Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

Congressional Expert on Global Warming

 

Rocks falling into the sea is the reason for rising sea levels according to Republican Mo Brooks of Alabama. I've looked at this theory for hours and can't see any flaws in this reasoning. I'm going to put out another cause for rising sea levels and that is the increasing numbers of people going to the beach and taking a wiz in the water because of the hotter (which hasn't been scientifically proven) weather.

Droll, very droll ;) strawman 0. Congressman, so what else is new? :)

[johnu]

Droll, very droll ;) strawman 0. Congressman, so what else is new? :)

 

Brooks said this as a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. I will sleep well tonight knowing that the best and the brightest are running this country.

[Daniel1960]

1. Winston recognizes that this is a bridge site. Most of his postings are bridge related

 

2. Winston actually engages in debate. His posts are an attempt to generate discussion rather than a never ending gish gallop

 

3. Winston has an internally coherent world view. Your posts are inherently contradictory. Yes, they all criticize global warming, but the mechanisms and methods that they use can not put into a self consistent framework. If one holds true, most of the rest of them must be false.

 

4. You have admitted to knowing posting factually incorrect information that you hope will support your case. You're not involved in an honest discussion.

 

1. True, but this is the climate change thread.

2. Debate is a good thing. We should all strive to engage fully with each other, without ad hominems.

3. A world view, while generally accepted, is not always true. It is what the general folk believe. Not that it is inherently false, but tends to be based more on emotion than fact. This is also not an either/or situation either, but a continuum. The truth lies somewhere in between, but may be closer to one side than the other. This is still an evolving discipline; what we know today is several orders of magnitude greater than what we knew 10 years ago, and likely to be so 10 years from now.

4. Too many post factually incorrect information or (more likely) highly skewed information that is factually correct, but highly misleading. I always ask myself, why did someone choose a particular wording or start date for their analysis. Are the conclusions the same beyond these qualifications? This is dishonest, and only leads to a diminished view of the poster by the rest of the community.

[hrothgar]

 

4. Too many post factually incorrect information or (more likely) highly skewed information that is factually correct, but highly misleading. I always ask myself, why did someone choose a particular wording or start date for their analysis. Are the conclusions the same beyond these qualifications? This is dishonest, and only leads to a diminished view of the poster by the rest of the community.

 

And how would you say that Al-U-Card does meeting this goal...

 

(Please recall, he is the one who openly admits to posting information that he knows to be factually incorrect if it helps him advance his "cause")

[hrothgar]

1. True, but this is the climate change thread.

 

 

If you actually have an issue with this, you should probably have started with the previous post...

You know, the one where Al asked the following question

 

"Is Winston a troll, for dominating a thread with his anti-Trump fixation? Does sharing his feelings and opinion alter that situation?"

[Daniel1960]

I refuse to join in the troll calling argument. One could argue that everyone is a troll just be posting here, because they obviously want to advance their own opinion. I, for one, am happy to entertain others opinions. Sometimes they may be beneficial, and lead to better understanding. Other times, it may be so far out that it makes me chuckle. Calling various esteemed scientists unreliable, because of some extraneous belief, seems like a stretch. All these are tactics used by the lawyer that cannot refute the evidence presented, so must rely on discrediting the witness. Any evidence or argument should be judged on its own merits. I do not reject someone's argument just because they belong to a particular religion, political party, social, or other organization. That said, knowing posting false information does nor advance one's cause.

[Al_U_Card]

Welcome back to the thread, Daniel. Have you any thoughts about the latest SLR readings and the possibility that most of the rise is due to adjustments etc.?

[Daniel1960]

Welcome back to the thread, Daniel. Have you any thoughts about the latest SLR readings and the possibility that most of the rise is due to adjustments etc.?

The SLR readings are all over the map. Some say acceleration, others deceleration, and still others a constant rise. Much of the problem is merging different data sets, and the adjustments made to coordinate them. I understand the importance of adjustments, but they have not been consistent.

