Climate crisis strikes again

[22*43*51]

I think 4.6 billion years worth of data showing changes in the Earth's climate would classify as 'science' to most people.

I like the term "recorded history" that is used in these arguments. It usually means about the last 80-100 years, or so. You know, an 80 year sample size out of 4.6 billion year population.

That's like taking a thimble full of water and trying to determine the composition, depth and breadth of the Ocean.

 

[Huey Grey]

Actually, I understand it very well. If you want to look it up, I'll see if I can provide a link to a reference.

Then why are you taking your hypothetical question literally?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That's funny. I didn't know that Humans are the only force driving the climate/weather on Earth.

It astonishes me to have to point out that NOBODY is saying that "Humans are the only force driving the climate/weather on Earth."

It makes deniers slightly easier to take when I realize that they often aren't actually objecting to what we and the scientific community are saying. But it makes me wonder where they come up with these crazy lies. Or why they don't subject them to the slightest smell test.

 

[Huey Grey]

do you have a point?

Libs and "scientists" screamed THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!! They're not.

ICU Eleventy Billion, Fake Science 0

The Southern ice caps are melting at an incredible rate. Where have you been?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think 4.6 billion years worth of data showing changes in the Earth's climate would classify as 'science' to most people.

Yes there have been dramatic climate changes in the past. Can anyone tell me why that invalidates current concerns?

I didn't think so.

 

[22*43*51]

It astonishes me to have to point out that NOBODY is saying that "Humans are the only force driving the climate/weather on Earth."

It makes deniers slightly easier to take when I realize that they often aren't actually objecting to what we and the scientific community are saying. But it makes me wonder where they come up with these crazy lies. Or why they don't subject them to the slightest smell test.

I personally don't deny man has an impact.

I don't agree with the scare tactics that drive policy. Having the POTUS say that CC is the biggest threat to National Security is a scare tactic meant to influence bad policy.

It is a very similar scare tactic to "Iraq has WMD's." That drove very bad policy.

Let's continue to invest in clean energy. Just don't tell me that we are headed to a "Water World-like" certain/near future Al Gore.

 

[Huey Grey]

I was told by top scientists that these would be gone by now.

If you're willing to cherry pick years, you certainly can proof this point. This article dismantles your graphic quite well.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...arctic-ice-sheet-grow-by-60-from-2012-to-2013

 

[Lone Clone]

The Southern ice caps are melting at an incredible rate. Where have you been?

Two years ago, the ice cover at the South Pole was the largest since satellite data began being collected. This fact was dismissed at the time by the AGW alarmists as irrelevant. Why has it suddenly become so important to you?

 

[hawkssox1]

Yes there have been dramatic climate changes in the past. Can anyone tell me why that invalidates current concerns?

I didn't think so.

No one "tells" you anything.You are like the guy going through a buffet line "Ill take this don't want that and on and frickin on!!

 

[22*43*51]

The Southern ice caps are melting at an incredible rate. Where have you been?

Not according to this very pro-CC site.

Antarctic

When it came to the Antarctic, scientists admitted they were puzzled by the expanding sea ice.“All the climate models say it should be going down and it’s actually going up, and it’s making news,” said Shroeve, adding that the trend is expected to give ammunition to those seeking to discredit climate science.

See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/09/22/anta...rctic-hits-2014-minimum/#sthash.9FSaLgDc.dpuf

 

[tarheelbybirth]

But you and your ilk don't want to put out the fire. To the extent you've even recognized the need to do something about it, you've advocated the equivalent of peeing on it. Meanwhile, you want to force all the neighbors to take out their gas and electric service and replace all the combustibles in their homes with metal, in case some of those things might start a fire later.

Well LC...we kinda do that. If a fire hazard is discovered, we regulate its use or ban it outright. That you refuse to understand that doesn't make it any less true. Are you suggesting that this shouldn't be done?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Not according to this very pro-CC site.

Antarctic

When it came to the Antarctic, scientists admitted they were puzzled by the expanding sea ice.“All the climate models say it should be going down and it’s actually going up, and it’s making news,” said Shroeve, adding that the trend is expected to give ammunition to those seeking to discredit climate science.

