. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, FOLKS. MOVE ALONG.

https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1377070_10151884825202708_942539565_n.png

[Richard]

Caliboy:

The 80/20 rule is a very interesting phenomenon in present and past human cultures. It is noted in society in general and in most disciplines as well. For those who lie on opposite sides there cannot be resolution. One side (the 20%) sees reality in quantitative terms and the other only views reality qualitatively. For the latter (majority) group there is no comprehension of rates. Attempts to educate this group are futile because input is judged for emotional content instead of quantitative content. As such, imaginative and creative resources are limited: the focus is on drama. Consequences are only understood after they occur.

To paraphrase others: Know your challengers. Choose your battles well.

[Yug]

:coldbanana: Snowstorm greets global-warming protest :coldbanana:

snowstorm-greets-global-warming-protest (http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/snowstorm-greets-global-warming-protest/?cat_orig=world)

[harveyc]

I bet it was a warm snow. :)

[CountryBoy1981]

I bet it was a warm snow. :)

Its the warmth from global warming that is making it cold.

[dana mastro]

yea you really think so ..... how about this thought coming from someone with common sense. if there are files claiming your did something to alter the conclusion of your hypothesis then what you are doing is making a false evaluation. when Albert Einstein showed up to a presentation that showed E=MC2 they did not believe him for 2 years!!! they said he was a nut until he proved it and NOW WE HAVE PROOF AND YOU ARE STILL SAYING ITS WRONG ????
is it going to take another 2 years for people to figure out they are being completely retarded about this READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IDIOTS
altering data and conclusion is a false evaluation every one can figure that one out if they just took 2 hrs to read.....
what? your life is so important you cant read for 2 hrs? there's no simple way of saying this if you actually wanted to know what's going on then read..... read.... read!

[dana mastro]

and to make things easier for the stupid idiots that's saying global warming is going on here's a few things to check out

"cherry-picked" data samples.

John L Daly (note before this guy died) he was charged with manipulation charges on an account of distorting the evidence of his OWN WEBSITE

and now there using 9/11 and the holocaust as a representation for global warming now that's not just being stupid that's rude and insulting so before any one puts a post think of how those two tragic events have anything to do with climate? like seriously

yes I know the guy who wrote this article is a nut job as well because he doesn't believe in wind energy lol but you know what so was albert Einstein.

[dana mastro]

And why do you think it's taken as "gospel?" It's because most of it has been proven using observation, experimentation, and objective fact by experts in the field. The parts that aren't proven are theory that is supported by observation, experimentation, and objective fact and has not been successfully disproven. That's what scientists do. They attempt to learn about the natural world through what they observe. If you remember the scientific method, it is in itself biased AGAINST what a scientist is trying to prove. Why is this? Because the moment evidence mounts that something science has previously been used to prove may be wrong, the entire thing is questioned and must be proven true again without being disproven. Students aren't taught to question what is taught in the textbook; they are given the scientific method as a tool to prove or disprove it. It's a completely different thing. This is not about questioning something. This is not philosophy. This is science, and there is methodology to it. And the moment something in a textbook is disproven, the next textbook series should acknowledge this. Sure, I agree that students should be taught to use critical thinking skills, but I also think that they should not be taught to simply "question" established scientific fact without trying to disprove it first.

So far, there has been no credible scientist to disprove climate change and have it become widely accepted through the peer review process, which is a safeguard built into the scientific method that hampers the dissemination of false information and rigged experimentation. Until that happens, climate change will remain scientific consensus. And given the observations we have been making regarding changes in Earth's weather patterns, the chances of this happening is second to nil.

And regarding the Mars thing:

"Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years.""

Apparently this scientist is dismissing the greenhouse effect and claiming that the Earth will cool drastically in 15 to 20 years, and this has been going on since the 1990s. This is directly the opposite of what we have been observing, and have observed in the Earth's long-term climate history. The 2000s were the warmest decade on record, and things show no sign of stopping. Additionally, temperature records of the past few hundred thousand years show an extremely strong correlation between CO2 levels and global average temperature (the data has been collected mostly from ice cores, which are a very accurate long-term record of Earth's climate history).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

It's no wonder that this scientist's work has not been well-received by the scientific community. What he is saying goes against mountains of observations and evidence that has been observed by countless other scientists. What is going on on Mars has nothing to do with us and has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect on Earth, unless we have been doing something along the lines of shooting nukes at Mars' ice caps. Besides, a positive feedback effect could be contributing to the current warming on Mars, where the melting of the planet's ice caps increase average temperature due to excess CO2, and this would cause more melting, which would lead to more CO2, and the cycle just continues. A single unusually warm summer could have set this off, and what we are just seeing now is the ongoing effect of this feedback loop.

If this scientist were to disprove climate change, he would have to prove his claim that CO2 has little to no effect on Earth's climate. All of the evidence that we have seen regarding the correlation between CO2 and climate points to CO2 being the largest player in moderating the greenhouse effect on a global scale (water vapor, which is a weaker greenhouse gas and is more abundant than CO2, only affects things regionally and temporarily, because atmospheric H2O concentrations vary widely across the planet and its lifetime in the atmosphere is extremely brief). Good luck to him in disproving over 150 years of scientific knowledge regarding the greenhouse effect.

What is going on on Mars has nothing to do with us um well...

..Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, said biochemist Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in Florida.

An oxidized form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, was likely available on the Red Planet's surface long ago, but unavailable on Earth, said Benner, who presented his findings today (Aug. 28; Aug. 29 local time) at the annual Goldschmidt geochemistry conference in Florence, Italy. [The Search for Life on Mars (Photo Timeline)]

[Richard]

Good ol' boy. Slang: A man having qualities held to be characteristic of certain white males, such as a relaxed or informal manner, strong loyalty to family and friends, and often an anti-intellectual bias and intolerant point of view."

[dana mastro]

so few questions? 1 what did you read? I bet the next thing your going to tell me that Jesus is real and he's coming back to bring everyone that is good back into haven and leave everyone else. 2 is that a load of bull as well? or 3 is trusting faith just being a good ol' boy too?
im saying this because it doesn't matter what any ones opinion is. if global warming does occur every one will die trees will live they will grow rebuild the ozone and bam the earth is safe again. that's prob. what should happen. because I really doubt your one of those people that rides your bike to work everyday, recycles and believes you never helped cause this. one thing its not just one big corporation doing this its the ENTIRE WORLD doing this oh but that's right you live in Cali you don't hurt the ozone your only one person so everything's A okay how about you trace your eco footprint and tell me your not doing any harm think about that before you try to insult someone.

(if your truly believe global warming is true then stop saying its other people its you its me its everyone!) the way you back up your hypothesis of me being a good ol' boy by using a dictionary to try to contrast my reactions to this I don't believe you even know what a eco footprint is.......

[dana mastro]

here's the big picture without being bias on either side so u guys don't think im this huge communist

if anyone really cared about the earth they wouldn't be here because they would know humans in general destroy whatever we get our hands on.

"we have to destroy before we can build and there's no way around it"
by: dana mastro

[Yug]

Nearly 1000 Record Low Temperatures Set As Another Round of Arctic Air Forecast To Deep Freeze The U.S.
:coldbanana: :coldbanana: :coldbanana:
Record Low Temps (http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/29/nearly-1000-record-low-temperatures-set-as-another-round-of-arctic-air-forecast-to-deep-freeze-the-u-s/)

That post above about 3 typhoons/hurricanes does not prove any connection whatsoever between warming and typhoons. It alludes to some sort of connection but is extremely sparse in any facts that would support any sort of connection. If anything, we have actually far LESS typhoons than should be expected.

THREE TROPICAL CYCLONES ARE HITTING ASIA RIGHT NOW. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, FOLKS. MOVE ALONG.

The quote should be changed to: THREE TROPICAL CYCLONES ARE HITTING ASIA RIGHT NOW. NOTHING PROVEN HERE, FOLKS. MOVE ALONG.

[Yug]

Texas Storm Setting Temperature, Snow Records :coldbanana:
texas-storm-setting-temperature-snow-records (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/12/07/texas-storm-setting-temperature-snow-records/)

Cold rewrites Oregon history books :coldbanana:
Coldest temps in a quarter-century
oregon-cold-snap-120713 (http://www.koin.com/news/oregon/oregon-cold-snap-120713)

Climate change warning: Killer winter storms for the next THIRTY years :coldbanana:
Killer-winter-storms-for-next-THIRTY-years (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/354006/Climate-change-warning-Killer-winter-storms-for-next-THIRTY-years)

Snow falling. In Australia. In Summer. That is all. :coldbanana:
snow-falling-in-australia-in-summer (http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/snow-falling-in-australia-in-summer-that-is-all/story-e6frflp0-1226775945701)

(why do I care? because I'm sick of foolish ignorance, and that ignorance duping even more folks while the perpetrators of this scheme laugh all the way to the bank. THAT'S WHY. I've posted facts, not opinions, and I'm hoping that will keep the opinion peddlers at bay. Don't care? Fine. Don't read, have a nice day. :08: )

[CountryBoy1981]

Texas Storm Setting Temperature, Snow Records :coldbanana:
texas-storm-setting-temperature-snow-records (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/12/07/texas-storm-setting-temperature-snow-records/)

Cold rewrites Oregon history books :coldbanana:
Coldest temps in a quarter-century
oregon-cold-snap-120713 (http://www.koin.com/news/oregon/oregon-cold-snap-120713)

Climate change warning: Killer winter storms for the next THIRTY years :coldbanana:
Killer-winter-storms-for-next-THIRTY-years (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/354006/Climate-change-warning-Killer-winter-storms-for-next-THIRTY-years)

Snow falling. In Australia. In Summer. That is all. :coldbanana:
snow-falling-in-australia-in-summer (http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/snow-falling-in-australia-in-summer-that-is-all/story-e6frflp0-1226775945701)

(why do I care? because I'm sick of foolish ignorance, and that ignorance duping even more folks while the perpetrators of this scheme laugh all the way to the bank. THAT'S WHY. I've posted facts, not opinions, and I'm hoping that will keep the opinion peddlers at bay. Don't care? Fine. Don't read, have a nice day. :08: )

Its funny how the climate changers are silent when presented record cold weather.

[caliboy1994]

Its funny how the climate changers are silent when presented record cold weather.

Last time I checked, the recent cold weather spell was caused by an arctic cold front sweeping down across the United States further south and earlier than usual. Funny thing is, climate scientists are actually saying that this is happening because there is less ice cover in the Arctic, which is causing a shift in the jet streams. And that's something caused by....you guessed it....global warming. Actual science wins again. :nanadrink:

Scientists Link Cold Spring to Dramatic Sea Ice Loss | Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com/news/sea-ice-loss-20130326)

What is going on on Mars has nothing to do with us um well...

..Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, said biochemist Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in Florida.

An oxidized form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, was likely available on the Red Planet's surface long ago, but unavailable on Earth, said Benner, who presented his findings today (Aug. 28; Aug. 29 local time) at the annual Goldschmidt geochemistry conference in Florence, Italy. [The Search for Life on Mars (Photo Timeline)]

I'm talking about the weather patterns on each planet, because they have different atmospheres and climate patterns. They have nothing to do with each other unless there is a dramatic shift in solar output. The theory about life originating on mars is really interesting though. :)

[harveyc]

Andreas, you posted a link to a March 2013 article that explains that some scientists believed that the decline of Arctic ice in the fall of 2013 lead to the cold winter of 2012-2013. Later in this thread it was posted how Arctic ice in August 2013 was greater than the prior two years so use of that article to explain the current cold weather in the USA really doesn't seem appropriate (much less to explain the comment about summer snow in Australia).

[caliboy1994]

Andreas, you posted a link to a March 2013 article that explains that some scientists believed that the decline of Arctic ice in the fall of 2013 lead to the cold winter of 2012-2013. Later in this thread it was posted how Arctic ice in August 2013 was greater than the prior two years so use of that article to explain the current cold weather in the USA really doesn't seem appropriate (much less to explain the comment about summer snow in Australia).

That does not invalidate my point about the climate vs. weather fallacy. The fact that the climate is changing does not mean that there will not be cold snaps. It's part of our planet's natural variations in weather patterns. And look at all of the warm weather events. Take for example how last summer in Australia was the hottest on record. Or that record drought we had in the Midwest last year.

Plus, the Arctic sea ice this November (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) was still lower than average. Scientists have already linked this to colder weather extremes in northern continents. I'd argue that this was a contributing factor to the arctic air blast that we are on the tail end of now. I may have posted an article about an earlier date, but that article nicely sums up scientific research (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014036/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_014036.pdf) that happened to be a bit more relevant at the time that it was posted, but it is still very relevant now. Bottom line is that there's no arguing that our climate isn't changing. People just seem to have attached this "global warming" label to it and then jump whenever there is a colder than usual weather event, while completely ignoring the larger trend, and thus the bigger picture. Climate denialists are just like the frog that is placed in water that is slowly heated to a boil. They won't wake up until they've already been burnt alive.