[Winstonm]

https://www.hw.ac.uk/about/news/new-research-reveals-ocean-waves-play.htm

[PassedOut]

Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show

 

A report led by scientists in the UK and US found the rate of melting from the Antarctic ice sheet has accelerated threefold in the last five years and is now vanishing faster than at any previously recorded time.

 

A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070. This could lead eventually to the collapse of the entire west Antarctic ice sheet, and around 3.5m of sea-level rise.

 

Prof Andrew Shepherd, a lead author of the study on accelerating ice loss, said: “We have long suspected that changes in Earth’s climate will affect the polar ice sheets. Thanks to our satellites our space agencies have launched, we can now track their ice losses and global sea level contribution with confidence.”

 

He said the rate of melting was “surprising.”

 

“This has to be a cause for concern for the governments we trust to protect our coastal cities and communities,” Shepherd added.

 

The study, published in Nature, involved 84 scientists from 44 international organisations and claims to be the most comprehensive account of the Antarctic ice sheet to date. It shows that before 2012, the Antarctic lost ice at a steady rate of 76bn tonnes per year - a 0.2mm per year contribution to sea-level rise. However since then there has been a sharp increase, resulting in the loss of 219bn tonnes of ice per year - a 0.6mm per year sea-level contribution.

So warming temperatures cause more melting! Who knew?

B-)

[Al_U_Card]

Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show

 

 

So warming temperatures cause more melting! Who knew?

B-)

Something about volcanic activity in the West Antarctic peninsula might just have something to do with those temperatures and melt? Lots of "coulds" in that article. Who knew? Likely they do.

[Al_U_Card]

Now, about that ice-free arctic in summer meme... we'll check back in September at the end of the melt season and see how it's doing.

 

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/anim/plots_uk/CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180613.png

[Winstonm]

How many known conditions unaccounted for by volcanic activity does one have to ignore to say "volcanoes did it"?

[Al_U_Card]

Just an ongoing issue with the prevarications of the alarmist crowd. They (The Guardian etc.) will report anything that speculates about disaster but always avoid the caveats or opposing and more reasonable explanations. viz

 

Just what is happening and when will it matter?

 

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/volcano/antarctic-volcano-twaites.gif

[johnu]

Something about volcanic activity in the West Antarctic peninsula might just have something to do with those temperatures and melt? Lots of "coulds" in that article. Who knew? Likely they do.

 

Swamp gas from Washington DC is also contributing to global warming B-)

[Al_U_Card]

Swamp gas from Washington DC is also contributing to global warming B-)

More likely government money directing "fake" research is a bigger problem. Original "hot air" started in Rio at the Earth Summit and Strong's pitch for the UNFCCC and a fledgling IPCC to use global warming as a means to an end. It has become a religion as well as a waste of money. Unlike CO2, swamp gas is not beneficial to plant life and whatever effect it may have on planetary temperatures is less than what all those computer models have been programmed to indicate. That is why they all run "hot", hotter than the real, natural, global warming that has been on-going for several centuries, fortunately for us.

[johnu]

More likely government money directing "fake" research is a bigger problem. Original "hot air" started in Rio at the Earth Summit and Strong's pitch for the UNFCCC and a fledgling IPCC to use global warming as a means to an end. It has become a religion as well as a waste of money. Unlike CO2, swamp gas is not beneficial to plant life and whatever effect it may have on planetary temperatures is less than what all those computer models have been programmed to indicate. That is why they all run "hot", hotter than the real, natural, global warming that has been on-going for several centuries, fortunately for us.

 

LOL :rolleyes:

[PassedOut]

Ex-Nasa scientist: 30 years on, world is failing 'miserably’ to address climate change

 

The dawdling global response to warming temperatures means runaway climate change now looms. The aspirational 1.5C (2.7F) warming target set in Paris be surpassed by 2040. Huge amounts of ice from western Antarctica are crashing into the ocean, redrawing forecasts for sea level rise. Some low-lying islands fear extinction.