See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/09/22/anta...rctic-hits-2014-minimum/#sthash.9FSaLgDc.dpuf

Do you understand the difference between land ice and sea ice?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And if the deniers could manage to stay current, they might not look so out-of-touch.

China’s jaw-dropping progress at reducing CO2 emissions in just 4 months

http://rt.com/news/259425-china-carbon-emissions-cuts/

Against all odds, China has made tremendous strides in the fight against CO2 emissions. In just four months, it reduced levels to the amount the UK emits in the same period. Experts have been warning China for years of an impending eco catastrophe.

The progress comes on the heels of Chinese promises to shut down the last remaining coal plant in Beijing in 2016 and cut reliance by 160 million tons in a matter of just five years. Very worrying statistics have been coming out of the country, with stark health warnings to people living in or near the industrial regions of the country.

An analysis of its energy production, carried out by Greenpeace and Energydesk China, reveals a drop of eight percent in coal consumption and a reduction in CO2 emission by five percent in as little as four months, since the start of this year. In comparison to last year, the pace of weaning itself off coal is gathering steam.

To achieve these reductions, China has had to close more than 1,000 coal plants (it leads the world in coal consumption and greenhouse gas emissions). It managed to get levels down to the same amount the UK has emitted in the last four months.

 

[22*43*51]

Do you understand the difference between land ice and sea ice?

I know, I know. It is at it's second lowest level in "recorded history".

Which sounds a lot scarier than saying "1982".

 

[TexMichFan]

Yes there have been dramatic climate changes in the past. Can anyone tell me why that invalidates current concerns?

I didn't think so.

Whether it invalidates current concerns is not the question. Climate change has been going on forever and that is something that everyone agrees on.

What the question is why is the only reason that climate is changing now have to be man made and not some of the same reasons that caused all the change before the climate change could have been man made? What percentage of the change going on now can be attributed to man made reasons and how much is just natures cycle?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I think there is a lot of truth to this.

I don't know one single person opposed to conservation and clean air/water. None. Neither do any of the crazy leftists that told us 30 we would be in an ice age for the last 15-20 years

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

bottom line is, the climate WILL change.

The only known factor that accounts for the current warming is increased CO2. You're welcome to discover a previously unknown driver and demonstrate a linkage. It would likely get you at least nominated for a Nobel Prize.

I recently saw a bunch of glaciers first hand and all but one of them are growing. the polar ice caps are growing.

Long-term changes in glacier volume adapted from Cogley 2009.

The left is all about control and pushing their agenda. sorry if I refuse to bankrupt our country in order to promote their agenda.

So you just assume that the costs of doing nothing are zero.

If you actually value truth you should stop spreading lies.

 

[TexMichFan]

And if the deniers could manage to stay current, they might not look so out-of-touch.

China’s jaw-dropping progress at reducing CO2 emissions in just 4 months

http://rt.com/news/259425-china-carbon-emissions-cuts/

Against all odds, China has made tremendous strides in the fight against CO2 emissions. In just four months, it reduced levels to the amount the UK emits in the same period. Experts have been warning China for years of an impending eco catastrophe.

The progress comes on the heels of Chinese promises to shut down the last remaining coal plant in Beijing in 2016 and cut reliance by 160 million tons in a matter of just five years. Very worrying statistics have been coming out of the country, with stark health warnings to people living in or near the industrial regions of the country.

An analysis of its energy production, carried out by Greenpeace and Energydesk China, reveals a drop of eight percent in coal consumption and a reduction in CO2 emission by five percent in as little as four months, since the start of this year. In comparison to last year, the pace of weaning itself off coal is gathering steam.

To achieve these reductions, China has had to close more than 1,000 coal plants (it leads the world in coal consumption and greenhouse gas emissions). It managed to get levels down to the same amount the UK has emitted in the last four months.

The quote below was taken from a WSJ article from February. While true that China has reduced coal they did increase oil and natural gas which come with there own problems. Also part of the decrease in coal his tied to the decrease in steel production and that could change the number.