[harveyc]

It's not that "some people" have attached a label of global warming to global climate change. The scientists and politicians used the term global warming long before they changed to the term global climate change.

[Funkthulhu]

Oh, hey, a Climate Change thread with zealots on both sides. How original!

Let's try to keep in mind that the majority (the vast majority) of research being done to disprove anthropogenic climate change is being done by, or funded by, organizations that will lose profit if they are prevented from releasing more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

This week's record lows are a direct result of the localized climate change caused by global warming. The destabalized and weakened jet-stream is allowing more arctic air to descend into the lower 48 further and sooner than ever.

In a sense, more heat is more energy. More energy means more powerful storms and "weirder" weather.

And the claim that climate changers are quiet when the temps are low is rather one-sided. Australia is pretty much on fire as it has been every year lately, where are the deniers there? Plus, it only hurts the consensus of the science when you give every body with an opinion equal air time. Do we still listen to people who think the earth is flat? What if everytime NASA launched a satellite we had to get the comments of someone who is mad they will disturb the interplanetary aether?

The global warming/climate change ship has already sailed. There are scientists who are refining the specifics of the theory, but those who matter are not arguing the point anymore. Those who matter are trying to fix the problem. Those who matter are not going to come to this forum thread and argue with people who claim to be "cynics" or "skeptics", but who really ignore every bit of quantifiable, referenced data that conflicts with their pre-conceived "opinion" on the subject.

Those who matter don't have to make you believe, but they're still going to try to save your planet...

[caliboy1994]

Oh, hey, a Climate Change thread with zealots on both sides. How original!

Let's try to keep in mind that the majority (the vast majority) of research being done to disprove anthropogenic climate change is being done by, or funded by, organizations that will lose profit if they are prevented from releasing more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

This week's record lows are a direct result of the localized climate change caused by global warming. The destabalized and weakened jet-stream is allowing more arctic air to descend into the lower 48 further and sooner than ever.

In a sense, more heat is more energy. More energy means more powerful storms and "weirder" weather.

And the claim that climate changers are quiet when the temps are low is rather one-sided. Australia is pretty much on fire as it has been every year lately, where are the deniers there? Plus, it only hurts the consensus of the science when you give every body with an opinion equal air time. Do we still listen to people who think the earth is flat? What if everytime NASA launched a satellite we had to get the comments of someone who is mad they will disturb the interplanetary aether?

The global warming/climate change ship has already sailed. There are scientists who are refining the specifics of the theory, but those who matter are not arguing the point anymore. Those who matter are trying to fix the problem. Those who matter are not going to come to this forum thread and argue with people who claim to be "cynics" or "skeptics", but who really ignore every bit of quantifiable, referenced data that conflicts with their pre-conceived "opinion" on the subject.

Those who matter don't have to make you believe, but they're still going to try to save your planet...

I couldn't have said it better myself.

It's not that "some people" have attached a label of global warming to global climate change. The scientists and politicians used the term global warming long before they changed to the term global climate change.

Let me clarify. Harvey, the term "climate change" happens to be more accurate. What I meant is that people seem to have taken up the idea that "global warming" means that everything is supposed to be warmer all the time, everywhere, when that's not what it means. It refers to the net change we are seeing. Need I post the results of the BEST study again?

[Yug]

Oh, hey, a Climate Change thread with zealots on both sides. How original!
...
Don't have to be a 'zealot' when one is merely using facts (you know, evidence) rather than a concensus of 'scientists' (most of which didn't even work in the meterological field, and ones that are in the field have a vested interest ($$) in saying what they are saying - the politicians make $$, gain more control via a global 'carbon' tax that they can skim off of, and in turn spread the wealth to the 'scientists that are doing their bidding)

[harveyc]

Al Gore is a zealot. Why hasn't he reduced his carbon footprint?

[caliboy1994]

Don't have to be a 'zealot' when one is merely using facts (you know, evidence) rather than a concensus of 'scientists' (most of which didn't even work in the meterological field, and ones that are in the field have a vested interest ($$) in saying what they are saying - the politicians make $$, gain more control via a global 'carbon' tax that they can skim off of, and in turn spread the wealth to the 'scientists that are doing their bidding)

Facts. Facts, huh? Last time I checked, more facts point to a warming trend than facts that point to otherwise. Like, you know, the temperature record. Not to mention the fact that my very area is going through a record drought.
(about 6 inches of rain so far this year compared to 15 on average).

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/103940/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg

And you're right. Climate scientists aren't meteorologists. They're people who study long-term climate patterns rather than short-term weather, which is what meteorologists study. Two COMPLETELY different things. And you know what? A lot of the stuff that they have been warning us about for a long time is becoming reality. More frequent tropical storms (i.e. the three simultaneous typhoons in the Indian Ocean this year, which I don't recall ever happening before in recorded history), more extreme weather conditions (droughts, shifting
in the jet streams causing the recent Arctic cold fronts, etc.), and overall rises in temperatures (see the recent unprecedented heat waves in Australia and Europe). Not to mention the fact that the volume and extent of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the past half a century, and that sea level rise has already been observed. If you seriously think that something isn't awry here, then it's quite clear to me that there is a very big rift between what you believe and what the reality is.

And now, you question the motives of the scientists themselves, huh? Don't forget that the same scientific method that climate change researchers use to draw their conclusions is also the reason why you have a computer and the Internet. Without it, you would not be typing on this forum right now. In fact, not only would this forum and computers not exist, we would still be in the Middle Ages. In the meantime, you put your trust in people like Anthony Watts, who are not even climate scientists, who are paid handsomely by big oil and big business to spread disinformation and outright lie to the public about climate change. Seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it? :08:

[Funkthulhu]

Don't have to be a 'zealot' when one is merely using facts (you know, evidence) rather than a concensus of 'scientists' (most of which didn't even work in the meterological field, and ones that are in the field have a vested interest ($$) in saying what they are saying - the politicians make $$, gain more control via a global 'carbon' tax that they can skim off of, and in turn spread the wealth to the 'scientists that are doing their bidding)

This is a strange inside-out version of "appeal to authority" fallacy of argument. Instead of saying something is true because experts say it is, you have instead tried to weaken the position by undermining the expertise of the consensus group. You have attempted to do this by including people not actually in the group with the expertise and linking their motivations to politics and/or money.

Also, it is funny to me that so far only those "against" global warming feel targeted by the word zealot. Even though, taken in context, it is not directed at either viewpoint.

Lastly, a bit of fact to float you through your day...

"According to NOAA scientists, the globally-averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was the highest for November since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 37th consecutive November and 345th consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average November global temperature was November 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985."

[CountryBoy1981]

This is a strange inside-out version of "appeal to authority" fallacy of argument. Instead of saying something is true because experts say it is, you have instead tried to weaken the position by undermining the expertise of the consensus group. You have attempted to do this by including people not actually in the group with the expertise and linking their motivations to politics and/or money.

Also, it is funny to me that so far only those "against" global warming feel targeted by the word zealot. Even though, taken in context, it is not directed at either viewpoint.

Lastly, a bit of fact to float you through your day...

"According to NOAA scientists, the globally-averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was the highest for November since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 37th consecutive November and 345th consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average November global temperature was November 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985."

I am not disagreeing that the earth has been warming, but so has Mars. Why is it that humans are to blame for the melting of the ice caps on earth but not for the CO2 ice caps melting on Mars? Why was it warmer on earth prior to the black plague than it is now and the earth didn't end? Why did the scientist try to stop global cooling in the 70s and were wrong on the science but nobody questions them?

[momoese]

Bottom line is the global weather patterns ARE changing and becoming erratic. This is NOT good for humans. Should we continue to turn a blind eye or should we look for a solution that will hopefully allow for future generations to inhabit this planet?

[CountryBoy1981]

Bottom line is the global weather patterns ARE changing and becoming erratic. This is NOT good for humans. Should we continue to turn a blind eye or should we look for a solution that will hopefully allow for future generations to inhabit this planet?

The warmer weather actually was good for humans pre-black plague. The warmer temperatures brought longer growing seasons which in turn allowed for more food to be grown. The climate changes all the time and it has been much warmer at times than it is now.

Every so many years there is a crisis that you need the scientists and government to protect you from (more taxes and funding). There was global cooling, y2k, and now global warming to name a few.

[momoese]

The warmer weather actually was good for humans pre-black plague. The warmer temperatures brought longer growing seasons which in turn allowed for more food to be grown. The climate changes all the time and it has been much warmer at times than it is now.

Every so many years there is a crisis that you need the scientists and government to protect you from (more taxes and funding). There was global cooling, y2k, and now global warming to name a few.

So basically you just don't give a s h i t what happens down the road. It's all about now and who's right and wrong, and much tax you spend. The Cabal loves you.

[CountryBoy1981]

So basically you just don't give a s h i t what happens down the road. It's all about now and who's right and wrong, and much tax you spend. The Cabal loves you.

I never said I didn't care. I said that the earth was much warmer before than it is now and it had a positive effect. There weren't SUV's being driven around pre-medieval times and in the of the Romans. It is cyclical, the weather on the earth changes from ice ages to periods of warmth. If we were going into an ice age I would be concerned as that results in many people starving from a lack of food and freezing from a lack of shelter. The warmer periods bring longer growing seasons and more food for people to eat across the globe.

If there were people that you should be appalled at it should be Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. Both of these people are pushing global warming. Either they are lying to your face or they are the worst of monsters on Earth. If Nancy Pelosi really believed in global warming do you believe she would be flying on a private jet back and forth to California every time she goes? She either doesn't believe in global warming or she doesn't give a crap that her private jet use is contributing to the death of the planet. Al Gore uses 20 times more electricity than the average U.S. citizen.

I don't believe in global warming at least in the sense that humans are causing it. Gore and Pelosi at least state that they do. Which person should you be appalled by, the one who fires the gun who believes there are blanks in the chamber or the one who knows that there are real bullets in it and kills somebody?

[CountryBoy1981]

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world . . .

A recent study by Lorenzo Polvani and Karen Smith of Columbia University says the model-defying sea ice increase may just reflect natural variability.

If the increase in ice is due to natural variability, Zhang says, warming from manmade greenhouse gases should eventually overcome it and cause the ice to begin retreating.

“If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse,” Zhang said.

However, a conclusion of the Barnes study is that the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer – now underway – may slow/delay Antarctic warming and ice melt.

Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.

Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic.

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/)

The computer models that scientists are relying on for global warming are starting to smoke when it comes to the antarctic ice caps.

[harveyc]

If CO2 is truly the culprit and government leaders are convinced of that, I'd much prefer to see policies that provide incentives to move away from energy sources that create CO2. Creating new taxes is not a solution, IMO. It creates new forms of bureaucracies and waste.

I was once invited to an international conference. There was a required $150 fee for "carbon offset" to supposedly help mitigate the impact of everyone from around the world flying there. If they really wanted to mitigate the impact, they would have just done an online conference. Those aren't as much fun as traveling to some other country but a webinar can be quite productive.

I've just had a 11 KwH solar system installed. Not because of some carbon tax that forced me to do it but because of tax incentives and future financial savings for energy costs.

A lot of people that want something done really seem to want someone else to change their way of living and to penalize industries they don't like. That sort of thinking needs to stop if any progress is going to be made, IMO.

[caliboy1994]

If CO2 is truly the culprit and government leaders are convinced of that, I'd much prefer to see policies that provide incentives to move away from energy sources that create CO2. Creating new taxes is not a solution, IMO. It creates new forms of bureaucracies and waste.

I was once invited to an international conference. There was a required $150 fee for "carbon offset" to supposedly help mitigate the impact of everyone from around the world flying there. If they really wanted to mitigate the impact, they would have just done an online conference. Those aren't as much fun as traveling to some other country but a webinar can be quite productive.

I've just had a 11 KwH solar system installed. Not because of some carbon tax that forced me to do it but because of tax incentives and future financial savings for energy costs.

A lot of people that want something done really seem to want someone else to change their way of living and to penalize industries they don't like. That sort of thinking needs to stop if any progress is going to be made, IMO.

I think a market-based solution would be more viable because it works with market forces rather than against them. Let's face it. We have a free market economy where supply and demand dictates all. So why not use that to our advantage?

We could start by getting rid of the massive subsidies that are currently being doled out to oil, coal, and natural gas. Especially with coal, these subsidies are the only reason why these fossil fuels are still competitive in the marketplace, with the exception of natural gas. Eliminate these subsidies and these sources of energy will simply be unable to compete with solar in just a few years' time. Solar is already cheaper than coal in Australia, and even recently solar-generated electricity has been sold for cheaper than coal-generated electricity in New Mexico.

And then of course we have to create positive market incentives for clean energy. California has been doing a good job with creating tax incentives for rooftop solar, but really it's not enough. Thorium-based nuclear has a lot of potential too, and we really need to invest in that. It has the capacity to power the whole country for a very long time.

Cap and trade worked really well for the Clean Air Act, and now our skies, especially in my area, are a lot cleaner than they were 30 years ago. Given that market forces would already be working against coal and oil if the subsidies are eliminated, I'm not even sure if cap and trade is required at all. Certainly not for coal.

Bottom line is that we need a huge economic transformation to make this work. It's already underway, but the problem is that it's not happening fast enough.

[Funkthulhu]

The computer models that scientists are relying on for global warming are starting to smoke when it comes to the antarctic ice caps.

Really? You do realize that sea-ice extent and thickness increases with a drop in salinity, right? You also, I hope, realize that this is a result of the truely mind-boggling levels of fresh melt water coming off the continental ice sheet and making the surface waters around antarctica less salty? The continental-ice (y'know, the stuff that was on land but is now raising sea-level) is melting faster than it ever has in recorded history and the expansion of sea-ice is a direct result of that.

So, what are you smokin'?

[CountryBoy1981]

I think a market-based solution would be more viable because it works with market forces rather than against them. Let's face it. We have a free market economy where supply and demand dictates all. So why not use that to our advantage?

We could start by getting rid of the massive subsidies that are currently being doled out to oil, coal, and natural gas. Especially with coal, these subsidies are the only reason why these fossil fuels are still competitive in the marketplace, with the exception of natural gas. Eliminate these subsidies and these sources of energy will simply be unable to compete with solar in just a few years' time. Solar is already cheaper than coal in Australia, and even recently solar-generated electricity has been sold for cheaper than coal-generated electricity in New Mexico.

And then of course we have to create positive market incentives for clean energy. California has been doing a good job with creating tax incentives for rooftop solar, but really it's not enough. Thorium-based nuclear has a lot of potential too, and we really need to invest in that. It has the capacity to power the whole country for a very long time.

Cap and trade worked really well for the Clean Air Act, and now our skies, especially in my area, are a lot cleaner than they were 30 years ago. Given that market forces would already be working against coal and oil if the subsidies are eliminated, I'm not even sure if cap and trade is required at all. Certainly not for coal.

Bottom line is that we need a huge economic transformation to make this work. It's already underway, but the problem is that it's not happening fast enough.

The subsidies for oil and coal are a myth. By definition is a subsidy when the industry receives more money back from the government than it pays in taxes. A tax break on the other hand is when the company pays less money in taxes, but still pays taxes. The oil and coal companies receive the same tax breaks that other industries receive; it isn't specially handed out to those industries.

For the definition of a subsidy see General Electric:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted%253Dall&_r=0

[Yug]

The top seven global warming alarmist setbacks in 2013

Link to article (http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/#!)

*excerpt*
The Senate testimony of Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado completely undercut environmentalists and Democrats trying to claim that global warming was causing “extreme weather.”

“It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Pielke said. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

The other witnesses on the panel did not refute Pielke’s data.
*end excerpt*

...
Also, it is funny to me that so far only those "against" global warming feel targeted by the word zealot. Even though, taken in context, it is not directed at either viewpoint.
...
As has been seen time and time again, these 'extreme' sorts of terms, of which 'zealot' is one, have been used by the overwhelmingly leftest-sympathetic media to target those that are actually mainstream and down-to-earth, so the historical implication is that the non-lefty non-global-warming folk are again the target of imflammatory rhetoric.

My personal opinion (which never makes the main-stream-media) is that with all the inflammatory terms, and actual threats levied against those that are not in mind-numbed robotic lock-step with the global-warming cult - the real 'zealots' are all too obvious.

[Funkthulhu]

Go far enough right or left and you eventually curve around and fall into the same bottomless pit of crazy.

That being said, what you call "leftist-sympathetic" should really be called "center". True left is very rare anymore. The "left" as you call it has shifted so far right as to be the new center. They've done this almost on purpose in order to pick up all those abandoned by the "Right" that is running almost giddily toward the crazy pit.

I would love to see a new sub-party that is as far "left" as the teabaggers and simliar are to the "right". Then those of us in the middle could just sit back and eat popcorn while we watch our TVs explode. . .

(this ends our rambling political commentary, now back to Tom with sports!)

[Funkthulhu]

Also:

"The Daily Caller is a politically conservative news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney" -wikipedia

Biased sources are worse then worthless because they cloud scientific arguement with political idealism...

[caliboy1994]

The warmer weather actually was good for humans pre-black plague. The warmer temperatures brought longer growing seasons which in turn allowed for more food to be grown. The climate changes all the time and it has been much warmer at times than it is now.

Every so many years there is a crisis that you need the scientists and government to protect you from (more taxes and funding). There was global cooling, y2k, and now global warming to name a few.

Warmer weather is certainly not good in many ways. For the record, my area has received half the usual rainfall this year. Also, ever heard of desertification? Warming weather is going to exacerbate that, and turn millions of square miles of arable land into barren wastelands. It's already happening, and has been happening.

Sure, it will benefit some areas by increasing rainfall and growing seasons, like central Canada and the plains of Eastern Europe, but it will lay waste to others. The southeastern Great Plains are already running out of water (see depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer), and climate-change induced drought will make agriculture virtually impossible in the area in the coming decades. California is set to experience even hotter summers and further decreases in rainfall. This year was brutal enough in terms of drought, with massive wildfires occurring OUTSIDE the normal fire season. I don't ever remember wildfires happening in May and June in my lifetime. Warmer temperatures also cause warmer oceans, which causes sea level rise. And it will also cause tropical diseases like malaria and yellow fever to spread into subtropical and temperate regions. And then there are the positive climate feedbacks it can cause. That's a whole other story. If you want me to get into that I will.

My personal opinion (which never makes the main-stream-media) is that with all the inflammatory terms, and actual threats levied against those that are not in mind-numbed robotic lock-step with the global-warming cult - the real 'zealots' are all too obvious.

I love how you continue to ignore the temperature record. At least CountryBoy seems to acknowledge that there is a warming trend. As I said before, this is not a political issue. We have the facts on our side. Raw data. Scientific studies. Statistics. What do you have? The inane ramblings of pundits and oil-funded "scientists" and the asinine squawking of conspiracy theorists. I really don't understand why people like you are so untrustworthy of science when it is what has given you all of the modern conveniences and technology that you take for granted today. And why you buy into that BS that is peddled by people with no credentials whatsoever. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Is there something I'm missing?

[Richard]

In the corporate world, Human Resource departments label such conversations (regardless of merit) as "pissing contests". The participants are relegated to positions outside of public interactions and on a much slower pay raise track.
:lurk:

[caliboy1994]

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University (http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/)

In case you want to know who is bankrolling denialist efforts. This is a scientific study.

“The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.”

http://drexel.edu/~/media/Images/now/release_images/December%202013/Figure%201.ashx

[Yug]

Not sure what the point of the chart was. I guess they are all 'EVIL' because a liberal leftist/socialist media outlet told you they were, so with no actual evidence (again!) you believe they are 'eeeeevil' because some leftist media org (which really is evil) told you so, and you wish to believe it.

Global Warming 'Scientists' Stranded by Ice (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ice-helipad-help-rescuers.html) :coldbanana:

Only 1 in 23 Media Outlets Mention story (http://mrc.org/articles/climate-researchers-ship-trapped-ice-only-1-23-network-news-stories-mention-mission)

The lefty MSM won't report it because it doesnt' fit the 'global warming' agenda (just like they don't report anything negative about o'bummer)

The real 'bitch' of it is...
THIS IS THE WARM SEASON IN ANTARCTICA!!!! :islandsharkbanana: (you just can't make this stuff up! :D )

[Funkthulhu]

I'm pretty much copying this post verbatim from one I just made in another forum. The reason that few media outlets are posting about the trapped research vessel is because they don't have enough air-time to explain to John Q Public why the increased ice is a result of global warming:

"Regardless of the total summer melt from global warming the poles are very cold. In the case of Antarctica, the melt that happens in the southern summer is greater due to that warming. However, most of that melt can only occur because of solar radiation being absorbed by darker surfaces, as the ambient air temperature in those areas can still stay below freezing much of the year. Soot and other atmospheric fallout onto the ice creates duller ice/snow, and eventually forms small surface-melt pools with dark material at the bottom absorbing solar heat. (we have photos from the last couple years of the north pole still frozen underneath, but submerged in a small pond of melt-water) The combination of increased temperature and the reduced albedo of the ice results in accelerated melting of both land and sea-ice during each hemisphere's summer.

Salt inhibits ice crystal formation, this is why you sprinkle it on your sidewalk to get rid of ice. As a result, ice will only form in the ocean under special circumstances of extreme cold, or reduced levels of salinity. The increased volume of melt water coming off of Antarctica is yearly lowering the local salinity of surface water (fresh water floats on salt water). The result is that ice formation is much easier and faster during the southern hemisphere winter because of the increased melting during the summer. The same effect can be seen to a lesser extent around northern Greenland in the northern hemisphere winter, but the effects are lessened due to the relative lack of continental glacier ice. The ice over and around the north pole that covers the north polar sea takes longer to form because there is not a lot of fresh melt water to dilute the local salinity. This is why we are having record melting of the north arctic sea-ice over the summers in the last couple decades.

So, yes, in a roundabout way, the increase in global warming both increases southern hemisphere winter sea-ice AND makes it more difficult to for northern hemisphere sea-ice to return to its full extent every year. And in both the Arctic and Antarctic the land supported glacial ice (Antarctica/Greenland) is melting at a record pace every summer in that hemisphere."

Ta-Da!

[Funkthulhu]

Also, complete ignorance of how a complex system works is not evidence that your viewpoint is right. . .

[amantedelenguaje]

Thanks for both viewpoints on the issue. I am glad to be a part of bananas.org where everyone has the opportunity to respectfully express his or her thoughts on issues important to us all. I guess if we were all omniscient and of one accord about everything there would be little reason to have a discussion forum.

Happy New Year!!!

[CountryBoy1981]

Is it going to be so warm Monday night that cold records will be set across the Eastern part of the U.S.?

VIDEO: Life Threatening Cold Ahead (http://www.weather.com/video/life-threatening-cold-ahead-42959?)

[Abnshrek]

Its going to get this cold.. :^)

http://tallhorsewines.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/snug.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss252/Rainbow_bucket/winter%20funnies/winter6.jpg

[Abnshrek]

It's going to be a cold Tuesday morning..

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1525724_662343163828148_480556454_n.jpg

[CountryBoy1981]

It's going to be a cold Tuesday morning..

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1525724_662343163828148_480556454_n.jpg

Definitely looks like global warming to me! Hurry quick get the carbon tax so it does not get any warmer than it is now.

[momoese]

Definitely looks like global warming to me! Hurry quick get the carbon tax so it does not get any warmer than it is now.

"Global Warming" means global chaos. In other words, Global Climate Change. Our weather patterns are changing. Do you really deny this? :rolleyes:

[scottu]

weather patterns change, the global climate changes, they always have and always will, does anyone really think they know what change is next or for how long it will last, you are not that smart, if you think you are you are silly! predict the weather for the next 365 days accurately then give us a call!

[momoese]

weather patterns change, the global climate changes, they always have and always will, does anyone really think they know what change is next or for how long it will last, you are not that smart, if you think you are you are silly! predict the weather for the next 365 days accurately then give us a call!

Global temps are increasing, global weather patterns are changing. Truth. argue with that

[momoese]

Do you climate change deniers also think Fukushima is no big deal?

[CountryBoy1981]

Global temps are increasing, global weather patterns are changing. Truth. argue with that

The same thing is happening on Mars. What are humans doing to cause the temperature increase on Mars? It could be the Martians are driving their flying saucers. When the temperatures on Earth and Mars and both increasing something would tell me that there is an external source for the increase, not an internal source on the Earth.

[momoese]

The same thing is happening on Mars. What are humans doing to cause the temperature increase on Mars? It could be the Martians are driving their flying saucers. When the temperatures on Earth and Mars and both increasing something would tell me that there is an external source for the increase, not an internal source on the Earth.

What does this have to do with anything? My point is that some people in this thread are denying climate change. That's crazy imo.

[Kat2]

What does this have to do with anything? My point is that some people in this thread are denying climate change. That's crazy imo.I don't think anyone is discounting change; I suspect Methuselah saw many climate changes during his purported lifetime of 969 years. We have no records for weather during that time--not scientific ones--so who knows? I do know that during my lifetime I have seen many super hot summers, terribly frigid winters and awful droughts though I'm not old enough to have seen the dust bowl. My family on both sides were farmers and knew to expect good years and bad because controlling weather wasn't in their hands. I have a very low carbon footprint but I honestly don't believe in global warming; I do believe Mother Nature delights in playing games and watching us squirm.

[scottu]

Global temps are increasing, global weather patterns are changing. Truth. argue with that


not worth it

[Sharonp1953]

It is so frustrating hearing people deny the impact of human activity on global climate and weather patterns. There is emperical evidence that the impact of human activity is pushing the planet to its tipping point, beyond which discussion will be pointless. I left the Sunshine Coast of Australia 18 years ago to travel. When I left typical summer weather here was around 34c maximum and with summer rain being consistent here. I returned 3 years ago. I planted a beautiful sub-tropical garden filled with plants that are supposed to be suited to these conditions. Last week, still no significant summer rain and on Saturday temperatures peaked here at just under 44c, that is 111.2. At this rate we will live in a desert, and a flood plain on the occasions it rains. We have to halt GW at no more than 2 degrees to have a hope, currently we are looking at 7 to 8 degrees. We can argue until we fry, but my question is what harm will it do if we ARE wrong? While without change, if we are right, life on earth will change forever, and mass extinction will happen. I have grandchildren! I am acting and so can you.

