They Should Tell You Climate change

[Jimi H.]

..Now personally I think in years to come we will find that the current climate change is in fact due to not one but a myriad of different factors.

Yea, all factors that increase the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere play a part. For instance, deforestation, as you mention. However, that doesn't change the core issue, namely that various gases in our atmosphere have certain attributes that affect the temperature within the Earth's entire biosphere. Hence we have a whole group af gasses called greenhouse gases. And they were called greenhouse gases long before the subject became a political hot potatoe, and long before right winged/fossil fuel-backed interest groups started undermining the public's view on science!

Also, the ice core drillings show a clear correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

 

[Jimi H.]

I have an absurdly simple-minded observation planned by which to gauge the impact of global warming on my life as an individual. There is a particular spot on the Texas coast where waters of the bay meet the land in a way such that changes in water level should be obvious. I have not been there in decades. Tides at these latitudes are slight. I plan to someday re-visit this site and, quite simply, look down and see if the water is visibly closer to a nearby paved road. We are told to expect catastrophically rising sea levels. And quite frankly--I want to see it for myself. This area is pancake flat and any rise in water levels should be obvious....

Yea, that could be interesting. According to Nat. Geo. "Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s"
Sea Level Rise -- National Geographic

.. I do believe reports that the north polar cap is thinning and glaciers are retreating (Many have been for centuries). ...

Yea, for instance, the Northwest passage opened up for the first time in recorded history in 2007.

Also, houses in Alaska and elsewhere are breaking apart because the permafrost is thawing beneath them.

Run-off from the Greenlandic ice cap is increasing at an alarming rate:
"Satellite measurements show that in the period 1992-2000 the ice sheet lost 51 Gigatonnes per year, adding 1.4 cm to global sea level per decade.
From 2005-2010 263 Gigatonnes per year was lost are equivalent with 0.73 mm per year of sea level rise.
From 2008-2012 the average annual mass loss has increased to 367 Gt (1.0 mm sea level rise)."
Understanding the Greenland Ice Sheet: PolarPortal

 

[pduchesne]

Yea, all factors that increase the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere play a part. For instance, deforestation, as you mention. However, that doesn't change the core issue, namely that various gases in our atmosphere have certain attributes that affect the temperature within the Earth's entire biosphere. Hence we have a whole group af gasses we can label as greenhouse gases. And they were called greenhouse gases long before the subject became a political hot potatoe, and long before right winged/fossil fuel-backed interest groups started undermining the public's view on science!

Also, the ice core drillings show a clear correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

And there you have it. The most compelling evidence of the correlation between CO2 and temperature is the ice core data. And it is a big fat lie. The ice core data proves that the temperature changes FIRST. Then, after up to 800 years later, the CO2 levels rise. I'm sure Jim H. is simply ignorant of this fact, but Al Gore and others profiting from doomsday fears know damn well that this is the case, yet continue to repeat the lie.

Don't believe me, believe these guys: Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III

 

[pduchesne]

Yea, that could be interesting. According to Nat. Geo. "Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s"
Sea Level Rise -- National Geographic


Yea, for instance, the Northwest passage opened up for the first time in recorded history in 2007.

Another huge lie. The northwest passage has been traversed several times in recorded history. The first time was in 1905 by Roald Amundsen Click here if you care even a little about the truth.

I can provide links to the many times the NW passage has been crossed, all prior to 1978, if you are too lazy to do an honest search yourself.

 

[Jimi H.]

And there you have it. The most compelling evidence of the correlation between CO2 and temperature is the ice core data. And it is a big fat lie. The ice core data proves that the temperature changes FIRST. Then, after up to 800 years later, the CO2 levels rise. I'm sure Jim H. is simply ignorant of this fact, but Al Gore and others profiting from doomsday fears know damn well that this is the case, yet continue to repeat the lie.

Don't believe me, believe these guys: Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III

1) If you actually read this article you'll see that the authors are not claiming that their article has any impact on the theory of global warming. But I'm aware that superficial interpretations of complex matter is one of the strategies that deniers hope they can use to muddy the discussion, hoping that people like you will take anything and run with it.

I quote from the conclusion of the article:

".. we think that our results are more consistent with a process that involves the deep ocean, as its mixing time is close to the observed 800-year lag.
Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere."

So when you say ".. it is a big fat lie", it makes me wonder why you reached this conclusion?

Likewise, your declaration about the Northwest passage reflects poorly on your understanding of the matter, or your willingness to be honest in this discussion.

2) 'Open passage' is meant to signify that regular ships can navigate it as a normal shipping route.

