Global warming: The conversation we need to have

Jan 15, 2014 by Anji Seth
Change in heat content in the upper 2000 m of the world’s oceans. Credit: NOAA

We all know the earth's climate is changing. The effects are inescapable no matter where we live. Here in New England, some changes are subtle (more humidity, consistently warmer nights), dramatic (more intense rainfall events), confusing (bigger snowfall events), and dangerous (more powerful hurricanes). The science tells us these are expected in a warming world, and indeed, we see them.

We also know that we are in the driver's seat for these changes. Our burning of oil, coal, and natural gas – fuels that have been extracted from fossil reserves buried in Earth's crust – is changing the composition of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases constitute a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, but their ability to trap heat has made the difference between Earth being a frozen ice-ball of a planet and the relatively balmy one we inhabit. Greenhouse gases do this by preventing heat from escaping to space, just as a blanket tucked around a child at night keeps her warm. We are adding to this greenhouse gas blanket, and earth is warming up.

The most comprehensive accounting of the evidence can be found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessments. The IPCC has begun to release the 5th Assessment Report and the latest installment has increased the certainty to 95 percent probability that humans are driving the observed and projected changes. The consensus of climate scientists from around the world is that the link between human actions and is as strong as the link between smoking and cancer.

Still we hear in the media reports that global warming has stopped for the last 15 years; that increases in polar ice this year run contrary to the theory; and that an extreme cold snap puts a nail in its coffin.

September Arctic sea ice extent data since 1980 from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Credit: Dana Nuccitelli, Skeptical Science

Do these observations blow a hole into the theory of global warming? Not at all. Here's why:

  • First, the scientific evidence that supports is vast, and has been building for more than 170 years. The climate system is noisy, and earth's temperature will vary around the long-term trend. During any given 10-15 year period, the warming of the atmosphere may accelerate or decelerate but, in the longer term, temperatures are increasing and will continue to do so. You would not choose 15 data points when you had 170 to characterize a trend. A subset of years without a significant trend do not change the basic physics – that excess heat is held in the climate system by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
  • Second, in the past decade or so, more of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gasses appears to be going into the deep oceans, which is why globally averaged warming has slowed. Note that over land, temperature increases have continued at a clip and global average temperatures remain at a record high, with the last 10 years qualifying as the warmest decade in the historical record.
  • Third, Arctic sea ice continues to be substantially below the long-term average in both areal extent and thickness. This past year, the Arctic sea ice was 6th lowest and more than a million square kilometers below the average area from the period 1981 to 2000. This past year's ice area is certainly higher than 2012's – but only because sea ice in 2012 was the lowest ever on record. In this case again, a comparison between two years does not tell the whole story. Climate is the story told over many decades.

The cold spell earlier this month, while breaking records, must be seen in the larger space and time context of the climate. In recent weeks, while the central and eastern U.S. became the playground of the polar vortex and its extreme cold, the rest of the northern hemisphere, including the polar region, experienced warmer than normal temperatures. Daily weather statistics continue to show that the number of record warm temperatures is far exceeding the number of record cold temperatures.

Global Warming: The Conversation We Need to Have
Temperature differences from average for Jan. 7, 2014, where red is warmer, blue colder than average. (Data/image obtained using Climate Reanalyzer (http://cci-reanalyzer.org). Credit: Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Orono

Let us not be distracted by those who misuse data in order to create doubt about . Their purpose is to delay the important conversation. Let us instead turn the conversation to: What can be done to mitigate the worst-case scenarios and to prepare for the unavoidable ones? What is already being done? What do we collectively need to do?

On these pressing questions there are many constructive arguments to be made. At UConn, we are having lively conversations that have resulted in action plans to (1) reduce CO2 emissions and (2) adapt infrastructure and systems across campus. Let's focus on actions, not distractions. Let's get to the right conversation.

Explore further: Weakened 'polar vortex' blamed for N. American chill

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Report IDs 'major weaknesses' at nuclear-arms lab

3 hours ago

One of the nation's premier nuclear weapons laboratories is being called out by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Energy for "major weaknesses" in the way it packaged contaminated waste before shipping it to ...

User comments : 122

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

billpress11
3.4 / 5 (21) Jan 15, 2014
This is a very good article that ALL deniers of global warming should read!

Another thing that the deniers do not seem to get is that even as the earth is warming we can have BOTH record high and low temperatures. The reason, more calories of heat in the atmosphere creates more intense high and low pressure systems which can bring lower temperatures further south as well as higher temperatures further north. It is the totals that counts just as this article states.

Remember the phrase, "it's the economy stupid." Well, "it's the ICE stupid."
vlaaing peerd
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 15, 2014
why bother convincing deniers? a futile and non-productive effort that at best would lead to both sides nitpicking about irrelevant details and irrelevant political viewpoints on the matter. And after spending a lot of time on it, nobody will have changed their opinions.

View the facts as you want, act on it however you feel, vote for the thing that you believe will make it better and hope there are more people on your side than those who aren't.

This is how it always worked and always will, for better or for worse. If our beautiful earth will be damned by our actions, we deserved it. She was better off without us anyway.
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (20) Jan 15, 2014
It's too bad AGWites chose the political path instead of the science path to push their faith. But then one can't really use science to promote a faith.

"Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms "catastrophism" in the climate change horror stories.

"Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge," he says."
http://boston.cbs...ow-down/
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2014
This is how it always worked and always will,

The problem is with the 'always'.

To paraphrase Ian Banks from the novel 'Excession' we're in an Outside Context Problem (i.e. something that is -or in this case may become- so big that we can't handle it anymore)
An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations would encounter just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop.


And I think in those kinds of circumstances going for full democracy is an error (just like it is an error not to treat a terminal addict of their addiction or not keeping someone from comitting suicide - even if it is against their wish...and for pretty much the same reason)
mememine69
1.4 / 5 (19) Jan 15, 2014
Prove us deniers wrong:
Not one scientific consensus believes or agrees beyond: "could be" or says; "inevitable" or "eventual" so don't tell your kids that science agrees as much as you do.
If science can't be certain, YOU can't "believe".
billpress11
3.3 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2014
Prove us deniers wrong:
Not one scientific consensus believes or agrees beyond: "could be" or says; "inevitable" or "eventual" so don't tell your kids that science agrees as much as you do.
If science can't be certain, YOU can't "believe".

I am not an expert in climate, I just look at the facts given. They tend to support a global warming trend.

Look at it this way, if you have a glass of ice water sitting at room temperature, what would its temperature be? Now slowly stir this the ice water mixture, after 1/2 the ice has melted, the same question? It would be 33F in both situations. Yet after 1/2 the ice has melted the glass of ice water contain many more calories of heat.

This is a major reason there is so much controversy over the global warming issue. Many deniers are unaware it take 30 some calories of heat to raise the temperature of 1 gram of ice just 1 degree in temperature, 32 to 33, where as the same number of calories would raise a gram of water 33 degrees!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 15, 2014
This is a major reason there is so much controversy over the global warming issue

No.
The controversy is much more involved and really hinges on the the climate models and their validity.
billpress11
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2014
Boy, my memory is slipping.

It is actually 80 calories of heat to melt 1 gram of ice and visa-versa when freezing 1 gram of water it releases 80 calories of heat.
billpress11
5 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2014
This is a major reason there is so much controversy over the global warming issue

No.
The controversy is much more involved and really hinges on the the climate models and their validity.


It really boils down to whether the worlds quantity of ice is increasing or decreasing over an extended period of time. Just as in the glass of ice water it would show up in the quantify of ice first. And then decades later in a noticeable change in the temperatures of the world's weather.
enviro414
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 15, 2014
An unfunded engineer discovered the two primary drivers of average global temperatures that explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and provide credible estimates back to 1610.

CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.

http://agwunveile...pot.com/ includes eye opening graphs and a plethora of links and sub-links to credible data sources.
PsycheOne
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2014
I don't believe an article starts with "we all know". Like we all agree. But we don't agree. Lots and lots of people disagree. That's what science is about.

Let's keep "we all know" in church, where it belongs.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (15) Jan 15, 2014
In fact, climate change is occurring, but it's caused by chemtrails, the non dissipating lanes of weather control chemicals spewed from high flying jets. In began around 1950, when the number of tornadoes ceased being constant and started to increase. Since apparently saturating the atmosphere around 1997, they oversaw the worst hurricane season on record, the warmest year, unnatural new clouds, the largest year-to-year decline in Arctic sea ice coverage,the staccato beat of massive environmental changes generally linked to climate change. Since 1997 when this unceasing pattern of massive events began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased only slightly, but the air was already saturated by chemtrails. "Fossil fuels" cannot be implicated, but chemtrails can.
shavera
5 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2014
We've already had the paradigm shift anti-AGW people claim needs to happen. We used to think, without foundation, that humans couldn't do anything significant to the environment. Then we started, through observation and scientific work, to publish works that were paradigm-shifting that we *could* indeed change the climate, and eventually those works started to settle around the conclusion that CO2 emissions are driving a global average temperature increase.

The fact that there's a scientific consensus on AGW doesn't come out of a vacuum, it comes from years of paradigm challenging work. So if there was a significant scientific challenge to the AGW paradigm, it would be published just like the original climate science was published, and open to peer review.

But... the data doesn't bear it out. Unlike the media that loves to give equal time to both sides, there's no guarantee that data will support both sides (one would hope, in fact, that it tells us only one) The data lean AGW.
Nestle
1 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2014
Global warming: The conversation we need to have
So far all my remarks about geothermal origin of global warming were ignored, downvoted without arguing, if not deleted. The question isn't just if the people are responsible for climate change or the whether global warming exist at all, but the discussion about all other possible explanations. Because huge money are in the game, all matter of fact debates are politicized heavily.
climate change is occurring, but it's caused by chemtrails
The chemtrails aren't about chemicals, but about condensation nuclei, which may reflect or absorb the radiation in similar way, like the clouds. We have some indicia, that the contrails can affect the whether at the weekend period level. We can consider the September 11, 2001 climate impact study in this extent, so your remark has some merit.
Nestle
1 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2014
Unfortunately, the role of gamma rays, solar cycles, noctilucent clouds, nuclear tests and contrails is problematic, because the clouds may absorb the infrared radiation as easily, as to contribute for light reflection and increased albedo of Earth - it just depends on the size of particles. IMO the elevated nucleation level may contribute to droughts (as it prohibits the condensation of water in large droplets, which are able to fall down like the rain) - but its role for global temperature is still uncertain.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2014
Contrails dissipate. The sunlight and lowered pressure make everything up to sublimation possible for any particles of ice that high up. These are trails of chemicals left behind. They don't denature, they simply spread. And it has to be admitted that the phenomenon of visible chemtrails began in 1997. There is no consistent history of photographs of a dozen or more vapor lanes of varying age and degree of spreading before 1997. Shills refer to a bare minimum of a few pictures, many near air shows or military bases, showing no more than three such trails in the sky before 1997, but, after that date, there have been thousands of pictures taken of skies covered by persistent, non dissipating trails. During the "Cold War" Fifties alone, if there were this many non evaporating lanes in the sky, it would have caused mass panic.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2014
Contrails dissipate. The sunlight and lowered pressure make everything up to sublimation possible for any particles of ice that high up. These are trails of chemicals left behind. They don't denature, they simply spread. And it has to be admitted that the phenomenon of visible chemtrails began in 1997. There is no consistent history of photographs of a dozen or more vapor lanes of varying age and degree of spreading before 1997. Shills refer to a bare minimum of a few pictures, many near air shows or military bases, showing no more than three such trails in the sky before 1997, but, after that date, there have been thousands of pictures taken of skies covered by persistent, non dissipating trails. During the "Cold War" Fifties alone, if there were this many non evaporating lanes in the sky, it would have caused mass panic.

Julian:
You've prattled on about this before and I've given you my knowledge as a meteorologist.
I have NEVER seen a contrail that wasn't.Sorry.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 15, 2014
For those who believe in 'consensus' science, Eugenics was also 'consensus' science along with lobotomies.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 15, 2014
"These records show something else, too. They suggest that humans are prone to exaggerate the historicity of "unusual weather", and that humans possibly have an evolutionary tendency to perceive patterns in weather, especially worsening weather, that do not exist.

All of which raises a fascinating possibility. Perhaps man-made climate change is all in the mind – because, in our instinctive terrors, we always think that something wicked this way comes, especially from the sky: as a punishment from God, for things we have done. This paranoia, should it exist, would be hardwired into the human psyche, so we would rarely notice it – as the mind deceives itself.

If this is true, it means that lefty and greeny believers in man-made climate change are merely the Mormons of Meteorology, the Wahhabi of Warmism: tthey are the psychic equivalent of apocalyptic religious maniacs, forever spying signs of the promised Endtimes, and yet forever being disappointed."
Telegraph, UK.
Nestle
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2014
The sunlight and lowered pressure make everything up to sublimation possible for any particles of ice that high up. These are trails of chemicals left behind. They don't denature, they simply spread
The contrails are formed just because the particles of ice have lower tension than the concentration of water vapors there. They don't evaporate at high altitudes, they grow instead and fall down.
.. it has to be admitted that the phenomenon of visible chemtrails began in 1997
The formation of contrails requires the jet engines and flight at high altitudes, which may be the reason, their observations were allegedly rare before some time. The spraying through jet engines is rather nonsensical way of spreading of chemicals: these chemicals would just burn or they would decompose and clog the turbines, which is even worse.
Returners
1 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2014
It really boils down to whether the worlds quantity of ice is increasing or decreasing over an extended period of time.


It's been decreasing, on the whole, for the past 25,000 years, and 6 or 7 times faster, in fact, for a 3000 year period from 11k to 8k years ago.

The belief that it is all the humans' fault is clearly fallacious.

Super Storm Sandy was not a "Black Swan" and neither was the Category 5 Super Typhoon that hit the Philippine's last pacific season. That might not be easy to accept, but it happens to be a fact. Typhoon Tip was much bigger, more powerful, and farther north. That one last season just happened to hit land, but statistically though it hasn't been recorded recently, there is no good reason that shouldn't happen from time to time over the long term.

Teh U.S. has been hit by 3 category 5 hurricanes on record, and 2 of them were about the same strength: Labor day 1935: 185mph, Camille 190mph....when CO2 was about 100 or so PPM lower than now.

Busted.
Returners
1 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2014
And for reference, Andrew never became as powerful over open water as Camille or Labor Day were over land. neither did Katrina*, Felix, Dean, or Rita*.

*They did not equal wind speed, with 175 and 180 respectively over open water, though maximum intensity by pressure was lower over water, and Katrina had a higher surge than Camille.

190 on land vs 180 open water...yeah, big difference people.

Camille and Labor Day were worse, you just don't realize it because there weren't camera phones and 10 world news channels running 24/7, and fact is most of the deaths in Katrina and Sandy were self-inflicted, and would have been avoided had people evacuated as instructed.

If you think the death toll from the Myanmar Cyclone a few years ago was an outlier, it wasn't. Most of the 30 most deadly cyclones in world history have happened in the Indian Ocean basin, most of them many decades and centuries ago, when population was much lower.