Data released by the government on Thursday show China used 5.9% more crude oil and 8.6% more natural gas in 2014. Coal output last year fell 2.5% to 3.87 billion metric tons from a year ago, while coal consumption fell 2.9%, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.

Economists had forecast China will hit peak coal around or slightly before 2020, but some analysts say there are signs that this has already happened. Coal demand in Europe and the U.S. is also shrinking, while growing economies like India aren’t importing enough to offset China’s outsize cutback.

International benchmark prices for the mineral have fallen nearly 50% to about $62 a metric ton and the U.S. benchmark has fallen 24% to $52.90 from peaks levels in 2012, when U.S. exports hit their high, according to Platts, a pricing service of McGraw Hill Financial Inc. Prices for metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel, have tumbled 55% from their 2012 peak to $102.8 a metric ton, as the Chinese government has moved to slow down its steel industry.

Chinese coal imports last year fell 10.9% from 2013 to 291.2 million tons, the bureau said.

 

[whatsup12579er]

It astonishes me to have to point out that NOBODY is saying that "Humans are the only force driving the climate/weather on Earth."

It makes deniers slightly easier to take when I realize that they often aren't actually objecting to what we and the scientific community are saying. But it makes me wonder where they come up with these crazy lies. Or why they don't subject them to the slightest smell test.

You called Mother Nature a 'fictional character.' If it's fiction that means it is not real and I can then conclude that you believe nothing impacts climate except for humans. You are the one that refuses to admit Mother Nature plays a role in climate change, which is the only absolute fact in the climate change discussion. Does that make you worse than a denier?

Yes there have been dramatic climate changes in the past. Can anyone tell me why that invalidates current concerns?

I didn't think so.

What invalidates current concerns is people spreading lies such as the ice caps would be completely melted by now and coastal cities would be under water or using only 100 years of historic recorded data to make end of the world predictions about a cycle that has had ebbs and flows for 4.6 billion years. I think the vast majority of people agree that we should try to limit the amount of CO2 we pump into the air. Mid American now generates 40% of their electricity from wind power, solar prices have gone down to a point that they are economically feasible options for high energy consumers and more and more arrays are popping up all over, and even China is chipping in, allegedly.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

What invalidates current concerns is people spreading lies such as the ice caps would be completely melted by now and coastal cities would be under water or using only 100 years of historic recorded data to make end of the world predictions about a cycle that has had ebbs and flows for 4.6 billion years.

If spreading lies invalidates the message you should take heed. Quoting the extremists as if they represent the mainstream is disingenuous at best. You should stop doing that.

The IPCC NEVER said the Arctic would be ice free by now and, in fact, Arctic ice loss is running well ahead of the IPCC projections.

In fact, the ice loss is greater than their worst-case scenarios.

So what do you make of that? Is it alarmist to point out that fact? Does that somehow invalidate your concerns?

 

[Lone Clone]

Well LC...we kinda do that. If a fire hazard is discovered, we regulate its use or ban it outright. That you refuse to understand that doesn't make it any less true. Are you suggesting that this shouldn't be done?

I give you credit for partially understanding the analogy, which was beyond some others on this board. And I think if you wanted to be honest, you understand what I wrote perfectly well, despite not responding to it and posing an idiotic question.

 

[hawkssox1]

So if a man is in a forest and a tree falls with no woman around will he still be wrong?

 

[mstp1992]

So if a man is in a forest and a tree falls with no woman around will he still be wrong?

This doesn't directly address your question, but it's a good read nonetheless.

 

[aflachawk]

I didn't know that Al Gore had control over Mother Nature.

How does anything Gore say or do disprove Climate Change?

The left has been making doomsday predictions that do far have not come true but...... Never mind

 

[tarheelbybirth]

We do have to understand that there are natural changes to the climate. Just look at the last 2000 years. Some of the areas of the middle east had vegetation and now it's sand. That wasn't caused by humans.

Literally shaking my head in amazement.

LOL...yes it was. Research the causes of desertification in the ME and Africa.