 

“It’s not too late,” Hansen stressed. “There is a rate of reduction that’s feasible to stay well below 2C. But you just need that price on carbon.”

 

John Holdren, who was Obama’s chief science adviser, told the Guardian that the Paris agreement achieved what was possible without support from Congress and that legally binding lawsuits would be “problematic”.

 

However, he added that while he had reservations about Hansen’s policy ideas he was one of the “true giants” of climate science.

 

“Poor Jim Hansen. He’s a tragic hero,” said Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard academic who studies the history of science. “The Cassandra aspect of his life is that he’s cursed to understand and diagnose what’s going on but unable to persuade people to do something about it. We are all raised to believe knowledge is power but Hansen proves the untruth of that slogan. Power is power.”

 

That power has been most aggressively wielded by fossil fuel companies such as Exxon and Shell which, despite being well aware of the dangers of climate change decades before Hansen’s touchstone moment in 1988, funded a network of groups that ridiculed the science and funded sympathetic politicians. Later, they were to be joined by the bulk of the US Republican party, which now recoils from any action on climate change as heresy.

“Obama was committed to action but couldn’t do much with the Congress he had,” Oreskes said. “To blame the Democrats and Obama is to misunderstand the political context. There was a huge, organized network that put forward a message of confusion and doubt.”

 

Climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who testified at the same 1988 hearing about sea level rise, said the struggle to confront climate change has been “discouraging”.

 

“The nasty anti-science movement ramped up and now we are way behind.”

 

“I’m convinced we will deal with the problem,” he said. “[but] not before there is an amount of suffering that is unconscionable and should’ve been avoided.”

The same approach that cigarette companies used to maintain profits at the expense of human lives has worked to prevent action on climate change too. But the consequences for failing to deal with climate change will be much greater for sure.

[Al_U_Card]

Ex-Nasa scientist: 30 years on, world is failing 'miserably’ to address climate change

 

 

The same approach that cigarette companies used to maintain profits at the expense of human lives has worked to prevent action on climate change too. But the consequences for failing to deal with climate change will be much greater for sure.

What a crock. Just how much temperature will be "saved" by reducing CO2 emissions? A simple correspondance should suffice since the effect is so clear and obvious ...

[johnu]

What a crock. Just how much temperature will be "saved" by reducing CO2 emissions? A simple correspondance should suffice since the effect is so clear and obvious ...

 

Chill bro, why don't you have a long smoke. Smoking is good for you.

[Al_U_Card]

Chill bro, why don't you have a long smoke. Smoking is good for you.

Obviously not what you all are smoking but enjoy your kool-aid, while you can. ;)

[Winstonm]

Nothing to worry about - acid rains melt CO2 particles - which I'm not saying there is such things - but it would - if they were real.

[Al_U_Card]

Just how much temperature will be "saved" by reducing CO2 emissions? A simple correspondance should suffice since the effect is so clear and obvious ... still waiting ... the science being settled (enough to deplete our finances to lower global temperatures some definable(?) amount) ... so do tell

[Al_U_Card]

A most interesting "explanation" for SLR, such as it is or may be...or not.

 

[y66]

Ex-Nasa scientist: 30 years on, world is failing 'miserably’ to address climate change

 

The same approach that cigarette companies used to maintain profits at the expense of human lives has worked to prevent action on climate change too. But the consequences for failing to deal with climate change will be much greater for sure.

I've seen Hansen talk. He really is his own worst enemy when it comes to persuading people much like the effect Krugman has on some retired math professors who post here, only 1000x more shrill. I was struck by this story from last week in which Angela Merkle assured workers they would not be left behind in Germany’s climate policies. That's not just good politics, it's good thinking. If Obama and Clinton had said "we are thinking of workers first" and meant it at every opportunity, the future for workers and the planet would look a lot less bleak than it does at the moment. No doubt, even Hansen gets this now.