It's time to learn some real history, instead AGW Hype.
Returners
1 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2014
Oh yeah, and the high death toll in the Myanmar cyclone could have been avoided, had the evil Myanmar government just bothered to tell it's people there was a storm coming.

While it was a 1/500 chance of that storm hitting that location, if you more realistically study the statistics that "panic" people, the odds of a storm killing that many people "somewhere" along the coast in the Indian basin is actually very high, one every 3 or 4 decades or so. There was another one in the 1970's most recently before that one, and about every 3 or 4 decades prior to that, for as long as records exist.

While it was a 1/500 chance of happening at that exact location, it still historically happens 2 or 3 times per human life span somewhere in that basin.

Which means it's perfectly normal, sad as that happens to be.
arter57
1 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2014
Global warming is a theory based on scientific fact. That does not mean that it is scientific fact. There are any number of factors, known or unknown, that could come into play and result in an outcome that does not match the theory. The discussion of global warming would be better served if it is kept in that context.

julianpenrod
1 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2014
Note the playing with words that can persuade the gullible and shallow. runrig characterizes my statements as "prattle" yet never disproves a word of it. runrig claims to be a meteorologist, never never proves it. runrig won't touch the fact that tornado numbers were constant before 1950 and have risen to seven times that or more now. runrig won't touch the fact that there are no entire collections, from before 1997, of photographs of skies filled with a dozen or more vapor trails such as have been provided since 1997. runrig won't talk about the fact that the majority of manifestations associated with climate change have taken place since 1997, when chemtrails were first seen, but carbon dioxide rose only a few percent in that time. runrig won't mention that fact that vapor trails in the dozens remaining for an hour or more would have panicked people in the Fifites.
And, yes, every contrail I saw was a contrail, but chemtrails are not contrails!
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2014
So often among supporters of lies, a humiliating lack of common sense. Nestle says chemtrails really are contrails of ice crystals. "They don't evaporate at high altitudes", Nestle quite literally and desperately lies, "they grow instead and fall down." If ice crystals from jet engines don't evaporate, why do contrails dissipate? I never said contrails don't dissipate, I said chemtrails don't dissipate and are not contrails. Is Nestle saying that no trails after jets dissipate, or that chemtrails are really ice, while "contrails" are really chemicals trailed behind?
And I never said that chemtrail chemicals are sprayed by jet engines! I only said they were trailed from jets!
Returners
1.1 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2014
Is there a single idiot alive in the U.S. today who would like the Mississippi River to return to pre-industrial conditions, when it froze solid as far south as St. Louis every year, and iced over as far south as NOLA from time to time?

The sad thing is some of the AGW-ites are literally so stupid that they actually ADVOCATE for reversing whatever change has happened, to return it to just those sorts of conditions, which would literally destroy so many people's livelihood not to mention food transport and more.

Hey, moron author of the article, let's have this "Conversation".

Let's focus on your side's idiocy for a while.

You know it, I know it, YOUR side actually wants to cool the Earth by a degree or two, but you're too damned short sighted to THINK about the consequences of that, and the fact that we are all better off now than they were back then.

If you people actually thought about consequences, real consequences not theory, for once, you'd have a different position.
Sigh
4.9 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2014
From mememine69
If science can't be certain, YOU can't "believe"

From ryggesogn2
It's too bad AGWites chose the political path instead of the science path to push their faith.

But I notice that neither of you is willing to put your money where your mouth is. Osteta gave this link: http://theaustral...02749576 Are you willing to bet? Here is my proposal: set up an escrow account in which you deposit as much money as you are willing to bet. Seeing that you are so keen on the last 15 years, compare the average temperature across those years to 2019 - 2034. Whenever you rail against climate change, include instructions on how to bet against you. If in 20 years, the 15 year average temperature is equal or less than the 15 year average now, you win. Are you confident enough to offer more than words?
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2014
From Shootist in another thread:
When dairy farms have returned to Greenland, and remain extant for 4 centuries, then the climate will have warmed to what it was 1000 years ago and it warmed to that state without any anthropomorphic "greenhouse gas" forcing.

Dyson says, "The polar bears will be fine".

Climate change is a politician's dream.

The above three facts, dairy farms, Dyson's statement and the truth about politicians: these three are sufficient to doubt anything coming out of Hanson, Mann, et. al.

We need more study of Earth's climate, and we need to continually develop new energy technology, but we don't need to shut down Western Civilization to do so.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2014
Climate change is a politician's dream.
Politics again. I don't see what that has to do with the plenitude of science and research surrounding global warming! But humor me please; why do you think it is a politicians dream?

these three are sufficient to doubt anything coming out of Hanson, Mann, et. al.
So the fact that it was warmer in Greenland 1000 years ago combined with Dyson's original doubts about the robustness of the science and, what politics? are the extent of your reasoning to call other scientists liars and initiates of some conspiracy? That's not really what you're saying is it?

Who is proposing that Western civilization be shut down? There are zealots of course, there always are, but surely, from a purely scientific point of view, the findings of a whole range of sciences covering the last 50 years should be considered when they are saying we are facing some very serious consequences? C'mon Shootist, politics aside, what is wrong with the science?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2014
why do you think it is a politicians dream?

An excuse to control more of the world.
I don't see what that has to do with the plenitude of science and research

Then why did the scientists choose to make this political?

what is wrong with the science?

What is 'right' with the science?
Dire predictions based upon the 'science' have failed to materialize or won't materialize for 100 years.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2014
Scientists choose to make this political? Jeezus just shut up, ya freaking loon!
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2014
Alarmist are so unconsciously schizophrenic its scary funny. For years they claimed anyone who is a skeptic has been funded by a conspiracy lead by Big Oil or the Koch brothers. After the evidence reveals holes in the alarmist consensus, they then charge the skeptics who pointed out the flaws to be guilty of conspiracy thinking. When there was no snow it was global warming and when the snow returned it was still global warming. Warm winters or cold winters its always global warming. When skeptics argued natural variations had caused the warming in the 80 and 90s, they argued the models had accounted for all the natural variation so it only CO2 could explain climate change. Now with the lack of warming the same scientists argue their models didn't really capture all the natural variations and now agree that natural ocean cycles are causing the lack of warming. Read http://www.nature...-1.14525
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2014
Scientists choose to make this political? Jeezus just shut up, ya freaking loon!

Truth hurts.

"Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out."
"These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected."
"The theory was eugenics"
http://www.michae...ous.html
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2014
Another sock-puppet for jim steele! You must be getting awfully desperate Jim, when you have to resort to using sock puppets on sites that have already banned you just to try and make a point about the politics you see in the sciences surrounding global warming!

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2014
@ Shootist - Look who is posting in support of the "conspiracy". Seriously, doesn't that alone make you wonder? I can't believe that you would support someone like Rygg or mememine69. C'mon Shootist, look at the science!
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2014
The problem is with the 'always'.

It was also more an observation rather than my opinion.

If such matter shouldn't be decided democratically at all...you have my blessings. It is a matter that involves every nation on the planet. Practically speaking I don't see how we will reach a worldwide consensus on how we are going do something about it.

Kyoto does it a little bit, but US doesn't participate, it's short term and insufficient. And this one took 12 years for every country to sign. I don't see us pulling that off again in the next 5 to 10 years.

antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2014
Practically speaking I don't see how we will reach a worldwide consensus

We'll reach one when we're all dead. That's 'consensus' of a sort. Arguably not the outcome anyone of the consenting individuals would favor, though.
Even if we can somehow hang on at diminished quality of life, mass migrations, hunger, water-wars, die-back and whatnot...that's still not an outcome anyone can be happy with.

Kyoto does it a little bit, but US doesn't participate

Then screw 'em. Get quick protocols with those who see the need and embargo anyone who doesn't sign (including the US if necessary). Economic pressure will see them sign shortly. If not then the fact that sustainable behavior is always way cheaper in the long run than unsustainable behavior. The latter always has a cocaine-effect associated with it at some point.
Sigh
5 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2014
why do you think it is a politicians dream?

An excuse to control more of the world.

If that were true, you could counter it by proposing a better libertarian solution. But all you ever suggested is a pipedream that would need a libertarian world government and that would restrict liberties more than the heaviest regulation ever imposed. I think you protest so much only because you have no solution to that kind of problem. So you must deny the problem, just because you can't accept the solutions that others propose.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2014
that would need a libertarian world government

That is an oxymoron.
There could be no such thing as a libertarian world govt.
But, since you mentioned it, world does exist in anarchy. There is NO world govt.
restrict liberties more than the heaviest regulation ever imposed

Why?
Are you opposed to having people compensated for any damages done to their property by others?
After all, most govts grant liability waivers to favored business, and themselves, for damages to private property. This is preferred?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2014
Why AGWites are worried:
"The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication has grudgingly acknowledged that a November 2013 poll found that the number of Americans who think global warming is a myth has climbed to 23%, up seven percentage points since April 2013. "
http://www.breitb...s-a-Myth
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2014
Finally the truth:
"United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

China may be the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is "doing it right" when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

Read more: http://dailycalle...qhPDMes2
Sigh
5 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2014
That is an oxymoron.
There could be no such thing as a libertarian world govt.

I quite agree, but you would need it to prevent polluting industries from sheltering in jurisdictions that don't accept your sweeping definition of property rights. And just as it now pays for some jurisdictions to be tax havens, it would pay to be a haven from some property rights. So you would need to enforce the same property rights everywhere. You have finally recognised one of the reasons why you have no solution.
Are you opposed to having people compensated for any damages done to their property by others?

You proposed that people should be able to stop or else be compensated for anything that in any way affects their property, WITHOUT having to prove damage. You are the one who declared damage irrelevant. Don't blame me for your proposal.
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2014
If you and your fellow libertarians put as much intellectual effort into finding libertarian solutions for environmental problems as you now put into denying that these problems exist, you might have found something. Or have you explored the issue so thoroughly that you know libertarianism is simply not up to the job?

I told you before, I would genuinely like to see libertarian solutions, for some of the same reasons you do. But I accept the problems as genuine, and it is more important to me that there is a solution than what political ideology that solution fits. But you have so consistently failed to offer any solutions to large scale problems, and you are so desperate to deny the existence of problems, I don't think you have any solutions.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2014
It's always amazing how the stupid deniers will use the few brain cells their small craniums to memorize some skeptics false claim on global warming than they will to use logic and examine the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that global warming is occurring at an alarming rate, and that it from the human activity of burning fossil fuels to support an urbanized industrial world.

Most people get global warming and see the links. The few that don't really are just Stokes trial monkeys in the back side of the bell curve.
Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2014
Finally the truth:
"United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

China may be the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is "doing it right" when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

If they're "doing it right", why are they the top emitter?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2014
I told you before, I would genuinely like to see libertarian solutions,

No, you don't.
YOUR ideology won't allow it.
it is more important to me that there is a solution

Yes, YOUR solution.
Typical of a technocrat who KNOWS he has the solution to the problem and anyone who doesn't support that solution are just stupid. Therefore technocrat MUST use force to make those stupid people do what best.

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." -- Robert Anson Heinlein
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
it is more important to me that there is a solution

Yes, YOUR solution.

First of all, it must be a workable solution. You have never presented one. Whenever I point out that your scheme depends on applying the same property rights everywhere, to avoid jurisdictions tailoring their property rights to shelter polluting industries, you act surprised or change the subject. Like now. What can I conclude but that you have no answer? You also have never shown how your scheme could be less restrictive than heavy regulation. You don't explain how to decide whether you can stop activity you dislike, or whether you are compensated, and how the level of compensation would be set.

If you had something that could work, we could discuss whether it is more desirable than alternatives. Only THEN can you find out what my ideology allows. But we can't even get there because you don't give me anything but a vague pipedream.
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
If they're "doing it right", why are they the top emitter?

Perhaps because they have the largest population? Surely you're not trying to argue that Iceland or Andorra or Monaco should produce as much pollution as China? Try measuring emissions per person. Then account for the emissions produced by making stuff that is not consumed in China. A lot of Chinese emissions are effectively emissions outsourced to China by consumers elsewhere.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
t must be a workable solution. You have never presented one.

I and others have.

Apply the same rules to your regulation schemes. Prove their efficacy before you force them upon the world.
Prove there will be no unintended consequences.

What the UN socialist stated about China is their socialist command and control system can order anything it wants, as Sigh desires, regardless of unintended consequences.
What the UN official, Tom Friedman and BHO like about China is their dictatorship. China doesn't have to persuade, just command.
Sigh
5 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
It must be a workable solution. You have never presented one.

I and others have.

All you gave me is something so unworkable that you are not willing to respond to the points I raised. You just make unsubstantiated claims like this one, and then you change the subject. As for others, there is this: http://phys.org/n...ide.html Government involvement is limited, but it's rather different from your approach. another libertarian referred me to a book by Block. I starts off with a logically inconsistent definition of property rights.

Apply the same rules to your regulation schemes. Prove their efficacy before you force them upon the world.

There's the Montreal protocol. You claimed it failed because the ozone hole will still take decades to close. With business as usual, it would still be growing. Acid rain was reduced in Europe by regulation, in the USA by cap and trade. Both worked.

Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
Prove there will be no unintended consequences.

Nice try, but I never claimed there would be none. I only claim that regulation has worked in the past, and that other approaches, like those described by Ostrom, have worked in at least some situations.

I also claim that your proposal is politically impossible to implement (you agreed that a libertarian world government is an oxymoron), and if you managed to implement it, the costs to the liberties that you value so highly would be greater than the cost from regulation. You have not yet refuted me. You only change the subject. Please do refute me. I want to see a market place of ideas, then empirical evidence on costs and benefits. If you refute me, you have a better idea to offer than you have now.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
Ryggy confuses herself with
China may be the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is "doing it right" when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres

now THIS contradictory and mutually exclusive, dont you think?
You cant be "doing it right" if you are the largest emitter!
t must be a workable solution. You have never presented one.


I and others have.

and in which paranoid delusional state did this occur?
You have only ever posted rants about your supposed proof that the world is in a conspiracy against ???? itself? You? The scientific community?
(did I miss anyone?)

re read Sigh above and address the points

IF YOU CAN!
Cocoa
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2014
Rygg - "the number of Americans who think global warming is a myth has climbed to 23%"

Which I guess means that the number of Americans who think that global warming is NOT a myth is 77%. Puts the deniers on the wrong side of the equation.