[Kat2]

Quick question: how old are the participants in this thread? I'm approaching 60 and have seen a lot of climate changes. You?

[Sharonp1953]

Quick question: how old are the participants in this thread? I'm approaching 60 and have seen a lot of climate changes. You?

I am 60, and yes I have seen change too, but I am aware that the pace of change is now devastating. I know a little more than some as my husband is a specialist writer for emergency response globally and attend numerous conferences worldwide. People in emergency response planning are not climate change nuts, they are simply trying to deal with the fallout, and they are worried!

[Kat2]

Wasn't expecting anyone here to be as ancient as I am. I will listen but am hard to convince especially with the 10 or 20 year record lows predicted for FL on Monday and Tuesday.

But I will listen.

[Sharonp1953]

Wasn't expecting anyone here to be as ancient as I am. I will listen but am hard to convince especially with the 10 or 20 year record lows predicted for FL on Monday and Tuesday.

But I will listen.

Lol...yep, I am a fellow ancient. I will also PM you some links :)

[Yug]

It is so frustrating hearing people deny the impact of human activity on global climate and weather patterns. ...

It is more frustrating watching a few holdouts keep buying into this scam when I see record snowfall and temps that seem to show precisely the opposite. Those holdouts will buy into the stories that support their opinion, while denying facts and real evidence in the other direction. They have made up their minds, and little short of a new ice age will change them. Some would no doubt STILL attempt to blame the ice age on global warming. (you can call it global climate change, but it is the same clan as the global warming tribe. Don't call it a different name, keep the same people, and expect me to believe it now.)

What if the 'global-climate-change' people are wrong? Then companies are getting fleeced by making them buy/sell/trade carbon credits (of course one of the major polluters, china, decided to not play this game, so what difference will the rest make?) just to stay in business. And in case you forgot, any cost to a business is passed on to consumers. In other words, WE are getting fleeced. Meanwhile, the major polluters get off scot-free while our lifestyle suffers. Gee, fat lot of good carbon credits did us, neh?

About that term 'global climate change'...

The term 'global climate change' was adopted by the 'global warming' cult when it was obvious that they didn't have the science/data to support their fearmongering. Then further evidence against them was discovered when emails surfaced that indicated they were intentionally altering data, cherry picking which temp guages they would use to support their lie, and then threatening/intimidating any that didn't believe their lies. This fearmongering was intended to be the impetus behind adopting a 'global carbon tax' so the major industrial nations stupid enough to believe it (read: US) would be penalized financially, while other countries (actually those countries' pocket-dictators or their cronies at the UN) would get wealth they were unable or unwilling to EARN themselves. The worst polluters, China and others, refused to be fleeced by this sham. The global-warming cult then decided to use 'global-climate-change' because the climate will always change (of course it does, even an idiot can see that, but is it our fault? Since this hasn't been proven, the argument has morphed into, "but what if it IS true? We have to do something merely on the CHANCE it is true."), and anyone that denies the change would be branded an idiot since we all know it changes. That STILL doesn't prove that we are doing it. Also, if a few industrialized nations adopt this farce, they lose ground on the world scene while others gain it. If you then become a 2nd world, or 3rd world nation I guess you can smugly be satisfied with yourselves while other nations take over and dictate THEIR terms to you, or else... Now, they are big and powerful, and you are little or nothing. How much has your belief in an unproven 'pseudo-science' gotten you? Nothing but a back seat to someone ELSE driving the car now. Someone who may just be willing to put a bullet in the back of someone's head for merely disagreeing with them (sounds almost like the violent threats against the 'deniers', doesn't it?). Personally, I like the idea of the U.S. driving rather than Communist China. I guess you are entitled to your opinions, though. (but if they take the reins, you will then be entitled to THEIR opinion whether you like it or not, but, hey, you still can go down feeling smugly self-satisfied that you did the moral thing(at least you thought it was while being duped as algore got rich) while the rest took over by doing bad things. Where does this leave our grandchildren now? Duped, but wiser. And maybe harboring a quiet resentment for the fools a few generations prior that have now put them under the heel of nations that don't give a rip about their 'feeeeeelings'.

Here is more evidence to ignore:
Historic freeze could break Midwest temp records (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140104/DAB3UT982.html)
(quote from article) "All the ingredients are there for a near-record or historic cold outbreak," he said "If you're under 40 (years old), you've not seen this stuff before."

Coldest Air in 20 Years to Aim at Nation's Heartland (http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/coldest-air-in-20-years-to-aim/21701179)

Snowy owl invasion of US extends to Florida (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/03/3850232/snowy-owl-invasion-of-us-extends.html)
(quote from article) "An invasion of snowy owls has been reported this winter across the Midwest, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states."

Canada is so cold residents are experiencing loud booms caused by 'frost quakes' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534166/Canada-cold-experiencing-frost-quakes.html)

Have a nice day! :coldbanana:

[Funkthulhu]

It is more frustrating watching a few holdouts keep buying into this scam when I see record snowfall and temps that seem to show precisely the opposite. Those holdouts will buy into the stories that support their opinion, while denying facts and real evidence in the other direction. They have made up their minds, and little short of a new ice age will change them. Some would no doubt STILL attempt to blame the ice age on global warming. (you can call it global climate change, but it is the same clan as the global warming tribe. Don't call it a different name, keep the same people, and expect me to believe it now.)

What if the 'global-climate-change' people are wrong? Then companies are getting fleeced by making them buy/sell/trade carbon credits (of course one of the major polluters, china, decided to not play this game, so what difference will the rest make?) just to stay in business. And in case you forgot, any cost to a business is passed on to consumers. In other words, WE are getting fleeced. Meanwhile, the major polluters get off scot-free while our lifestyle suffers. Gee, fat lot of good carbon credits did us, neh?

About that term 'global climate change'...

The term 'global climate change' was adopted by the 'global warming' cult when it was obvious that they didn't have the science/data to support their fearmongering. Then further evidence against them was discovered when emails surfaced that indicated they were intentionally altering data, cherry picking which temp guages they would use to support their lie, and then threatening/intimidating any that didn't believe their lies. This fearmongering was intended to be the impetus behind adopting a 'global carbon tax' so the major industrial nations stupid enough to believe it (read: US) would be penalized financially, while other countries (actually those countries' pocket-dictators or their cronies at the UN) would get wealth they were unable or unwilling to EARN themselves. The worst polluters, China and others, refused to be fleeced by this sham. The global-warming cult then decided to use 'global-climate-change' because the climate will always change (of course it does, even an idiot can see that, but is it our fault? Since this hasn't been proven, the argument has morphed into, "but what if it IS true? We have to do something merely on the CHANCE it is true."), and anyone that denies the change would be branded an idiot since we all know it changes. That STILL doesn't prove that we are doing it. Also, if a few industrialized nations adopt this farce, they lose ground on the world scene while others gain it. If you then become a 2nd world, or 3rd world nation I guess you can smugly be satisfied with yourselves while other nations take over and dictate THEIR terms to you, or else... Now, they are big and powerful, and you are little or nothing. How much has your belief in an unproven 'pseudo-science' gotten you? Nothing but a back seat to someone ELSE driving the car now. Someone who may just be willing to put a bullet in the back of someone's head for merely disagreeing with them (sounds almost like the violent threats against the 'deniers', doesn't it?). Personally, I like the idea of the U.S. driving rather than Communist China. I guess you are entitled to your opinions, though. (but if they take the reins, you will then be entitled to THEIR opinion whether you like it or not, but, hey, you still can go down feeling smugly self-satisfied that you did the moral thing(at least you thought it was while being duped as algore got rich) while the rest took over by doing bad things. Where does this leave our grandchildren now? Duped, but wiser. And maybe harboring a quiet resentment for the fools a few generations prior that have now put them under the heel of nations that don't give a rip about their 'feeeeeelings'.

Here is more evidence to ignore:
Historic freeze could break Midwest temp records (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140104/DAB3UT982.html)
(quote from article) "All the ingredients are there for a near-record or historic cold outbreak," he said "If you're under 40 (years old), you've not seen this stuff before."

Coldest Air in 20 Years to Aim at Nation's Heartland (http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/coldest-air-in-20-years-to-aim/21701179)

Snowy owl invasion of US extends to Florida (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/03/3850232/snowy-owl-invasion-of-us-extends.html)
(quote from article) "An invasion of snowy owls has been reported this winter across the Midwest, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states."

Canada is so cold residents are experiencing loud booms caused by 'frost quakes' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534166/Canada-cold-experiencing-frost-quakes.html)

Have a nice day! :coldbanana:

Thank you for posting links to some of the extreme short-term, localized weather events that are being exacerbated by the global warming trend.

Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather | TIME.com (http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/)

Oddly enough (for your opinion), it is the abnormally warm High pressure zone just this side of Greenland that has cut into the polar vortex and forced all this arctic air to move south.

Now, while you're sailing on that failboat, can you give me the denier explaination to why most of Australia is more or less on fire right now?

[Funkthulhu]

Quick question: how old are the participants in this thread? I'm approaching 60 and have seen a lot of climate changes. You?

I'm only 36,

However, I have a Bachelors of Science in Geoscience, and a Masters Degree in Geology (my thesis was on ancient climate shifts) which is the main source of my scientific understanding of global warming in general.

And yet, education aside, I still swear it was colder when I was a kid.

[Abnshrek]

https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1508535_192433610952317_400111223_n.jpg

[momoese]

You deniers won't be arguing on Reddit anymore! :ha:

Internet forum Reddit bans climate change deniers | GrindTV.com (http://www.grindtv.com/lifestyle/culture/post/internet-forum-reddit-bans-climate-change-deniers/)

[Abnshrek]

You deniers won't be arguing on Reddit anymore! :ha:

Internet forum Reddit bans climate change deniers | GrindTV.com (http://www.grindtv.com/lifestyle/culture/post/internet-forum-reddit-bans-climate-change-deniers/)

They couldn't handle the truth so they removed it.. Must be up for some B.S. Grant soon.. :^)

[Funkthulhu]

They couldn't handle the truth so they removed it.. Must be up for some B.S. Grant soon.. :^)

"truth" requires unquestioning belief

"fact" can be proven in a lab...

[harveyc]

Banning free speech is never something to celebrate. That's stupid.

[momoese]

Banning free speech is never something to celebrate. That's stupid.

Free speech has limits, like on privately owned internet sites. You want free speech, go stand in your yard and yell all you want, that is until your neighbors call the police and they shoot you for acting strange. :ha:

[harveyc]

That's some more stupid.

[momoese]

Climate change denial is stupid.

[harveyc]

If you look more closely, I did not say "right to free speech". Free speech has limits, but it should not be restricted just because of a disagreement. The argument that their site was losing credibility because of the deniers appears ridiculous. If the arguments of deniers are clearly without merit, the reputation of the site should not suffer at all.

Saying there is a problem such as climate change but taking no personal responsibility to change it ala Al Gore is stupid. Solar power is providing 100% of my electricity needs and reducing CO2. What have you done to make things better?

I've not denied climate change nor affirmed it, nor the cause. I have asked questions or concerns I've had on this thread previously that have not been addressed by those that have swallowed the GCC pill. When there are problems with data (like reporting Russia's September numbers again in October) or poor weather station locations that seem insane, why don't these get addressed?

[momoese]

There was a good reason, nothing stupid about it. 100% their right to do as they wish.

And goody for you using solar. If I could afford to install it I would. Does that make me a bad guy and you a savior, cause that's the way you framed it.

[harveyc]

There was a good reason, nothing stupid about it. 100% their right to do as they wish.

Their reason for doing so is stupid and to celebrate their decision is stupid and to disagree with it being stupid is stupid. Got it?

And goody for you using solar. If I could afford to install it I would. Does that make me a bad guy and you a savior, cause that's the way you framed it.

That is not the way I framed it, maybe you're feeling guilty or something. People that think GCC is a serious problem should be doing whatever they can. If they can't afford solar, then they should be doing whatever else they can. Giving up meat can help (I've not done that) raising meet and transporting it, etc. takes a lot of emergy and produces a lot of methane that is more harmful than CO2, supposedly. Someone like Al Gore that has a huge house and private jet has a very big carbon footprint which seems contrary to the actions that he says is needed to stop GCC. He cries would have a lot more credence if he put his foot where his mouth is.

[momoese]

Their reason for doing so is stupid and to celebrate their decision is stupid and to disagree with it being stupid is stupid. Got it?

What I do have is respect for a business decision. And yes I find it amusing as well. Got it?



That is not the way I framed it, maybe you're feeling guilty or something. People that think GCC is a serious problem should be doing whatever they can. If they can't afford solar, then they should be doing whatever else they can. Giving up meat can help (I've not done that) raising meet and transporting it, etc. takes a lot of emergy and produces a lot of methane that is more harmful than CO2, supposedly. Someone like Al Gore that has a huge house and private jet has a very big carbon footprint which seems contrary to the actions that he says is needed to stop GCC. He cries would have a lot more credence if he put his foot where his mouth is.

We do what we can. We don't eat much meat, and the meat we do eat is locally, sustainably grown without GMO feed, free pastured, grass fed and finished. But you already knew that Harvey. We also only buy locally grown organic produce which lightens our carbon footprint. Ah but you already knew that too! We walk or bike within reason, neither of us are athletes. Neither of us drive gas guzzling SUV's. We rarely use our home heater even on cold nights for our area nights. I compost all of our garden and kitchen scraps. We are cautious about our electricity usage. We recycle everything possible. And we do not deny Climate Change! Nope no guilt here. :)


And really, enough about Gore. We all know he's an ass.

[harveyc]

Some organic produce has a huge carbon footprint. I know of some that use what is called "plastic mulch" to control weeds since they don't use pesticides and then sends tons of plastic each year to the landfill. Organic, but not sustainable.

In Sacramento there are ads on the radio for solar systems with zero down and payments that are lower than current electricity bills. Anybody that is going to stay in their current home can afford that.

And I'm not just speaking to you but to others that don't seem to be doing anything. Again, Al Gore seems to be a horrible example. Makes me have some doubts regarding the message he made so popular.

[Sharonp1953]

Oh please.....why so nasty? This does not help. We all have the right to our opinions. Harvey, you are right that solar is available to most, but not within the reach of all. And it is great that you have made the investment. We too have solar and produce all our power and sell some to the grid to repay the money we invested. Momoese is also right and clearly is taking as many steps as he is able to reduce his own carbon footprint. And Harvey, he did say locally-grown organically, not just organic from anywhere.

Personally I don't care if people agree or disagree as long as they take action. The irony is that in most cases over the mid-term personal action also results in personal savings. If we all grew our own organic veggies and took personal responsibility, where it is possible, for power, water collection and recycling, recycling of plastics etc., suitable disposal of waste and a bit more thought about the vehicles we drive and when and where we drive, that alone would make a HUGE difference, and we would save money. And Momoese, Harvey is 100% right that production of meat for human consumption could, if all non-vegetarians ate meat no more than twice a week, and then only organic, grass-fed, the reduction in methane would take care of most of the reductions in carbon needed, and as a bi-product would free up resources to feed most, if not all of the world's poor.
I am a supporter of personal responsibility, I also believe we abuse our planet in ways too numerous to mention. I am ashamed to be Australian based on our current Administration's horrible environmental performance. There is no excuse for our country being responsible for such dreadful pollution, and for exporting that pollution (in the form of coal, coal-seam gas and uranium) to the rest of the world. But, all that said, we do need to work together, fighting and parrying insults will never get us to where we need to be.
Harvey, I am grateful that you do what you can to save money and resources, good on you. I ask that you at least think of what more you can do, because there are reasons other than climate change for stopping heavy pollution from industry, personal behaviour and particularly agricultural production. Air quality, preservation and restoration of green spaces, improvement in the quality and freshness of food by buying local, pesticide-free produce, clean, chemical-free drinking water, and hundreds of other examples of ways in which the quality of your health, your life and that of your personal environment can be improved. Oh, and if we are right about climate change, you will be helping that without even trying. I keep asking the question, what do you have to lose?

[Sharonp1953]

Oh,and Harvey, I agree with you on inaccurate recording of weather conditions. Some of that is, I know for an absolute fact, politically motivated. On the day my bananas keeled over and fried, the official temperature here was 36c. The temperature in my own garden, measured on three different instruments was 44.7. Hundreds also reported these temperatures during that day, but all official readings stayed well below 38c. Interesting isn't it? Bottom line, we have to trust our own senses, and certainly check the interests of those we choose to listen to...when someone with links (even hidden links) to a mining magnate or captain of industry exerting huge political pressure, tells me that global warming is a fallacy, I am very worried. But do we always check the history, who they holiday with' who they are "friends with"....... Who pays the ferryman? Nope, but we should!

[harveyc]

I don't have any official weather stations within maybe 20 miles of me and the private stations feeding to Wunderground range pretty wildly, to 10F lower and 5F higher than what my own gauge. Hopefully, official stations are calibrated better than all of these cheap electronic gauges.

The bad stations I posted about a couple of years ago or so included a station next to a buildings HVAC system, near a fire station where a fire truck exhaust frequently affected it, etc. There were thousands of such poor stations identified, as I recall.

[Sharonp1953]

Yes, that can happen, and of course with uncalibrated measuring it can be out. But we have a shocking situation here right now with a government that is rabidly denying any responsibility to the environment, from not enforcing protection orders (from Australian courts) against Japanese Whaling operations in the Great Southern Ocean, to allowing dredging and dumping of dredged material close to the Great Barrier Reef, to requesting the removal of ancient Tasmanian forests from the World Heritage list so they can be logged, to denying any link between the use of coal, coal seam gas, uranium etc. and global pollution problems. We have seen huge rises in temperatures here over the past 5 years, and we genuinely face a future where we may be unable to stay in the area in the longer term. This summer I have lost over 95% of my food crops due to extreme heat and drought. The government is denying climate change, however it is caused, and we are currently living with temperatures that are commonly 7-10 degrees above those of 10 years ago. Now, oddly enough, official temperature readings recently are 7-10 degrees below those of hundreds of residents living in the area! Odd?

[Funkthulhu]

POKE THE BEAR!!!

I could eat vegan, drive a home-built electric car, live off the grid, grow my own food, poop solar panels, etc. etc. etc.

or, I could choose to have just 1 less kid (or none!) and then I couldn't consume enough in my lifetime to use all the CO2 that line of descendants won't.

Everybody is so worried about what they are or aren't doing to slow down or stop Global Warming right now, when the facts of the scales of multiplying are seldom addressed.

[Kat2]

I was raised in a family of 8 in MD on well and septic; my father grew up on a farm in upstate NY with a spring. We were taught to conserve everything and I continue to do so. I have 1 brother; the rest of the girls, before puberty, shared baths that were weekly. Dad doled out TP and was adamant about how many squares you got. Flushing went by that saying. (Septic never had to be pumped--ever.)

I was trained to turn off lights; I never saw a 100 watt bulb until I was an adult. We had no AC; Dad, a physicist, positioned a fan in their room to pull air through the entire house. Congress takes their vacation in August for a reason: DC is stifling that month and July is nearly as bad. We survived; obviously nobody closed their doors. Dad was in control of the heat thermostat; long before automatic set back ones our house had him to do it. (We learned to never go potty at night or risk freezing to death during winter.) Gas was plentiful then; we combined trips. We had 1 new car only.

I don't take long showers or drive much; when I lived where there was public transportation I took it. I turn off lights; I take very short showers. Only things I've added are recycling and purchasing used goods besides cars whenever possible. BTW, I produced only 1 child who met a young lady who adores thrift stores and saving money. He was raised with my ideas so he considered her quite normal.

BTW, we were not poor by any means--my parents did not believe in waste.

[vitin6039]

In honor to the late George Carlin and I quote:

"The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your ****, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1214234683p8/22782.jpg

[momoese]

In honor to the late George Carlin and I quote:

"The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your ****, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1214234683p8/22782.jpg


I love George and if this was just about the planet this would be great, but it's not. The question is how we the human race can keep this planet, the only one we have to live on, in a hospitable condition so we (the human race) can continue to survive.

[caliboy1994]

I love George and if this was just about the planet this would be great, but it's not. The question is how we the human race can keep this planet, the only one we have to live on, in a hospitable condition so we (the human race) can continue to survive.

I agree. Give it a few million years of us being gone, and Earth will recover no matter what. But when we mess with its natural balance now, what we are really jeopardizing is our own survival.

[designshark]

The surface temp has raised what.05 degree in the past 20 years? That means what? I think we the human race have come a long way! We have been improving our lives and practically everything around us. I call it progress. God gave us this earth to use and populate. We should use mother earth in a conservative manner and realize not everyone plays fair.

[caliboy1994]

The surface temp has raised what.05 degree in the past 20 years? That means what? I think we the human race have come a long way! We have been improving our lives and practically everything around us. I call it progress. God gave us this earth to use and populate. We should use mother earth in a conservative manner and realize not everyone plays fair.

We have come very far since the birth of our civilization in many ways, and especially in the past century. There's no arguing that. But 0.5 degrees Celsius (not Fahrenheit) is actually a lot when you take into account the effects that it can have on our planet's climate system. And I think the grand total now since the onset of the Industrial Era is about double that. Yes, we need to use our planet's resources more sustainably. No, we cannot just sit idly by when there are people who are doing things like destroying our forests for profit or making money off of fuels that are causing the disruption of our planet's climate. In order to ensure our survival, we cannot allow people to use our planet's resources unsustainably, that's the bottom line.

[Yug]

We have come very far since the birth of our civilization in many ways, and especially in the past century. There's no arguing that. But 0.5 degrees Celsius (not Fahrenheit) is actually a lot when you take into account the effects that it can have on our planet's climate system. And I think the grand total now since the onset of the Industrial Era is about double that. Yes, we need to use our planet's resources more sustainably. No, we cannot just sit idly by when there are people who are doing things like destroying our forests for profit or making money off of fuels that are causing the disruption of our planet's climate. In order to ensure our survival, we cannot allow people to use our planet's resources unsustainably, that's the bottom line.

Still beating this dead horse? We have had temp increases in the far past, too. I wonder what those were from? Also, what makes you so sure that man should survive if man is the cause of problems? Let the planet do what it will do, and perhaps man survives, perhaps not. Besides, unless India and commie China stop what they are doing, you are wasting your time, and punishing one of the few industrialized nations that actually cares. When the 'don't-give-a-damn' nations take over, they dictate terms to us, and all you (and people that think like you) have done is waste your time, and ruin our nation & livlihood. Think the issue through to the end, and you'll see. Until you and the other 'chicken-little's' can compel all nations to do something about it - all you are doing is hurting us. (if we are stupid enough to buy into it) Why do you hate the U.S. so much?

[Funkthulhu]

Still beating this dead horse? Climate Change Denial?

We have had temp increases in the far past, too. Never so fast or caused by the actions of a single species

I wonder what those were from? Natural cycles

Also, what makes you so sure that man should survive if man is the cause of problems? Let the planet do what it will do, and perhaps man survives, perhaps not. We can gloat about supposed climate change when we pry it from your Hot dead fingers...

Besides, unless India and commie China stop what they are doing, you are wasting your time, and punishing one of the few industrialized nations that actually cares. Because this is 'MURRICA!!! And if it's hard we're too weinery to try anyway.

When the 'don't-give-a-damn' nations take over, they dictate terms to us, and all you (and people that think like you) have done is waste your time, and ruin our nation & livlihood. Perhaps you have forgotten the 1940's through the signing of the clean water act when we were the "don't-give-a-damn" nation? We got better, so will they. People are already raising hell in China because the smog is so bad. And we do what we want for the betterment of our society regardless of what other countries do. They dictate nothing.

Think the issue through to the end, and you'll see. Until you and the other 'chicken-little's' can compel all nations to do something about it - all you are doing is hurting us. (if we are stupid enough to buy into it) Why do you hate the U.S. so much? Because, again, 'MURRICA!!! #1!!! And the "all or nothing" argument is always thrown in at the end when the debater has given up on their argument. It is the worst mentality and if that were the case than we wouldn't have clean water or air in our country because it wouldn't have all happened at once. Sometimes you just have to get the ball rolling and others help push it along the way until everybody is behind the ball. I mean, unless you want to be a Debbie Downer, Nay-Saying, Quitter?

I hope that clears some of that up....
Also, watch this: Global Warming and the Polar Vortex - YouTube (http://youtu.be/8Rl9_JvEKaY)
It explains A LOT, and briefly.

Whee!

[caliboy1994]

Meanwhile, in Australia....

Boiling over: Extreme heat causes stir at Australian Open (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/01/14/boiling-over-extreme-heat-causes-stir-at-australia-open/)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2014/01/gfs_t2m_anomf_aus_5.png

[parillo12]

Woow, a little to much to read but very interesting.

[caliboy1994]

Still beating this dead horse? We have had temp increases in the far past, too. I wonder what those were from? Also, what makes you so sure that man should survive if man is the cause of problems? Let the planet do what it will do, and perhaps man survives, perhaps not. Besides, unless India and commie China stop what they are doing, you are wasting your time, and punishing one of the few industrialized nations that actually cares. When the 'don't-give-a-damn' nations take over, they dictate terms to us, and all you (and people that think like you) have done is waste your time, and ruin our nation & livlihood. Think the issue through to the end, and you'll see. Until you and the other 'chicken-little's' can compel all nations to do something about it - all you are doing is hurting us. (if we are stupid enough to buy into it) Why do you hate the U.S. so much?