This was not the case when Amundsen et al. crossed the ice filled ocean. I quote from the wiki-page you linked to:

-"His technique was to use a small ship and hug the coast."
-"Because the water along the route was sometimes as shallow as 3 ft (0.91 m), a larger ship could not have made the voyage."
-"They spent two winters at King William Island in what is today Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, Canada."

In other words, besides having to spend two winters in northern Canada, they had to hug the shoreline to exploit the open water that often appears where tides break up the ice.

Based on these facts, I frankly find it strange, if not offensive, that you write "Another huge lie".

 

[pduchesne]

1) If you actually read this article you'll see that the authors are not claiming that their article has any impact on the theory of global warming. But I'm aware that superficial interpretations of complex matter is one of the strategies that deniers hope they can use to muddy the discussion, hoping that people like you will take anything and run with it.

I quote from the conclusion of the article:

".. we think that our results are more consistent with a process that involves the deep ocean, as its mixing time is close to the observed 800-year lag.
Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere."

So when you say ".. it is a big fat lie", it makes me wonder why you reached this conclusion?

You made the statement that the ice core record showed a correlation between CO2 and temperature. You conveniently left out the part where temperature rises first. Now that your deception is revealed, you want to change the argument. I never said, nor do I believe, the ice core record disproves the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. But it also doesn't prove the theory, as you implied it does. Worse, the graphic showing the ice core data, and then implying that temperature leads CO2, has probably been the most affective graphic used by the global warming doomsayers to fool the public. And it simply isn't true.
Al Gore letting an audience think the ice core proves CO2 causes global warming

I do think it is funny, though, how once they realized that their findings would not support the theory of man made global warming, the authors of this paper jump through hoops to make sure people know they haven't disproved global warming.

Likewise, your declaration about the Northwest passage reflects poorly on your understanding of the matter, or your willingness to be honest in this discussion.

2) 'Open passage' is meant to signify that regular ships can navigate it as a normal shipping route.

This was not the case when Amundsen et al. crossed the ice filled ocean. I quote from the wiki-page you linked to:

-"His technique was to use a small ship and hug the coast."
-"Because the water along the route was sometimes as shallow as 3 ft (0.91 m), a larger ship could not have made the voyage."
-"They spent two winters at King William Island in what is today Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, Canada."

In other words, besides having to spend two winters in northern Canada, they had to hug the shoreline to exploit the open water that often appears where tides break up the ice.

Based on these facts, I frankly find it strange, if not offensive, that you write "Another huge lie".

YOU are the one who made this simplistic statement: “Yea, for instance, the Northwest passage opened up for the first time in recorded history in 2007”. You didn't say the NW passage was the most open since 1905 because that just doesn't have the impact you were looking for. You waited to see if anyone would call you on your deception, then you changed the parameters of the argument.
So, while you might not like the size of the boat, it is a matter of historical record that the NW passage was first sailed in 1905.
If people know the NW passage was open several times in the late 19th and early 20th century, then again at times during the arctic warming of the 1920-1940s, it just doesn't work as the harbinger of doom the global warming fear-mongers want it to be.

Here's another fun article for you: The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic

And yes, I realize this article doesn't disprove your doomsday scenario. But it does show that the science is anything but settled.

 

[flipper]

Something is going on in the climate this year. What is it? I am not sure. Here is a three part article from a source I trust.
Thanks to melting polar ice and a warming ocean the local sea level is up about 10” since the 1930s, when the original storm drains were installed. As a result, this flooding has lately been happening with ordinary high tides—even in December when high tides are lowest. - See more at: To See Climate Change in Florida… | WhoWhatWhy
http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/01/22/to-see-climate-change-in-florida/
In other words, oil company scientists are on one hand assuring them there’s big money to be made tapping the vast oil and gas reserves known to lie beneath the shallow Arctic waters now being relieved of their ice cover for the first time in millions of years. On the other hand, these same companies are simultaneously lobbying Congress to sow doubts among the public about the true impact of climate-change situation. - See more at: Denying Climate Change — While Exploiting It | WhoWhatWhy
http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/01/29/denying-climate-change-while-exploiting-it/
So what did they talk about? A video of the event shows that the three experts spoke at length about how an ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer will make it easier to exploit resources like undersea oil. Rear Adm. White also raised ominous military implications of the melt and resulting black gold rush, stressing the need for a Naval presence to patrol newly opened ocean and to defend a “new northern coastline.” http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/02/07/part-3-new-proof-of-climate-chaosinaction/#sthash.PpKgfdrz.dpuf
Part 3: Climate Changes, Washington Freezes | WhoWhatWhy

 

[Burnt State]

YOU are the one who made this simplistic statement: “Yea, for instance, the Northwest passage opened up for the first time in recorded history in 2007”. You didn't say the NW passage was the most open since 1905 because that just doesn't have the impact you were looking for. You waited to see if anyone would call you on your deception, then you changed the parameters of the argument.
So, while you might not like the size of the boat, it is a matter of historical record that the NW passage was first sailed in 1905.
If people know the NW passage was open several times in the late 19th and early 20th century, then again at times during the arctic warming of the 1920-1940s, it just doesn't work as the harbinger of doom the global warming fear-mongers want it to be.