Of course - 46% of Americans believe that the human race was created only 10,000 years ago. http://www.gallup...ins.aspx

So all that SCIENCE stuff - like fossils, and plate tectonics, and carbon dating, and geology - is not believed by almost half of Americans. Rygg makes a great point - there is a very high degree of stupid in this fundamentalist backwater - we are grateful for the reminder.
Forestgnome
1.3 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2014
"in the past decade or so, more of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gasses appears to be going into the deep oceans". Hmmm. So there is at least one mechanism on Earth that moderates changes in climate that wasn't accounted for in the simulations. Isn't that interesting.... Raises a few questions doesn't it?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
So all that SCIENCE stuff - like fossils, and plate tectonics, and carbon dating, and geology - is not believed by almost half of Americans

@Cocoa
(wondering out loud) about your polls etc... I would love to see the actual wording on some of those polls...
I noticed that the gallup poll separated it into three possibilities, whereas one of the religionists possibilities allows for a scientific mindset but with a religionists guiding hand to assuage the conundrum and reconcile science with faith.
(i wonder how it would have turned out with only TWO selections- minus the guiding hand selection)

And I totally agree that the US is severely deficient in scientifically literate people. A glaring reminder every time one uses social media/internet or discusses science with someone.
(for scientific literacy)I rather like the proposed solution of Dr. Tyson... seems like a valid assumption to me, are you aware of it?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2014
"in the past decade or so, more of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gasses appears to be going into the deep oceans". Hmmm. So there is at least one mechanism on Earth that moderates changes in climate that wasn't accounted for in the simulations. Isn't that interesting.... Raises a few questions doesn't it?
Well. it raises one for me: what in the world makes you think that climate simulations do not account for 2/3 of the surface of the planet and some 90% of the of the heat content changes of the planet?

Oh, I guess that raises another question: before you come and post on a science site, do you take any time at all to learn about the thing you are posting about? Or do you just parrot what you've read on some denialist's blog?

Oh wait, that was two more.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2014
Captain Stumpy "I rather like the proposed solution of Dr. Tyson... seems like a valid assumption to me, are you aware of it?"

I really admire Tyson - and of course as a conservative, skeptical scientist - he is totally part of the scientific consensus on climate change. What specific solution were you referring to?
3432682
1 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
"We all know the earth's climate is changing. " Baloney. Some of you believe it, but that is not knowledge. It is the pretense of knowledge, but actually a political fad.

We do know that warming has been nil since 1998.
We do know that current temperatures are lower than the average since the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. It was warmer in Roman times 2,000 years ago, and in Minoan times 3,500 years ago, and warmer previous to that period.
We do know that current temperatures have made a mockery of the IPCC computer models' predictions, which now have only a 5% chance of being correct.
We ought to know that warmth cannot possibly be hiding in the ocean depths, where it is freezing cold, according to the laws of physics. The ARGO system of floats shows no evidence of warming down to 2000 meters (the average ocean depth is about 4300 meters).

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2014
One problem with being compensated for damages to property. What if you die in the damaging process (and have no heirs to continue the fight)? The other side wins by default.
Wouldn't you rather have some mechanism in place to prevent those damages in the first place?
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
One problem with being compensated for damages to property. What if you die in the damaging process (and have no heirs to continue the fight)? The other side wins by default.
Wouldn't you rather have some mechanism in place to prevent those damages in the first place?

I suppose the assumption is that the threat of being sued acts as a deterrent, much like the threat of a fine in the case of regulation. I think we should grant rygg that much. And perhaps killing people through damage to property would be treated as murder or manslaughter, reducing the incentive to kill potential troublemakers.
I hadn't thought of this contingency, but it may well be manageable in a libertarian scheme. Let's see whether rygg has anything to say.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2014
What specific solution were you referring to?

@Cocoa
specifically his solution that doubles NASA's budget, introduces more jobs for the Science fields and generates more income for the economy through various means...
i think he also says something about it also allowing the generations that are growing up now to get interested in science again and pushes them back towards the STEM fields

it all sounds plausible and logical. rather liked the you-tube video... i cant find it right now so i cant link it...sorry
i will look again later...
dusanmal
1 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2014
Here is my scientific opinion based on well known, tested and retested data:a)Greenland and Antarctic ice cores data for long term Earth temperature-many samples,many great institutions tested and published,one can easily re-test and find publications to check
Is there global warming in last 200 years?-Yes
FROM what?-From the coldest period in last 10000 years
Are we warmer than 10000yr average?-NO,we are in 10% COLDEST years
b) Interdisciplinary support for data in (a), published,peer reviewed:Archaeological finds of large farming medieval settlements that emerged from retreating Greenland ice in 2006 or well known geological evidence that Rocky Mountains glacier system have NOT existed just 4000 years ago c)NASA/MIT long term satellite mission tracking proportion of energy Earth received and returned to space during most of 1990's:declined each year,EXCLUDING ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT as a cause of present warming-known or unknown,human or natural
What is warming us?-CERN 2011 Cloud exp
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
Ken Lay, Enron, supported US joining the Kyoto treaty to get involved with an artificial market in carbon credits. Enron had participated in such artificial regulatory markets.
Its interesting that regulatory agencies acknowledge the power of market forces by creating false markets in attempts to harness their power.
Too bad the 'progressive' regulatory state can't give up its pathological need for control enabling the full power of real market forces.
Howhot
4 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2014
Ken Lay, Enron, supported US joining the Kyoto treaty to get involved with an artificial market in carbon credits. Enron had participated in such artificial regulatory markets.
Its interesting that regulatory agencies acknowledge the power of market forces by creating false markets in attempts to harness their power.
Too bad the 'progressive' regulatory state can't give up its pathological need for control enabling the full power of real market forces.

Of course @R2 in your way of thinking, nobody should be held responsible for putting a storage tank containing 4-methylcyclohexane methanol right next to a river! And locate it upstream from a primary water intake! According to "@R2-law" this crazy zoning would be caused by progressive government policy. In all likelihood the environment was not a consideration in zoning these storage tanks, and it's the kind of property rights @R2 believe in; once owned (regardless of neighbors property rights) it's land to be abused.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
Magnus what are you talking about? What sites have banned me? What is a sock puppet and what does it have to do with natural climate variations? I don't see you adding anything to the scientific discussions, just sniping at every skeptic. Curious how you explain the global warming advocates suddenly embracing natural variations? And the models still fail to capture El Ninos. Read ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5 Bellenger et al 2013, in Climate Dynamics. They still get the most critical climate dynamics wrong but we are supposed to believe the models without skepticisms?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
nobody should be held responsible for putting a storage tank containing 4-methylcyclohexane methanol right next to a river!

Of course the owners should be held responsible along with all govt agencies that have jurisdiction and have signed off on all inspections from the local to the federal level.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
BTW, regarding any spill of any sort on any navigable river, landowners along the river have no legal right to sue for damages as the federal govt has jurisdiction over ALL navigable rivers.
When the Cuyahoga River burned
"Most important for our understanding of environmental problems, the fire came about because political control replaced the emerging commonlaw rule of strict liability. Had that doctrine been allowed to hold sway, there would probably not have been a fire in 1969. - See more at: http://perc.org/a...xPL.dpuf
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2014
nobody should be held responsible for putting a storage tank containing 4-methylcyclohexane methanol right next to a river!

Of course the owners should be held responsible along with all govt agencies that have jurisdiction and have signed off on all inspections from the local to the federal level.


Of course they are. People are responsible for this environmental disaster and people will pay for it. But will the responsible parties be served justice?

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2014
For years they claimed anyone who is a skeptic has been funded by a conspiracy lead by Big Oil or the Koch brothers.

@JIm Steele
perhaps you missed this study?
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2014
You know what @R2, you put your finger on the problem. It's the NOT-ME problem. When the Cuyahoga River burned everyone who caused that disaster said "NOT-ME"... just like everything now. Not-me, I'm not responsible seems to be your rally-call @R2. You an all of the other global warming deniers that seem to exist here in the comment section.

Not-me should be the motto of all deniers; Global Warming - Not me! Gulf oil spill - Not Me. Mountain top removal - Not Me. Drought - Not Me. Ocean Asidification - Not Me. Arctic Melting - Not Me. Etc etc. Not me.