I have an idea, Yug. Let's play a logic game. So let's assume for a moment that climate change/global warming isn't really happening for whatever reason. And that we take no action. What happens then? Nothing. Everything is the same. Now let's assume that it is not happening and we DO take action. The world economy suffers a bit because of our clamping down on fossil fuels. Developing nations suffer particularly, and countries such as the United States and China who rely heavily on fossil fuels might have recessions due to rapid shifts in the energy economy. But eventually everything turns out fine within a few decades.

Now, let's assume that it IS happening. And we take action. We successfully mitigate the crisis. A few economic setbacks, pretty much the same as stated above, and the damage done so far by climate change has been minimized. Now, let's assume that it is happening and we take NO action. Worldwide economic collapse, sea level rise, mass extinction, and perhaps the collapse of civilization altogether in some areas of the globe that are more vulnerable to climate disruption. Perhaps a billion or so people die within a few decades, and a billion or so more are displaced and become climate refugees. Resource wars, famine, mass migration, and the collapse of many countries' political, social, and economic systems becomes the new norm. This could all potentially happen in this last scenario, it is entirely possible.

Let's make another assumption. Assume that we have no way of knowing that climate change/global warming is actually happening. As many distinguished "climate skeptics" argue, the evidence is inconclusive. Now, we have to pick a path to take given the four scenarios above. Take no action, or do something about it. Given the benefits and consequences of each potential scenario, what do you think is the best course of action?

[harveyc]

Andreas, what do you mean by "suffering a bit"?

Give this a try, go without using any fossil fuels for the next week and let us know how the week has gone.

[designshark]

I'm not convinced there is a crises with climate change/global warming or what ever else they're going to call it tomorrow. The ice age had to melt some how and I don't think it was burning of fossil fuels. How about the great biblical flood? Where did all the water go? Record keeping is much more accurate than it was say 10, 20 or 50 years ago. Too many people are getting way too wee wee'd up over all this and the policies in place and still coming are going to crush the human race way sooner that an Australian heat wave, a hurricane in New Jersey or tornados in Oklahoma. None of these events are new, they are exploited and politicized to try and convince many people there is a problem and we need to pay. Pay who? Who gains by all this skewed science? Sure isn't me or you. Do you think Mother Earth is going to send you a thank you card if you lower her by half a degree? Maybe, just maybe there is nothing we have done to cause climate change (changes everyday at my house) and the earth will correct herself over time. Now that's a concept!

[caliboy1994]

Andreas, what do you mean by "suffering a bit"?

Give this a try, go without using any fossil fuels for the next week and let us know how the week has gone.

I was assuming that the transition to a non-fossil fuel economy would take years or decades. This is not about just suddenly stopping using fossil fuels, that would wreck the entire world economy. If it was done over a period of years, yes, there could be a recession. That's what I meant. Given the technology we have now, it's entirely possible for all developed nations to ditch fossil fuels completely. In fact, in much of the developed world, I'm sure if we eliminated all fossil fuel subsidies within a few years solar would outcompete coal and oil on the market. Give it a few more years and the same thing goes for natural gas. Asking me to ditch fossil fuels for a week is a red herring.

[caliboy1994]

I'm not convinced there is a crises with climate change/global warming or what ever else they're going to call it tomorrow. The ice age had to melt some how and I don't think it was burning of fossil fuels. How about the great biblical flood? Where did all the water go? Record keeping is much more accurate than it was say 10, 20 or 50 years ago. Too many people are getting way too wee wee'd up over all this and the policies in place and still coming are going to crush the human race way sooner that an Australian heat wave, a hurricane in New Jersey or tornados in Oklahoma. None of these events are new, they are exploited and politicized to try and convince many people there is a problem and we need to pay. Pay who? Who gains by all this skewed science? Sure isn't me or you. Do you think Mother Earth is going to send you a thank you card if you lower her by half a degree? Maybe, just maybe there is nothing we have done to cause climate change (changes everyday at my house) and the earth will correct herself over time. Now that's a concept!

You are right. The earth will correct itself overtime if we stop adding greenhouse gases to it on a massive scale.

[sunfish]

Actions speak louder than words

[harveyc]

It wasn't a red herring. You didn't specify what you meant. I have yet to see any plan to convert completely away from fossil fuels. For one thing, I've not seen an solution for replacing fossil fuels for shipping, rail, long haul trucks, or even high power construction and farm machinery.

[caliboy1994]

It wasn't a red herring. You didn't specify what you meant. I have yet to see any plan to convert completely away from fossil fuels. For one thing, I've not seen an solution for replacing fossil fuels for shipping, rail, long haul trucks, or even high power construction and farm machinery.

Actually, I did specify. And I quote:

The world economy suffers a bit because of our clamping down on fossil fuels. Developing nations suffer particularly, and countries such as the United States and China who rely heavily on fossil fuels might have recessions due to rapid shifts in the energy economy.

And when it comes to transportation, I think what we should be more focused on is getting our food locally. Right now our food is shipped thousands of miles across the country just to end up on your shelf. Not only is this inefficient, it creates emissions and requires fossil fuel, at least as of now. And I can imagine electric construction and farm equipment coming on the market as our ability to charge and release electricity increases. And of course there is the possibility of thorium-based nuclear, which has the potential to change everything and power the entire country for thousands of years to come. I don't think we need to eliminate fossil fuels entirely either. They will still have their niche uses. We just shouldn't be using them as our main source of power generation and transportation.

[caliboy1994]

Also, record-breaking heat and drought in my state is causing wildfires out of season. Again. Climate change? Yeah, I'm being directly affected by it. Extreme Red Flag Fire Warnings Across Southern California, As Drought And Wind Fuel Fire | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/16/3173731/extreme-warnings-southern-california/)

[designshark]

I didn't realize drought regardless of it's season was new. I remember something called The Dust Bowl . . .

Nucular power, now you're talking.

As far as subsidies are concerned, they're all a waste. The new green energy rush would be no where without them. The money dumped into wind and solar far out weigh the subsidies for anything I can think of. Green energy is not profitable. Until a break through like the invention of the transistor is made in the wind and solar energy field, It will only be a waste of money, mismanaged by fat pocket lining bureaucrats looking out for their campaign contributing buddies, not the planet. We all pay more for less and loose.

[caliboy1994]

I didn't realize drought regardless of it's season was new. I remember something called The Dust Bowl . . .

Nucular power, now you're talking.

As far as subsidies are concerned, they're all a waste. The new green energy rush would be no where without them. The money dumped into wind and solar far out weigh the subsidies for anything I can think of. Green energy is not profitable. Until a break through like the invention of the transistor is made in the wind and solar energy field, It will only be a waste of money, mismanaged by fat pocket lining bureaucrats looking out for their campaign contributing buddies, not the planet. We all pay more for less and loose.

Drought may not be new, but some recent drought events' scale is new. Take the Amazon droughts of 2005 and 2010, and Australia's unprecedented decade long drought followed by torrential floods.

Also, the thing with green energy is that it USED to be not profitable. Some forms of it, especially solar, are set to become so cheap that they will outcompete everything else within a few years. Solar is already so cheap in Australia that coal plants are being decommissioned and replaced by solar plants. Then again, the specific form of nuclear that I was referring to has the potential to power everything with low levels of waste for thousands of years to come.

http://solarcellcentral.com/images/solar_prices.jpg

And yes, there are a lot of subsidies for fossil fuels. Conservative estimates are about $50 billion/year. Imagine how much cheaper green energy would be compared to fossil fuels (especially coal and oil) if we eliminated all of those. I sincerely think that with the price of solar and wind still dropping, the free market will do its job in maybe a decade or two and fossil fuels simply won't be able to compete. :08:

[caliboy1994]

Also, FYI:

http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_51/noaa_snowpack630px_0.jpg

[Yug]

Those are what one poster here called "extreme short-term, localized weather events" when they are cold spells, but are 'disasters' and 'proof positive' when they support the 'global warming' delusion. Sounds pretty much one-way to me.

[Funkthulhu]

So this guy is really feeling sick and he goes to 100 doctors to ask what the problem is.

Now, the guy is hoping that he's just got a bit of abdominal pain that will go way on its own, because he really doesn't have the time or money to deal with a bigger problem, and he's already sure it's not a serious problem. (don't ask me how he afforded 100 doctors...)

However, every single doctor firmly says that he has appendicitis and that without treatment he is likely to die within the week. All except the last doctor. The last doctor says, "It's probably appendicitis, but I would say there is a 1 in 100 chance it's just something you ate."

The man, seeing that there is a slim chance what he already believes is right goes with the least likely explanation because he has to do nothing about it. Then, 5 days later, he dies. . .

---

A slightly shorter version: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think."

[caliboy1994]

Those are what one poster here called "extreme short-term, localized weather events" when they are cold spells, but are 'disasters' and 'proof positive' when they support the 'global warming' delusion. Sounds pretty much one-way to me.

Both the recent cold spells and record breaking drought that is affecting my state are consistent with climate change models. Also, you never responded to my logic experiment.

[Yug]

Both the recent cold spells and record breaking drought that is affecting my state are consistent with climate change models. Also, you never responded to my logic experiment.

Because your arguments, and your 'game' are tedious. Especially considering that I've already addressed your concerns if you had actually read my posts with anything other than blinders on. So, since you blow off my posts, why are yours any better? Also, you never responded to my comments about a few things, either. For example: the email scandal, cherry picking of temp results. Instead you make unrealistic assumptions.

Here; I'll show you your assumption problems.

I have an idea, Yug. Let's play a logic game. So let's assume for a moment that climate change/global warming isn't really happening for whatever reason. And that we take no action. What happens then? Nothing. Everything is the same. Now let's assume that it is not happening and we DO take action. The world economy suffers a bit because of our clamping down on fossil fuels. Developing nations suffer particularly, and countries such as the United States and China who rely heavily on fossil fuels might have recessions due to rapid shifts in the energy economy. But eventually everything turns out fine within a few decades.
First off, your assumption is not logical that the world economy will suffer. China takes care of China. They don't give a shyte about anything/anyone besides their own welfare, and how to further their power/wealth/influence. To them, economics is merely war by other means. If you don't believe that, you are not worth any further discussion of any issue that affects them. (I've worked in areas where I dealt with INTEL of various sorts, so I KNOW what I'm talking about when it comes to them) With that, it will NOT be the world economy that takes a hit, it is ours, the U.S. - because China and India won't play your game. China then becomes the world power as the U.S. slides into third world obscurity. Now our new masters are dictating terms, and guess what? They STILL won't play your game. Now we are totally fcuked, thanks to your little game of fools, and the pollution from China (and others) continues unabated. Meanwhile, algore and his buddies got rich trading these sham 'carbon credits', and we see we have been clearly duped, but now it is too late to put things to right.


Now, let's assume that it IS happening. And we take action. We successfully mitigate the crisis. A few economic setbacks, pretty much the same as stated above, and the damage done so far by climate change has been minimized. Now, let's assume that it is happening and we take NO action. Worldwide economic collapse, sea level rise, mass extinction, and perhaps the collapse of civilization altogether in some areas of the globe that are more vulnerable to climate disruption. Perhaps a billion or so people die within a few decades, and a billion or so more are displaced and become climate refugees. Resource wars, famine, mass migration, and the collapse of many countries' political, social, and economic systems becomes the new norm. This could all potentially happen in this last scenario, it is entirely possible.
Another flaw in your 'logic' based on your assumption (again) that we can 'mitigate' anything. This is because of what I said above: China, and probably India won't play. Their govts only want development. The U.S. may be the only major industrial nation that even listens to the enviro whackos (the brainwashed nuts that want to do anything/everything against global warming) in the first place (probably because we haven't jailed or shot enough of them) which is probably why the scam was begun in the U.S.; where else would you find enough tree-hugger anti-industry 'ohh-noo-we're-killing-the-Earth' idiots to dupe? Try this in China, and you disappear or get shot in the head. Try this in India, and you end up fertilizing a farmers crops.

Also, I won't assume it IS happening, since I don't believe it in the first place. We have had warming periods in the past that have still not been explained if all you go on is the CO2 levels. Also, the email scandal shows they intentionally altered the data with full intent to deceive No-one here has made any attempt yet to determine why they did that - unless they had to because the raw data wouldn't support their argument. They also cherry picked temp readings from built up areas (areas where the heat is reflected instead of absorbed by surroundings, and ignored readings that didn't fit their temp increase agenda. This is not based on assumptions, which you seem rather free with, this was proven to have occurred (and you still have not addressed these items, but instead you ignore them, and then expect me to play YOUR game? again, sounds one-way to me - and still tedious)

Let's make another assumption. Assume that we have no way of knowing that climate change/global warming is actually happening. As many distinguished "climate skeptics" argue, the evidence is inconclusive. Now, we have to pick a path to take given the four scenarios above. Take no action, or do something about it. Given the benefits and consequences of each potential scenario, what do you think is the best course of action?

You last assumption is also bogus - we CAN know if it is happening, but it must be based on solid science, not a cadre of agenda-driven (maybe politically motivated, or bribed) conspirators with the proven intent to deceive the world for their personal anti-development beliefs, and others who will profit from trading 'carbon-credits'.

Here is my bottom line: if it even was happening (which I don't for one moment believe), the worst polluter can not be compelled to play along. They are becoming a world power already, and doing what the 'the-sky-is-falling' chicken-little types suggest would hasten their rise to power. Here is my logic: because of this (that they won't play), accept it; you couldn't change it since you can't compel them to comply unless you want to go to war. That war may involve nukes. You think that won't pollute? So... in case that was not clear - you can't affect enough change, accept it, move on to your next 'cause-of-the-moment'.

(will this do until you once-again ignore / fail-to-address these points?)

[Funkthulhu]

Here is my bottom line: if it even was happening (which I don't for one moment believe), the worst polluter can not be compelled to play along. They are becoming a world power already, and doing what the 'the-sky-is-falling' chicken-little types suggest would hasten their rise to power. Here is my logic: because of this (that they won't play), accept it; you couldn't change it since you can't compel them to comply unless you want to go to war. That war may involve nukes. You think that won't pollute? So... in case that was not clear - you can't affect enough change, accept it, move on to your next 'cause-of-the-moment'.

(will this do until you once-again ignore / fail-to-address these points?)

Your bottom line is inherently flawed because the science doesn't care what you believe. The facts of global warming have been proven over and over and the fact of anthropogenic forcing is also no longer in any doubt. If we pretend for a moment that your crappy country keeps polluting to get an edge, the environmentally aware countries won't. They rest of the world, without ever lifting a military finger, will end your polluter by enacting carbon-based tariffs and creating their own carbon-friendly industry. Your country dies in economic collapse because nobody buys their stuff and they cannot continue to produce or pollute as they were.
(and btw, I love how your arguments always slide straight into the worst case scenario. "We can't force them to not pollute without NUKES!!! blah blah blah!" Ease up there, man, you'll bust a blood vessel.)

[caliboy1994]

You want me to not skim over your posts and go through everything you say? Fine.

First point. Chinese officials are already working towards taking action against their own country's carbon emissions and investing heavily in renewable power (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/07/27/china-leads-the-world-in-renewable-energy-investment/). YOUR assumption that countries like China and India will never do anything is inherently flawed. It's not like they're immune to the effects of climate change. Parts of China and MUCH of India is going to get drier if this continues. So you think they wouldn't be concerned about it at all? They know it's happening, and that it's a big problem. Since climate change is an issue that affects everyone, it DOES threaten to tank the world economy as well. Yet, it is possible to have an economy that doesn't rely almost exclusively on fossil fuels. You're also forgetting about European countries and their contributions to GHG emissions, which is greater than that of the United States. And THEY are doing things about it too. And of course, the power that the United Nations has to make emissions treaties like the Montreal Protocol (which was a runaway success that halted the destruction of the ozone layer, it is now expected to make a full recovery by 2070). And as Funkthulhu pointed out, carbon tariffs, which countries may resort too if the situation gets particularly bad.

Your statement that the US is the only country that has ever listened to environmentalists is erroneous too. Brazil listened to environmentalists who were protesting deforestation, so they implemented a new satellite monitoring program to track illegal deforestation that ended up cutting deforestation rates in half over the course of a few years. Costa Rica, which is set to become the one of the wealthiest nations (per capita) in the Western Hemisphere, has strict environmental laws and a national park system that allows it to both have a robust, rapidly growing economy and pristine natural beauty and biodiversity. And as I stated above, the European Union is genuinely concerned about climate change and many European countries (notably Germany) are already transitioning their energy economies away from fossil fuels. Maybe you should do your research before saying things like that.

Why is it you think that attempting to transition our economy to something that is better for both the environment and the health of the populace will destroy the country? It calls for investing in new, state of the art technologies and new companies that comprise one of the most rapidly growing industries in the world. I thought investment in something that has so much promise is a good thing? Even if there are economic hardships along the way, the benefit in the end will FAR exceed the cost. It would be great to have no more smog in Los Angeles, but I doubt you've ever had to experience something like that on a daily basis, or have not experienced it in a while, since you live in Hawaii where the biggest problem is exotic species rather than rampant air pollution. And how about being able to generate your own electricity for pennies on the dollar with solar? That would be great too, wouldn't it? No more water pollution from coal mining (see what just happened in West Virginia) or fracking? And no more oil spills? Count me in! I'd love to see what happens to our economy once we make that transition. Cancer rates would probably plummet due to less exposure to toxic chemicals from fossil fuels and air pollution, easing the strain on our healthcare system and making healthcare cheaper. People spend less on medical bills, meaning they have more money to put into consumption. More consumption creates more jobs, on top of the jobs that were created in the new clean energy industry. Those are probably just a few of the effects it would have, on top of less severe climate change, which would have had the potential to cripple the ENTIRE WORLD'S economy. In the end, it would probably end up providing a massive economic stimulus.

Next point. Yes, we have had warming and cooling periods in the past. But these periods have been very strongly correlated with variances in greenhouse gas concentrations. GHG levels go down, average temperature goes down. GHG levels go up, average temperature goes up. You know why? Because greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. This is not rocket science. I don't need to explain this simple concept, the graph will for me.

http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/2.jpg

Now, your last point. You are right. My last assumption was wrong. We CAN know it is happening. And we DO, with 99% certainty. The fact that people like you continue to stick your fingers into your ears and scream "LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!" doesn't change anything. It didn't change anything about the reality of the hole in the ozone layer, it didn't change anything about the reality of the fact that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, it didn't change anything about the reality of Darwinian evolution or the age of the universe. You are not a scientist. You can't prove that it's not happening, but you can believe that it's not happening. You have every right to. Beliefs are just that -- beliefs. I could very well say that I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that injecting heroin cures cancer, or that the world's governments are secretly controlled by alien space leprechauns from Alpha Centauri. That doesn't make any of it true.

It's clear to me that you did a thorough analysis of the logic game I had prepared for you. I'm going to assume for a moment that you are a rational human being, regardless of what you believe. That may or may not be true, but for the purpose of this, I will assume that it is true. If you, a rational human being, decided to play the game, and assess the potential risks and rewards of each situation, your rationale would lead you to only one conclusion. That the best course of action would be to do something about climate change. But it seems to me that you are so closed-minded and dead set on your own belief that it isn't happening that you aren't even willing to ponder it. Either that, or you simply refused to take the challenge because you knew you would have been proven wrong in the end.

[CountryBoy1981]

Well Caliboy, how do you propose we prevent co2 escaping from volcanoes as that is the worst emitter.

[caliboy1994]

Well Caliboy, how do you propose we prevent co2 escaping from volcanoes as that is the worst emitter.

Another common myth. Humans emit around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 a year. Volcanoes emit about 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, or about 1% of what humans are responsible for. Essentially, volcanoes are a non-issue here.

[caliboy1994]

Oh, and here you go, Yug. China taking action. Quoted from Wikipedia:

"Climate change mitigation measures

The People's Republic of China is an active participant in the climate change talks and other multilateral environmental negotiations, and claims to take environmental challenges seriously but is pushing for the developed world to help developing countries to a greater extent. It is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, although China is not required to reduce its carbon emissions under the terms of the present agreement.

The Chinese national carbon trading scheme was announced in November 2008 by the national government to enforce a compulsory carbon emission trading scheme across the country's provinces as part of its strategy to create a "low carbon civilisation". The scheme would allow provinces to earn money by investing in carbon capture systems in those regions that fail to invest in the technology.

In 2004, Premier Wen Jiabao promised to use an “iron hand” to make China more energy efficient. China has surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other renewable energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas kilometrage for cars. With $34.6 billion invested in clean technology in 2009, China is the world's leading investor in renewable energy technologies. China produces more wind turbines and solar panels each year than any other country."

[sunfish]

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Mauna Loa, Hawaii
Weekly Mauna Loa
Global
CO2 Movie
Interactive Plots

Contents

Recent Global CO2
Annual Mean Global CO2 Growth Rates
Global CO2 Data

Recent Global CO2
November 2013: 395.92 ppm
November 2012: 393.45 ppm
Global CO2

PDF Version

The graph shows recent monthly mean carbon dioxide globally averaged over marine surface sites. The Global Monitoring Division of NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory has measured carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for several decades at a globally distributed network of air sampling sites [Conway, 1994]. A global average is constructed by first fitting a smoothed curve as a function of time to each site, and then the smoothed value for each site is plotted as a function of latitude for 48 equal time steps per year. A global average is calculated from the latitude plot at each time step [Masarie, 1995]. Go here for more details on how global means are calculated.

The last four complete years plus the current year are shown here. The last year of data are still preliminary, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks.

Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm.

The dashed red line with diamond symbols represents the monthly mean values, centered on the middle of each month. The black line with the square symbols represents the same, after correction for the average seasonal cycle.

The latter is determined as a moving average of SEVEN adjacent seasonal cycles centered on the month to be corrected, except for the first and last THREE and one-half years of the record, where the seasonal cycle has been averaged over the first and last SEVEN years, respectively.

Click for a comparison with recent trends in carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which has the longest continuous record of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements.
Annual Mean Global Carbon Dioxide Growth Rates
Year ppm/yr Unc. 1959 0.96 0.31 1960 0.71 0.27 1961 0.78 0.27 1962 0.56 0.27 1963 0.57 0.28 1964 0.49 0.27 1965 1.10 0.26 1966 1.10 0.28 1967 0.61 0.34 1968 0.99 0.32 1969 1.32 0.29 1970 1.13 0.32 1971 0.73 0.30 1972 1.47 0.31 1973 1.46 0.31 1974 0.68 0.31 1975 1.23 0.27 1976 0.97 0.28 1977 1.92 0.29 1978 1.29 0.24 1979 2.14 0.26 1980 1.72 0.17 1981 1.15 0.12 1982 1.00 0.08 1983 1.82 0.09 1984 1.25 0.11 1985 1.64 0.08 1986 1.03 0.14 1987 2.71 0.09 1988 2.24 0.09 1989 1.36 0.09 1990 1.17 0.08 1991 0.79 0.09 1992 0.67 0.10 1993 1.22 0.07 1994 1.69 0.12 1995 1.94 0.11 1996 1.07 0.07 1997 1.97 0.07 1998 2.84 0.10 1999 1.34 0.07 2000 1.24 0.10 2001 1.81 0.10 2002 2.39 0.07 2003 2.24 0.10 2004 1.61 0.05 2005 2.42 0.07 2006 1.74 0.06 2007 2.10 0.07 2008 1.78 0.05 2009 1.66 0.10 2010 2.45 0.06 2011 1.71 0.09 2012 2.42 0.09 2013 2.63 0.09

The table shows annual mean carbon dioxide growth rates based on globally averaged marine surface data.

The annual mean rate of growth of CO2 in a given year is the difference in concentration between the end of December and the start of January of that year. It represents the sum of all CO2 added to, and removed from, the atmosphere during the year by human activities and by natural processes. The annual mean growth during the previous year is determined by taking the average of the most recent December and January months, corrected for the average seasonal cycle, as the trend value for January 1, and then subtracting the same December-January average measured one year earlier. Our first estimate for the annual growth rate of the previous year is produced in January of the following year, using data through November of the previous year. That estimate will then be updated in February using data though December, and again in March using data through January. We finalize our estimate for the growth rate of the previous year in the fall of the following year because a few of the air samples on which the global estimate is based are received late in the following year.

The values in this table are subject to change depending on quality control checks of the measured data, but any revisions are expected to be small. The estimates of the global mean CO2 concentration, and thus the annual growth rate, are updated every month as new data come in. The statistics are as follows. If we estimate during a given month ("m") the global average CO2 during the previous month ("m-1"), the result differs from the estimate made (up to almost a year later) when all the data are in, with a standard deviation of 0.57 ppm. For month m-2, the standard deviation is 0.17 ppm, and for month m-3 it is 0.10 ppm. We decided to provide the global mean estimates with a lag of two months. Thus, a December average is first calculated during the following February.

The estimated uncertainty in the global annual mean growth rate varies by year, and has been estimated by a bootstrap technique for 1980 and later. One hundred different realizations of a global network were constructed by randomly picking sites, with restitution, from our existing marine boundary layer sites in the NOAA/ESRL cooperative air sampling network (Conway, 1994). Each member of the ensemble of networks has the same number of sites as the real network, but some sites are missing, while others are represented more than once. An additional condition is that at least one southern high latitude site is present, one tropical and one northern high latitude site, because we have always maintained broad latitude coverage in the real network. Temporal data gaps at individual sites are present in the bootstrap networks. The reported uncertainties are the 1-sigma standard deviations for each year's growth rate of the ensemble members. Pre-1980 the annual growth rate and uncertainty have been calculated from the average of the Mauna Loa and South Pole records (before 1974 as measured by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography), as detailed in Ballantyne et al. (2012).
Data
The complete globally averaged CO2 records described on this page are available.

Globally averaged marine surface monthly mean data
Globally averaged marine surface annual mean data
Globally averaged marine surface annual mean growth rates.