Here's another fun article for you: The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic

And yes, I realize this article doesn't disprove your doomsday scenario. But it does show that the science is anything but settled.

Ok, the actual mythology of the anti-global warming conspiracist industry, as funded and promoted by the billionaire lobbyists, is one that paints a picture of how willing people are able to find a scapegoat because of the good feelings it provides. I don't and have never understood this method of thinking, but please recognize that historical scapegoating brought us genocide quite consistently time and time again. I find the funded industry that tries to paint the environmental movement as somehow bogus and then tries to use false hammers of science to make their argument to be quite irresponsible. All one has to do is look at the broader picture of environmental devestation to recognize humanity's total impact of the planet. 1/3 of the species are dead, 1/3 of good food growing land is paved over, some areas of the ocean can no longer be fished because of total depletion. Pollution, in various cities and remote regions is disturbing at best.

The heavy metals are in the bodies of most humans, nestled there, in varying cancer causing degrees along with all sorts of poisons, but we're still going to wave flags for the billionaire and make arguments to stop carbon bans, and welcome deregulation of industry? That's madness plain and simple.

These anomalous arguments, i.e. The early Amundsen Northwest passage is really a far, far away cry from free and open ice. Amundsen took three painful years to make his way through and that's way different than using it for commercial applications due to free open ice during the warm season. He hugged the coast for those three years in a very small vessel that was sometimes in only 3 feet of open shallow water.

So could all the conspiracist voices who want to argue for the billionaires who fund this anti-environmental movement please either look through the following skeptical science website and acquaint themselves with their own mythology or properly declare their anti-planet allegiance and wear their "Death for All Including My Own" t-shirts proudly because it actually is the end of the human journey on this planet - that's what we are really arguing about. Yes @pixelsmith , this one's for you and all the hardcore climate deniers.

Over 90% of global warming occurs after CO2 levels increase and that's the real long term fact of life on earth.

Read the real story of climate myths and climate truths at:Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

 

[manxman]

yeah why bang the drum for the billionaire, when you can bang your drum for all the billions for science research, and the skeptical scientist movement, its a war of words over money either way, maybe we would ALL be better of lining them all up, and shooting them.

 

[Burnt State]

yeah why bang the drum for the billionaire, when you can bang your drum for all the billions for science research, and the skeptical scientist movement, its a war of words over money either way, maybe we would ALL be better of lining them all up, and shooting them.

Nope, we evolved a critically literate mind for a reason, and we should use reason to discover the difference between truth and propaganda for our collective betterment and not to commit ourselves, as we have in the past, to the slaughter of others or, in the case of environmentalism, of ourselves.

 

[manxman]

yet here you are banging your drum for your particular brand propaganda.

 

[Burnt State]

If working on saving humanity and all the other life forms on our mother is a propaganda drum beat, then, yeah, I will beat it loudly till the end of time. I do so not for the sake of profit, or for the billionaire to dig and plunder in an unregulated fashion into the flesh of this world. I do so because life matters.

 

[manxman]

what a drama queen.

 

[pduchesne]

Ok, the actual mythology of the anti-global warming conspiracist industry, as funded and promoted by the billionaire lobbyists, is one that paints a picture of how willing people are able to find a scapegoat because of the good feelings it provides. I don't and have never understood this method of thinking, but please recognize that historical scapegoating brought us genocide quite consistently time and time again. I find the funded industry that tries to paint the environmental movement as somehow bogus and then tries to use false hammers of science to make their argument to be quite irresponsible. All one has to do is look at the broader picture of environmental devestation to recognize humanity's total impact of the planet. 1/3 of the species are dead, 1/3 of good food growing land is paved over, some areas of the ocean can no longer be fished because of total depletion. Pollution, in various cities and remote regions is disturbing at best.

The heavy metals are in the bodies of most humans, nestled there, in varying cancer causing degrees along with all sorts of poisons, but we're still going to wave flags for the billionaire and make arguments to stop carbon bans, and welcome deregulation of industry? That's madness plain and simple.