Man up to the problem.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2014
It's the NOT-ME problem.

Yes, that is what happens under socialism, no accountability. It's a double edge sword. If a property owner can't benefit from the use of his capital, he then has no accountability while under the color of the state.
Who built the dikes around New Orleans? Who is paying to have people rebuild along the Jersey shore? US govt.
Love Canal is classic. Hooker Chemical was forced by a city govt in Niagra, NY to sell that canal for housing and a new school. The govt knew the risks yet no govt agent or agency was held accountable.
Not long ago the NM govt limited the liability of rocket launch companies flying out of their new spaceport.
When the sole purpose of the state is to protect private property rights, risks won't be socialized, rights will be protected and accountability enforced.
Responsibility and accountability are eschewed by socialists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2014
"If the governor's office called the CEO of a private and unsubsidized bridge company and asked her to harm her customers by creating traffic chaos for political gotcha reasons, she would say "Are you nuts?"

People wonder why American government is so scandal-prone. One reason is that it is so darn big. It's an octopus with tentacles into everything, which may give politicians and bureaucrats ego trips, but it undermines economic growth and opens up public administration to corruption.

Read more: http://dailycalle...qqdcxGn8
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2014
"Scotland is world-famous for its salmon streams, and has a large tourist industry based on sports fishing for salmon. This is not because Scottish salmon are somehow different or better than salmon elsewhere in the world (though the Scots insist this is so). Rather, it is because the rights to fish every inch of every river in Scotland is privately owned, and the owners have a powerful incentive to keep them clean and well-stocked, since they make a good business out of issuing permits to sports fishers."
"virtually all state governments in the United States disallow the private ownership of streams, on the grounds that these should be held in public trust. The sad result is over-fishing and pollution, as governments give in to vested interests"
http://www.adamsm...a/18.htm
marcush
5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2014
As can be seen from these comments, for many if not most deniers there isn't anything that can be done or presented as evidence to change their mind short of waiting 100 years for a 4C rise, and even then they'll say it was all natural.

The most amazing thing I think is the degree of confidence they have in their own opinion against the professionals. However ask them to debate with professionals over at realclimate and they start making excuses. In short you have Science vs the religion of denialism. Everyone knows you cannot argue with religion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2014
The most amazing thing I think is the degree of confidence they have in their own opinion against the professionals.


Professionals were enthusiastic supporters of eugenics.
Professionals are challenging the AGW faith.
Why do 'professionals' have the need for a biased website like realclimate if the 'science is settled' and there is a 'consensus'?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2014
You would not choose 15 data points when you had 170 to characterize a trend.
B.S.. Did the author not actually read the IPCC reports? The IPCC only accredits warming from 1950 as being anthropogenic.

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

Which means for slightly more than 25% of the supposed anthropogenic driven trend, we've had no warming. This is definitely not an insignificant portion.

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

And this is occurring as the supposed greenhouse gases are ever increasing, which should proportionately increase the tendency to warm.

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

So obviously, there is a distinctive and continuing disconnect.

The Shootist
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2014
BBC - The sun has gone to sleep.

Goodbye AGW.

MIT - You can see the politicians eyes light up at the prospect of new taxes from "climate change".

Dale Gribble - We'll grow oranges in Alaska.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2014
Second, in the past decade or so, more of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gasses appears to be going into the deep oceans, which is why globally averaged warming has slowed.
More AGWite B.S.. This is based on a hackneyed computer model that does nothing to explain how this supposed anthropogenic induced heat magically skips through the atmosphere, and 700 meters of seawater, to embed itself only in the deep ocean.

Honestly, I did not know heat was so sentient!

Third, Arctic sea ice continues to be substantially below the long-term average in both areal extent and thickness.
Why do the AGWites ignore Antarctica? The sea ice extent there is unprecedented!

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Let us not be distracted by those who misuse data in order to create doubt about global warming.
Oh, so now that it's not warming, all of a sudden the data becomes irrelevant?

This is definitely NOT a science based point of view.

RealityCheck
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2014
@Returners: The global ocean current 'heat conveyor belts' have changed over the millennia, so all those 'cyclic' hot/cold REGIONAL states/weather etc have changed with them. The point is that overall the heat content in the system has been growing, and these changes in currents and regional cycles will be reflecting the more extreme/frequent events/changes as the transition from old to new cycles/climate patterns develops. Temporary heat absorbing 'sinks' will eventually become saturated and the warming/extremes etc will become more pronounced. T=Its when that happens that our children's children will not thank us for dooming them to 'hell on earth'. Short range thinking and political/criminal self-interest will be a killer of civilization and our progeny/chances to survive as a civilization into the longer term. Denialists/sillies like you and uba abuse 'selected' quotes/data for your 'half truths' while purposely denying the rest of the data/context. Your egos know no shame.
RealityCheck
4.4 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2014
More AGWite B.S.. This is based on a hackneyed computer model that does nothing to explain how this supposed anthropogenic induced heat magically skips through the atmosphere, and 700 meters of seawater, to embed itself only in the deep ocean.

Honestly, I did not know heat was so sentient!

Why do the AGWites ignore Antarctica? The sea ice extent there is unprecedented!

Oh, so now that it's not warming, all of a sudden the data becomes irrelevant?

This is definitely NOT a science based point of view.


Now you deny deep ocean 'conveyor' currents (downwellings/upwellings too)! Again you misrepresent the actual facts. How low can you go, uba, with your 'half truth' based denials out of runaway ego and studied stupidity, that you can't admit deep ocean chemistry/physics has great phase-change-materials (hydrates etc) 'heat sinks' that buffer the warming until it saturates! The ice is locally/transiently affected by, and in turn affects, air/ocean currents. Sad. :(
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2014
The conversation no one seems to have is all this started with the Club of Rome report "Limits to Growth". It was based upon a crude computer model and Luddites like Paul Ehrlich and his disciples latched on to this 'science' to promote their socialism.
Of course computer models were applied to climate and here we are.
Those who are expert in computer simulations understand the limits M&S. Dyson understands. AGWites don't.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2014
UBA - "Why do the AGWites ignore Antarctica? The sea ice extent there is unprecedented!"

You just don't care how stupid you look - it is such an interesting psychology. You have just finished getting humiliated on at least 2 other threads - with clear demonstration that you do not understand the issues being processed. Yet again - here comes pop a mole - with more nonsense.

No one is ignoring the ice extent increase in the Antarctic. It is a well documented, and well processes issue. However - the Antarctic is warming, and the reasons for the ice extent increases are being discussed by the scientists.

If you were not so sad - it would be kind of funny - watching you humiliate yourself over and over.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
Now you deny deep ocean 'conveyor' currents (downwellings/upwellings too)! Again you misrepresent the actual facts. How low can you go, uba, with your 'half truth' based denials out of runaway ego and studied stupidity, that you can't admit deep ocean chemistry/physics has great phase-change-materials (hydrates etc) 'heat sinks' that buffer the warming until it saturates! The ice is locally/transiently affected by, and in turn affects, air/ocean currents. Sad. :(
Do you even have a clue how long it takes deep seawater to circulate to the surface, and back again? Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Guy_Underbridge
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
It took a while before some folks accepted that the earth wasn't flat, as well.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
You just don't care how stupid you look - it is such an interesting psychology. You have just finished getting humiliated on at least 2 other threads - with clear demonstration that you do not understand the issues being processed. Yet again - here comes pop a mole - with more nonsense.
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

No one is ignoring the ice extent increase in the Antarctic. It is a well documented, and well processes issue. However - the Antarctic is warming, and the reasons for the ice extent increases are being discussed by the scientists.
Is it?