See change log and notes
How to reference content from this page

Ed Dlugokencky and Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL (ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/))
Contact

Ed Dlugokencky, NOAA/ESRL, ph. 303 497 6228, Ed.Dlugokencky@noaa.gov
Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL, ph. 303 497 6678, Pieter.Tans@noaa.gov

Further Reading

A.P. Ballantyne, C.B. Alden, J.B. Miller, P.P. Tans, and J.W.C. White, (2012), Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the last 50 years, Nature 488, 70-72.
T.J. Conway, P.P. Tans, L.S. Waterman, K.W. Thoning, D.R. Kitzis, K.A. Masarie, and N. Zhang, (1994), Evidence of interannual variability of the carbon cycle from the NOAA/CMDL global air sampling network, J. Geophys. Research, vol. 99, 22831-22855
K.A. Masarie, P.P. Tans, (1995), Extension and integration of atmospheric carbon dioxide data into a globally consistent measurement record, J. Geopys. Research, vol. 100, 11593-11610

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earth System Research Laboratory | Global Monitoring Division
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html)
Privacy Policy | Accessibility | Disclaimer | USA.gov
Contact Us | Webmaster
Site Map

[sunfish]

Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels
Link to this page
What the science says...

When CO2 emissions are compared directly to CO2 levels, there is a strong correlation in the long term trends. This is independently confirmed by carbon isotopes which find the falling ratio of C13/C12 correlates well with fossil fuel emissions.
Climate Myth...

CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration
'It is easily demonstrated that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over the three years from 1979 to 1982 when CO2 emissions were decreasing due to the rapid increase in the price of oil that drastically reduced consumption, there was no change in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 proving that humans were not the primary source for the increase in concentration.' (Telegraph)

To directly compare CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels, both sets of data can be converted to gigatonnes of CO2. The CO2 emissions data is typically expressed in gigatonnes carbon (GtC). One gigatonne is equal to one billion tonnes. This means they've only included the carbon element of the carbon dioxide molecule. The atomic mass of carbon is 12, while the atomic mass of CO2 is 44. Therefore, to convert from gigatonnes carbon to gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, you simply multiply 44 over 12. In other words, 1 gigatonne of carbon equals 3.67 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using our 44 over 12 rule, this means 1ppm = 7.81 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide. Thus the two time series can both be plotted together expressed as gigatonnes of carbon dioxide:


Figure 1: CO2 levels (Green Line - Law Dome, East Antarctica and Blue line - Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions in gigatonnes of CO2 (Red Line - CDIAC).

So putting it all together, Figure 1 is a plot of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (top) versus the total amount of CO2 humans have emitted into the atmosphere (bottom). Several features jump out. Firstly, the similar shape of the curves (dare I say hockey stick shaped). We have correlation but do we have causality?

It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere might have a causality link with the amount of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, further confirmation comes by analysing the types of CO2 found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.


Figure 3: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr–1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). (IPCC AR4)

Last updated on 14 January 2014 by John Cook. View Archives

Printable Version | Offline PDF Version | Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 1:

jenikhollan at 04:55 AM on 22 May, 2010
The rate of increase of CO2 levels had changed of course even in 1979 to 1982. It fluctuates a lot all the time, as visible from Mauna Loa or global data. This is due to due to the changing fluxes between atmosphere and other pools. A minor signal of yearly variability of human-emitted CO2 is scarcely detectable. A historic discussion of variability of concentration rise is within the Charles D. Keeling autobiography Rewards and penalties of monitoring the Earth from 1998. Excellent images on CO2, fossil fuels and the influences onto CO2 rise anomalies are within his 2005 Tyler Prize Presentation.

A minor correction: Law Dome data have 2455 in its URL (the link within the text pointed to Tayler Dome, 2419).
Response: Thanks for the heads-up, have fixed the link.

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page


[The Consensus Project Website]
The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism
Smartphone Apps
iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook

Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us

[sunfish]

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
Filed under:

Climate Science
FAQ
Greenhouse gases
Paleoclimate

— eric @ 22 December 2004 - (Svenska) (Español) (Français)

digg
7

EmailShare

Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
—————————
Notes
*How much they can be expected to absorb in the long run is an interesting and important scientific question, discussed in some detail in Chapter 3 of the IPCC report. Clearly, though, it is our ability to produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb that it is the fundamental cause of the observed increase since pre-industrial times.
**The development of continuous series of tree rings going back thousands of years by using trees of overlapping age, is known as dendrochronology (see the Arizona Tree Ring lab web pages for more information on this).
***There is a graph illustrating the sponge data posted here. Thanks to F. Boehm for providing this link.
- See more at: RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/#sthash.qn8tfQhy.dpuf)

[Yug]

Is there a link (demonstrable and directly-proportional) between any of that information and temps?

[Yug]

Well Caliboy, how do you propose we prevent co2 escaping from volcanoes as that is the worst emitter.

Giant corks

(and regarding china... talk is cheap; they will pretend to be going along with it just to keep up the appearance of interest)

[caliboy1994]

Is there a link (demonstrable and directly-proportional) between any of that information and temps?

CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere by its very nature, because it absorbs visible light and rereleases in infrared wavelengths (which transfer heat, when you feel heat on your face when you're near a fire it's from the infrared wavelengths). From a logical standpoint, it's easy to say that if you raise CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels in the lower atmosphere, where the weather occurs, things will get hotter on average. There is also evidence from things ice cores, tree rings, and sediments that points to a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 and average global temperatures. Here's the graph again in case you missed it. It's from ice core analysis, which is a very accurate way of measuring long term temperature and atmospheric composition.

http://www.zapcarbon.com/Portals/0/images/co2-vs-temp.jpg

And as for the China/India situation, I guess we'll have to wait and see. They are at least making some progress. The free market will make solar cheaper for everyone anyways within a couple of decades.

[Kat2]

Okay, what are all of you who believe in global warning doing to stop it? I've done my part; I recycle, I drive very little (combine trips), flush judiciously and much more. What are you doing to limit your carbon footprint? BTW, I had only 1 child who shops at thrift stores, knows how to take a short shower and follows a simple life despite earning a very good salary while living in a very wasteful area of the country.

I've done my part and still do.

Et tu?

[caliboy1994]

Okay, what are all of you who believe in global warning doing to stop it? I've done my part; I recycle, I drive very little (combine trips), flush judiciously and much more. What are you doing to limit your carbon footprint? BTW, I had only 1 child who shops at thrift stores, knows how to take a short shower and follows a simple life despite earning a very good salary while living in a very wasteful area of the country.

I've done my part and still do.

Et tu?

It's very difficult given my situation to be as green as I possibly can, as I don't live on my own yet. Since I'm a college student I'm living in a dorm room. But my school is also one of the most environmentally responsible in the US and Canada. Much of the food in the dining hall is sourced from within 100 miles of the school, a lot of the school's power is generated renewably on campus via solar, a good deal of the rest is generated renewably off campus, it has a strict water conservation regime, new buildings are LEED certified, and we are cutting back on the use of paper by making as many things electronic as possible. The fact that my school is so green is one of the reasons I chose to come here. In the future, I plan to grow most of my food myself and live off of the grid using solar power.

[sunfish]

When it gets more convenient I'm going to live green

[Funkthulhu]

I could consume as though it were a contest and I still would beat a lot of people in the green-living game. I have no kids, so their carbon and their children's carbon, etc. will not be added to my tally.

I don't consume as if it were a contest, I actually do what I can to use more efficient technology, grow my own food, and so on. But not being a breeder I am already way ahead of the game. (and I can always spoil my nieces and nephew if I long for the comfort of my own genetic propagation)

[momoese]

I could consume as though it were a contest and I still would beat a lot of people in the green-living game. I have no kids, so their carbon and their children's carbon, etc. will not be added to my tally.

I don't consume as if it were a contest, I actually do what I can to use more efficient technology, grow my own food, and so on. But not being a breeder I am already way ahead of the game. (and I can always spoil my nieces and nephew if I long for the comfort of my own genetic propagation)

Ditto

[sunfish]

The Earthgym, Mick Dodge ~ nature connection by outdoor fitness, yoga (http://www.theearthgym.com/#!mick-dodge/c24jz)

[Kat2]

Sorry, I was a bit off last night. But I did train my child well. His small footprint is probably because he was raised to pinch a penny by me. (The ex hadn't a clue and never will.)

DS lives in Catonsville, MD so he has the snow and cold but I have no doubt he layers rather than turn up the thermostat. (Fortunately he teamed up with a kindred soul.) He grew up with window ACs in an old Victorian; his new house probably has central but I'm willing to bet he keeps it on the warm side or closes vents in unused areas. (Yes Baltimore can get miserably uncomfortable.)

Even when I was in a dorm room I took short showers; it can be done. (Honestly I don't understand why someone needs 45 minutes under streaming/steaming water to get clean--I really don't. Get wet, turn off the water, soap up, rinse off. Done.)

ETA: I was audited by WSSC not once but twice because they couldn't believe I used so little water in a huge house occupied by a family of 3. They were sure my meter was broken. Nope.

[scottu]

And that is it in a nutshell, do all "you" can to not waste and preserve, the rest is bull shot!!!! And you guys are not even close!!!Though we do appreciate that never ending tenacity!

[CountryBoy1981]

It's very difficult given my situation to be as green as I possibly can, as I don't live on my own yet. Since I'm a college student I'm living in a dorm room. But my school is also one of the most environmentally responsible in the US and Canada. Much of the food in the dining hall is sourced from within 100 miles of the school, a lot of the school's power is generated renewably on campus via solar, a good deal of the rest is generated renewably off campus, it has a strict water conservation regime, new buildings are LEED certified, and we are cutting back on the use of paper by making as many things electronic as possible. The fact that my school is so green is one of the reasons I chose to come here. In the future, I plan to grow most of my food myself and live off of the grid using solar power.

So instead of using a renewable resource in trees for paper, your school has opted to use electronics that use electricity which is more than likely produced from a non-renewable resource? The most "green" way to go through college would be going back to the old school pen and paper.

[Yug]

Here we go again...

global warming activists are at it again.They’re manipulating the data (http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/again-massive-fudging-on-global-warming-temps/)

[CountryBoy1981]

Here we go again...

global warming activists are at it again.They’re manipulating the data (http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/again-massive-fudging-on-global-warming-temps/)

I am shocked to say the least.

[Richard]

This year's El Nino is unprecedented. Southern CA and northern Mexico have had spring-like conditions throughout January and the high pressure in that area has turned the Canadian winter into a hose faucet on the rest of the north american continent. If you can't explain it, that's understandable -- but to deny it is plain foolhardy.
:lurk:

[the flying dutchman]

Maybe a nice read for you all. This is a famous University in what is called "Food Valley" in the Netherlands.

Climate & Water - Wageningen UR (http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Research-Results/Themes/Climate-Water.htm)

Obviously they have concluded that the climate is changing, in any case they are doing some nice scientific research on the subject.

[caliboy1994]

Here we go again...

global warming activists are at it again.They’re manipulating the data (http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/again-massive-fudging-on-global-warming-temps/)

Wing Nut Daily, the epitome of what would be considered a reliable source. And James Inhofe, oh boy that guy is crazy. Why is he even in office?

[caliboy1994]

Maybe a nice read for you all. This is a famous University in what is called "Food Valley" in the Netherlands.

Climate & Water - Wageningen UR (http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Research-Results/Themes/Climate-Water.htm)

Obviously they have concluded that the climate is changing, in any case they are doing some nice scientific research on the subject.

Definitely something worth checking out. Thanks! :bananas_b

[Richard]

I'm sure that people are still out there trying to get on one government funding train or another, and massaging their data either before or after the fact. On the otherhand, all the research that was approved by review boards I served on have been stellar examples of meticulous projects. Never have their results been called into question. Don't expect to hear about it on Faux News either - good science rarely sells.
:lurk:

[caliboy1994]

So instead of using a renewable resource in trees for paper, your school has opted to use electronics that use electricity which is more than likely produced from a non-renewable resource? The most "green" way to go through college would be going back to the old school pen and paper.

Actually, if you read what I'd said, you'd know my school gets most of its power from renewables, namely solar and wind. My university is well on its way to becoming climate neutral. And also, cutting down trees and making paper creates greenhouse gas emissions, even though trees are a renewable resource. Once you cut down a tree, all of the biomass it has stored over its lifetime eventually gets converted into carbon dioxide and methane. And on top of that, that tree is no longer there to suck up CO2 from the atmosphere and store it. Not to mention how terrible clear cutting forests is for soil.

[ez]

Afloat

http://spudcomics.com/comics/2008-11-24-polar.jpg
by Lonnie Easterlin (http://spudcomics.com/)

[sunfish]

I would live green but it's inconvenient for me right now

[CountryBoy1981]

How many of you recycle your fluorescent light bulbs?

[Kat2]

How many of you recycle your fluorescent light bulbs?
I have but don't use them currently so don't. I give the City all of my food cans, plastic, glass and cardboard; I sell my aluminum cans 2x a year. Don't get much for them but it's something towards more beverages. 8 bucks is 8 bucks!