These anomalous arguments, i.e. The early Amundsen Northwest passage is really a far, far away cry from free and open ice. Amundsen took three painful years to make his way through and that's way different than using it for commercial applications due to free open ice during the warm season. He hugged the coast for those three years in a very small vessel that was sometimes in only 3 feet of open shallow water.

So could all the conspiracist voices who want to argue for the billionaires who fund this anti-environmental movement please either look through the following skeptical science website and acquaint themselves with their own mythology or properly declare their anti-planet allegiance and wear their "Death for All Including My Own" t-shirts proudly because it actually is the end of the human journey on this planet - that's what we are really arguing about. Yes @pixelsmith , this one's for you and all the hardcore climate deniers.

Over 90% of global warming occurs after CO2 levels increase and that's the real long term fact of life on earth.

Read the real story of climate myths and climate truths at:Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

This is nothing more than a religious rant. You have branded everyone who disagrees with you a heretic, and not just wrong, but evil. Problem is, once you label someone evil, you feel free to behave as disrespectfully as you want. Anything you do or say to a heretic is justifiable. BURN THE HERETICS AND SAVE OUR MOTHER!!!

 

[pixelsmith]

Wow..where to begin...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pduchesne]

If working on saving humanity and all the other life forms on our mother is a propaganda drum beat, then, yeah, I will beat it loudly till the end of time. I do so not for the sake of profit, or for the billionaire to dig and plunder in an unregulated fashion into the flesh of this world. I do so because life matters.

How are you "working on saving humanity"? Don't answer. I might as well ask a priest how he's saving souls. The answer will be equally stupid.

 

[Burnt State]

To all the climate deniers. Please people, take some time to read reality and then come back to me with your sticks, stones and name-calling ignorance. I will promise to put on my best dress, though as a poor stand in for Lady Godiva I just might go as a wild horse instead.

Pixel, I know that in the other threads where you refused to take up the task of actually reading real scuentifc rebuttals to both 911 and CO2 conspiracist thinking just click on one of these faces to see which myth you resemble best - same for the rest:

Climate Myths from Politicians

BTW What is always the most painful for rational folk when dealing with conspiracists is their inability to actually address the issue and just resort to their own drama, name-calling and disbelief. Talk about beating a dead horse when there's nothing rational left to say. Was the graph too hard to read?

Many like to isolate only one part of the story i.e. ice cores to try to reject global warming:
"This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns."

The two issues on the table as presented above are that the northwest passage is increasingly become free for commercial travel after the last 100 years of industrialization and that, yes, temperature increase on the whole has happened after the CO2 increase.

 

[Burnt State]

How are you "working on saving humanity"? Don't answer. I might as well ask a priest how he's saving souls. The answer will be equally stupid.

What, you mean you are not working on saving humanity?

 

[Burnt State]

Wow..where to begin...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

try reading.

 

[pduchesne]

Something is going on in the climate this year. What is it? I am not sure. Here is a three part article from a source I trust.
Thanks to melting polar ice and a warming ocean the local sea level is up about 10” since the 1930s, when the original storm drains were installed. As a result, this flooding has lately been happening with ordinary high tides—even in December when high tides are lowest. - See more at: To See Climate Change in Florida… | WhoWhatWhy

Here is my take on part one. Despite accusations to the contrary, I lean towards the environmentalist end of the curve, so I felt the emotional pull of the article. However, a couple of things stood out. First, It seems scary that the sea has risen about 10" since 1930, but that was over 80 years ago. The oceans have been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age and it is likely that Miami's drainage problem would have occurred with or without help from man made greenhouse gas. Would the sea level have risen only 8 inches? or six? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

Secondly, the author linked the increase in insurance rates with the rise in sea level. I have first hand knowledge about this, since I own a couple of rental properties in Sebastian, FL. The insurance companies lost their shirts in 2004 after being hit by three hurricanes. Being greedy scum, they jacked the price through the roof. They weren't above using the global warming scare to say they had to keep the rates high because "all the scientists" think we will have more years like 2004. Of course a significant hurricane hasn't hit Florida for ten years now, but have the insurance companies offered a rebate or reduced rates? Course not, the theory of catastrophic global warming is all the justification they need to keep screwing the people.

The last thing I'll take issue with is the constant quoting of estimates done by NOAA and other respectable institutions. All of these agencies run numerous models and "what if" scenarios. They get a wide range of results ranging from no sea level rise to 20 feet by 2100. The author chose the most devastating "what ifs" to quote in his article. Even the IPCC has backed off its early claims and only expects modest sea level rise by 2100. For the worst sea level rise to happen, the Greenland ice sheet would have to melt. That is just not likely to happen.