If you were not so sad - it would be kind of funny - watching you humiliate yourself over and over.
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

adam_russell_9615
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
This is only tangentially related to global warming.
The heat cycle of evaporation and then condensation into rain is a HUGE energy transfer mechanism, and possibly an untapped energy resource. It takes a great deal of energy to evaporate water. When that water decides to condense and form rain the exact same amount of energy that was required to evaporate it is required to be released from it - and thats a lot of energy stored in a cloud. Normally that energy goes to heat the surrounding atmosphere (iiuc). If it could instead be captured that would be a great resource. It also may have a positive effect on global warming since heat energy would be removed from the atmosphere. Just something Im throwing out there for thought. Can the kinetic energy of water vapor be removed (changing it to liquid) without that energy turning directly into heat energy?
EnricM
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
It's too bad AGWites chose the political path instead of the science path to push their faith. But then one can't really use science to promote a faith.
for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge," he says."
http://boston.cbs...ow-down/


TRUE!

Gobal Warming is a conspiracy of Capitalism! And we all know it's fake, so let's build a Global Socialist People's Republic!!
Send all these Climate Scientists to the gulag, how needs a climate anyway?
Solidarity with the Koch Brothers, the true antithesis of crony capitalism!!!


Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
UBA - "Is it?"

Yes it is - and if you knew how to use google - you would understand how hard the scientists are working to understand our world. Here is the first hit I got on a google search for 'Antarctic ice extent increase'

http://earthobser...outh.php

UBA "1. troll"

Nice deflection. Post a whole bunch of cherry picked garbage. Link to articles that actually say exactly the opposite of what you are asserting. Call someone a troll for bringing attention to your ignorance. But pop a mole will be right there on the next thread - totally oblivious.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
you would understand how hard the scientists are working to understand our world.

So because scientists are trying soo hard, their rusults must be valid?
Sounds like the typical 'liberal' policy of rewarding trophies just for trying.
Little league baseball, youth soccer teams are prohibited from keeping score and give out awards to everyone just for participating.
Just because scientists work hard, they must be rewarded regardless of the results?
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
"So because scientists are trying soo hard, their rusults must be valid?"

If you understood anything about the world you live in - you would appreciate the stupidity of your statements. Science has brought us much. Antibiotics, prosthetic limbs, cell phones, space travel, heart transplants, sequencing the genome (do I need to continue?)

Yes scientists should be (and are) rewarded for their contribution to our forward progress. They are rewarded every day by seeing the benefits we all get from their work. The validity of their work is in the progress we make every day.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
he validity of their work is in the progress we make every day.

That is not what you asserted earlier.
Cocoa:
"you would understand how hard the scientists are working to understand our world"

How does working hard make their work more valid?
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
Rygg "How does working hard make their work more valid?"

Working hard is a complement to the scientists who are moving us forward as a species. I said "The validity of their work is in the progress we make every day."

That statement in no way conflicts with the other statement I made.

""you would understand how hard the scientists are working to understand our world"

What is staggering to many of us on Physorg is why you insist on spamming a science site - with negative comments about science. You and UBA are just sad - really really sad.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
negative comments about science

I have no problem with the process of science, but AGWites apparently do with assertions "the science is settled" so SHUT UP!
Many scientists are very uncomfortable with such extremism and have so stated, publicly.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
UBA - "Is it?"

Yes it is - and if you knew how to use google - you would understand how hard the scientists are working to understand our world. Here is the first hit I got on a google search for 'Antarctic ice extent increase'

http://earthobser...outh.php
Did you even bother to read your reference? It's just a fact sheet. There's no discussion.

And more importatntly, you claimed the Antarctic is warming. So, is it?

Nice deflection. Post a whole bunch of cherry picked garbage. Link to articles that actually say exactly the opposite of what you are asserting. Call someone a troll for bringing attention to your ignorance. But pop a mole will be right there on the next thread - totally oblivious.
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
"Scientists: After giving some much-needed perspective on scientists, Delingpole tackles "science," observing that political activists discovered that science could be used "as a handy excuse to advance their agenda under the guise of studied objectivity. 'Hey, it's not because we're a bunch of crypto-Marxist control freaks that we're demanding higher taxes, more regulation, and the replacement of Western industrial civilization with a Soviet-style global command economy run by leftist technocrats. It's because the science tells us that that's what we need to do'.""
http://washington...lick=rss

Real scientists, if they want to maintain credibility, in any field, need to be very careful playing with politicians.
RealityCheck
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
Do you even have a clue how long it takes deep seawater to circulate to the surface, and back again? Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

As I pointed out in the other thread (where you also called me a troll!): " Currents speed up and slow, and change, including up/down wellings. These are continuously active and increasingly perturbed due to the additional heat energy being transported. The clathrates etc change phase and absorb heat from the deep water and bubble it up to the surface waters. Its more complex nd dynamic than you seem to think. Think it through based on all the facts, instead of just 'selecting' with bias and basing 'beliefs' on simplistic and partial picture.

You persistently misrepresent data and construct half-truths from same to mislead readers; and I occasionally point out how that betrays your intellect and integrity-and now you have the ego-stupidity to call me a troll? Amazing! "

Bye, uba. Good luck in your future thinking/choices.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
UBA - "Did you even bother to read your reference? It's just a fact sheet."

And where do you think the facts come from? Unlike you - scientists don't pull facts out of their asses - they do research.

UBA "And more importatntly, you claimed the Antarctic is warming. So, is it?

Yes it is - and if you had even rudimentary google skills - you would be able to do some research.

Here is a good wiki article - with lots of references that any serious person interested in the facts can follow.

http://en.wikiped...tarctica

The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and significant at >0.05°C/decade since 1957.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
Rygg: "Real scientists, if they want to maintain credibility, in any field, need to be very careful playing with politicians."

Agreed. Of course - the scientists who are out on the ice sheets collecting the data would agree with you too.

Funny how I comment on your obnoxious habit of trolling a science web site - with negative comments about science - and all you can do is cut and paste an article entitled "A libertarian's guide to climate change hype" I guess all libertarians hate science and progress (just borrowing your logic).

Like I say - you and UBA are sad....

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
Agreed.


Did you read Mann's editorial in the NYT promoting activism?
Or Erhlich's?
Not very scientific.
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
Did you read Mann's editorial in the NYT promoting activism?

No I did not. What's your point? Is Mann climbing around the glaciers and ice sheets taking data readings? Did Mann develop a new technique for sequencing the genome or something? My point is that my respect goes to the scientists who are doing the hard work of scientific research.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
Real scientists, if they want to maintain credibility, in any field, need to be very careful playing with politicians.

By inference, then, you're saying it's not the scientists fault, it's the politicians. so stop harping at the scientists who do the study and put the blame where it belongs - on the manipulators of public opinion - politicians. Oh - and media leaders wanting readership...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
You persistently misrepresent data and construct half-truths from same to mislead readers; and I occasionally point out how that betrays your intellect and integrity-and now you have the ego-stupidity to call me a troll? Amazing! "
How can you not see this is trolling?

Bye, uba. Good luck in your future thinking/choices.
Bye, again.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
And where do you think the facts come from? Unlike you - scientists don't pull facts out of their asses - they do research.

Yes it is - and if you had even rudimentary google skills - you would be able to do some research.
Trolling.

Here is a good wiki article - with lots of references that any serious person interested in the facts can follow.

http://en.wikiped...tarctica

The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and significant at >0.05°C/decade since 1957.
That is a nice reference. Thank you. But it's talking about a long term trend since the 1950's. What's it been doing the last 30 years?

And did you see where it states: "The British Antarctic Survey ...has the following positions: ...Antarctica seems to be both warming around the edges and cooling at the center at the same time. Thus it is not possible to say whether it is warming or cooling overall."

Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014
UBA - "That is a nice reference. Thank you. But it's talking about a long term trend since the 1950's. What's it been doing the last 30 years?

You suggest that a long term trend since the 1950's does not include the last 30 years? What language do speak?

Yes I was aware that there is controversy over the situation in Antarctica - due to the difficulty of studying this remote continent. However (and again) - if you had rudimentary google skills - you would be able to sort through a lot of this stuff - and understand that there is a solid understanding that parts of Antarctica are warming - and other parts are cooling - but that overall it is showing a warming trend - see
http://www.nature...717.html and
http://www.scienc...ling_yes

Of course - as usual - you can cherry pick the literature to death - to support your position. Here is the more interesting point. (cont).
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014
cont. On many issues regarding climate change - you immediately appear on these threads - to declare your superior knowledge - and that the researchers in this field are wrong. Of course - you have no credentials in this field (or you would for sure have shared that one) and no in the field experience. So you argue that the glaciers are growing - and then provide references that say the exact opposite. And Antarctica is cooling. etc. etc. etc. So it is clear that YOU have an agenda - and spend your life trying to justify and support your agenda - and claiming that the scientists are wrong - despite yourself having no credentials or in field experience. Others here understand that science is hard work - and are OK to let the researchers do this work - and let us know what they find. You sit behind your computer - and tell them that YOU know better. Can you say Dunning Kruger? (cont)
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014
(cont). Suppose new information comes out - and the researchers who are doing the hard work of science - find that overall - the balance in Antarctica shows a cooling trend? Or that the glaciers actually start growing again? Or that the surface temperatures start to trend down? Or that Arctic ice volume starts to increase? (you get my point right?) This will of course be incredibly interesting - and the researchers will need to figure out what the hell is going on - and what variables the models are missing that they got this wrong. But this is just the process of science. Just as when the weather models get it wrong - and climatologists have to understand that their models are not even close to perfect. So what? This in no way vindicates your sitting behind your computer - and claiming that YOU know more than all the researchers who have spent their lives specializing the field of climate - YOU DONT. Can you say Dunning Kruger?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014
Real scientists, if they want to maintain credibility, in any field, need to be very careful playing with politicians.

By inference, then, you're saying it's not the scientists fault, it's the politicians. so stop harping at the scientists who do the study and put the blame where it belongs - on the manipulators of public opinion - politicians. Oh - and media leaders wanting readership...

No I am not saying that. You are.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2014
Yes I was aware that there is controversy over the situation in Antarctica
Nice to see you finally admit it.
Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2014
Nice to see you finally admit it.


So what? There is often controversy in science - it is part of the process. So the British Antarctic expedition feels like there is insufficient data to make a determination if the balance is warming or cooling. Others feel that there is sufficient data - and the balance is warming. You see - scientists are not afraid to wrestle with conflicting information. Shame you did not read the rest of my last post.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2014
So what?
You don't remember insisting Antarctica is warming?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
There is often controversy in science - it is part of the process

Not according to AGWites, the science is settled.
Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
You don't remember insisting Antarctica is warming?


Yes I do - and I provided a wiki link - containing an extensive number of links to original articles - that support this assertion. The wiki article also acknowledged the disagreement by some of the researchers - but agreed that on balance - the current thinking is that overall the Antarctic is warming - albeit much slower than the Arctic. Too bad you did not read the balance of my comments above.
Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
Not according to AGWites, the science is settled.


You will have to take that up with AGWites. I have acknowledged that there is a level of disagreement among the science community. Unlike you - I do not think in black and white terms - I understand that there is often disagreement. Do you have any data to support a different view - that perhaps the Antarctic is cooling - or are you just here to snipe like a little child - but to contribute nothing of substance to the conversation?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
You don't remember insisting Antarctica is warming?


Yes I do - and I provided a wiki link - containing an extensive number of links to original articles - that support this assertion. The wiki article also acknowledged the disagreement by some of the researchers - but agreed that on balance - the current thinking is that overall the Antarctic is warming - albeit much slower than the Arctic. Too bad you did not read the balance of my comments above.
Previously, you unequivocally claimed the Antarctic is warming. It's nice to see you now understand the science isn't settled. This is progress.

You're welcome.

Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Previously, you unequivocally claimed the Antarctic is warming. It's nice to see you now understand the science isn't settled. This is progress.

You're welcome.


For crying out loud Uba READ THE BLOODY THING! It says UNEQUIVOCALLY that Antarctica is WARMING! Its that word comprehension thing again, seriously, you need to learn how it works!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
For crying out loud Uba READ THE BLOODY THING! It says UNEQUIVOCALLY that Antarctica is WARMING! Its that word comprehension thing again, seriously, you need to learn how it works!
Are you having trouble with comprehension? Or did you just miss this part:

"The British Antarctic Survey ...has the following positions: ...Antarctica seems to be both warming around the edges and cooling at the center at the same time. Thus it is not possible to say whether it is warming or cooling overall."

Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
UBA:
Previously, you unequivocally claimed the Antarctic is warming. It's nice to see you now understand the science isn't settled. This is progress.


Previously - I unequivocally claimed the Antarctic is warming - and I provided plenty of support for that claim - and I stand by that claim. Here is wiki page that gives a summation.

http://en.wikiped...troversy

Let me give you the pertinent quote. "and because the overall trend since comprehensive observations began is now known to be one of warming."

Now - counter to your recent statement - there is no progress when talking with you. I don't know - perhaps you are mentally ill, perhaps mentally deficient, or perhaps just a child - thinking it is cute to say stupid things on the internet. Either way - there is no progress with you.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2014
Previously - I unequivocally claimed the Antarctic is warming - and I provided plenty of support for that claim - and I stand by that claim.
So I guess you're still having trouble with that data I gave you?

Clue: It shows Antarctica has seen static temperatures for more than 30 years (actually a very slight decline).

Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2014
UBA:
So I guess you're still having trouble with that data I gave you?


Correct - as would be expected when you present a page of data - but no reference as to where it is from - so actually no way of checking out your claim. But UBA - please don't bother explaining yourself - you have demonstrated your total lack of rationality - and thus the complete futility in trying to have any kind of conversation with you. The best any one can hope for is to spend a few minutes showing what total absurdity you post - and then move on. I am fine accepting the scientific understanding of the current situation with our world. You go ahead you study your little page of data - you go ahead a believe that the glaciers are growing, and the ice sheets are growing, and the temperatures are not increasing, etc. etc. Fortunately saner heads than yours are actually studying the issues - and I believe we can count on science to do the best we can in terms of evolving our understandings.
EnricM
3 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
Here is the data, well part of it.
Dear denielists, why don; you try to do something with this data?

ftp://ftp.ncdc.no...nes2004/

There is more in more places. The data is collected by people.

Instead of talking your tongue sore and wasting time in debating the words... why don you do something useful with the NUMBERS?

The eart is cooling? Present a dataset, not only a graph in JPG in a godforgotten site.
Do at least a simple linear model and some simple analysis, just like what we humble web analysts are able to do with harmless data such as visits and clicks. It's easy, you don't need a PhD. And it's damn more useful than talking endless sh*t about thinfoil hats, UFO and the occult misteries of the IPCC.
KTHXBYE
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2014
What is the normal temperature of the earth?
"A second episode of pine descent took place c. 4800 cal. a BP. Historical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4800 years. Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods, c. 1900 and 1000 cal. a BP, respectively."
http://onlinelibr...abstract