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!

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

Yug

How's this grab ya?
Arctic Ice Sheet Grew 920,000 Sq Miles from 2012 to 2013
Global Cooling New Threat?
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. 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 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

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

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.


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

The graph clearly show a decline of 10.6% per decade, one year increase doesn't make a trend.

__________________

CountryBoy1981

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

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?

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?

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

ez

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


Antarctic ice melting at record rate, study shows
Antarctic ice melting at record rate, study shows | Environment | theguardian.com


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


East Antarctic ice sheet 'vulnerable' to temperature changes
BBC News - East Antarctic ice sheet 'vulnerable' to temperature changes

__________________

Yug

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

Yug

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

ez

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.

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

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.



[Source: Home Page]

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?

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

CountryBoy1981

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

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.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

caliboy1994

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 ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

CountryBoy1981

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?:

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

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).



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.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer