Climate change

[Daniel1960]

If what you say were true, you would be able to list some of the "many possibilities stated in the article" for which global warming is not responsible. Actually, I see none. What are you including in the "many possibilities stated in the article" that are not caused by global warming?

 

Some of the possibilities include: decreased ocean temperatures, increased snowfall, wind variations, ozone forcing, atmospheric dynamics, and an increase in polynyas. The authors also list measurement error as a possibility. They did not eliminate global warming as a possible explanation, but insists that sea ice should decline over the long term - at least according to the models.

[PassedOut]

Some of the possibilities include: decreased ocean temperatures, increased snowfall, wind variations, ozone forcing, atmospheric dynamics, and an increase in polynyas. The authors also list measurement error as a possibility. They did not eliminate global warming as a possible explanation, but insists that sea ice should decline over the long term - at least according to the models.

I asked for a list of the "many possibilities stated in the article" for which global warming is not responsible. Let's look again at what the article that you want us all to read says about "decreased ocean temperatures."

 

Changes to sea surface temperatures

 

As the glaciers and ice shelves melt on the Antarctic continent, freshwater is added to the oceans. This layer of cold, fresh water on the ocean surface freezes easily [10]. When combined with increased ocean stratification due to this enhanced run off [11], sea-surface temperatures are depressed, encouraging sea-ice formation.

 

A recent modeling study has shown that increases in fresh meltwater flux from melting glaciers and ice caps on Antarctica under various IPCC standardized global warming scenarios offsets the decline in sea-ice area and to even further encourage the increases in sea-ice extent, especially in winter (in summer, air temperatures are too high to support significant sea-ice growth) [12].

 

Increased stratification has further implications. Suppression of ocean circulation overturning decreases the ocean heat flux available to melt ice, leading to an increase in net ice production[13].

As global warming accelerates the freshwater melt from Antarctic glaciers, the resulting decrease in ocean temperatures (along with the lower salinity of the glacial melt) expands the surrounding sea ice. It has always been understood that this would happen on the way to equilibrium but, until the past few years, had been considered too obvious to point out.

 

What about "increased snowfall?"

 

Increased precipitation

 

Warmer air holds more moisture, and so precipitation is increasing around Antarctica [13]. Strong warming in the middle latitudes of the Southern Ocean can lead to an enhanced hydrological cycle, with enhanced evaporation and moisture content in the lower troposphere [14]. This additional moisture is transported poleward, where it results in increased precipitation. Increases in snow and rain falling onto the ocean contribute to the freshening of the ocean surface in the high latitudes of the Southern Ocean. Fresher, colder water freezes more easily, so this mechanism may contribute to the growth in area of Antarctic sea ice.

 

Furthermore, the increased weight of snow on the sea ice may force it deeper into the water, forming thicker sea ice when the snow refreezes. Deeper snow also insulates the ice, protecting it from melting [15].

As global warming produces more moisture-laden air, the Antarctic snowfall increases.

 

But what about "wind variations, ozone forcing, atmospheric dynamics, and an increase in polynyas?"

 

Wind and movement

 

Changes in atmospheric dynamics and winds are an important driver of regional sea-ice trends. Ozone and greenhouse forcings cool the Antarctic stratosphere, which increases the stratospheric vortex and tropospheric zonal winds. This results in an increase in the Southern Annular Mode [6]. Increases in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) signify increased westerly winds [7] and a rigorous isolation and cooling of parts of the Antarctic continent [6].

 

Because the Arctic is a semi-enclosed ocean, there is little scope for sea ice movement. Ice in the Arctic is thicker as a result of collisions, which means that the ice will last longer. This means that much of the Arctic sea ice lasts for several seasons, leading to permanent ice cover at the pole. However, in the Antarctic, there are far fewer such constraints. The sea ice is able to move around far more freely. It floats northwards to warmer waters, where it melts away almost entirely. Changes in the winds around Antarctica therefore change ice-concentration trends around Antarctica [8] by influencing sea-ice production and melt rates [9]. The pattern of wind change is complex, but variations in winds can help to explain some of the regional patterns in sea-ice formation [8]. Where the wind blows to the north, the sea ice is blown north where it melts, resulting in increased sea-ice extent. Where the winds blow south, the sea ice is blown towards the continent, resulting in decreased sea-ice concentrations.

 

Polynyas are areas of persistently open water in regions where sea ice is usual. The water remains unfrozen as a result of processes that either prevent ice from forming or that move ice out of the area. Polynyas are therefore an important part of sea-ice production. An increase in the extent of polynyas in the Ross Sea from 1978 to 2008 contributed to sea ice production [2]. The resulting increased ice export accounts for a large proportion of the increased trend in ice production. Changes in wind circulation alter ice production and export in and from these polynyas.

Greenhouse forcing (which you "accidentally" left out) and ozone forcing are types of radiative forcing, the name for the "heating effect caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." See Climate Change Indicators in the United States. And radiative forcing, as the article you want us all to read points out, does lead to changes in wind and ice movement. However, one can't maintain (with a straight face) that the article even hints that the changes caused by radiative forcing are not the result of global warming. :rolleyes:

 

I'm pretty sure that everyone understands that as global warming continues, the ice sheets will decline over the long term. Over the short term, as the article points out, global warming is causing the increase in Antarctic sea ice in several ways. Predominant, though, is the accelerating ice melt from Antarctic glaciers.

[Daniel1960]

I asked for a list of the "many possibilities stated in the article" for which global warming is not responsible. Let's look again at what the article that you want us all to read says about "decreased ocean temperatures."

 

 

As global warming accelerates the freshwater melt from Antarctic glaciers, the resulting decrease in ocean temperatures (along with the lower salinity of the glacial melt) expands the surrounding sea ice. It has always been understood that this would happen on the way to equilibrium but, until the past few years, had been considered too obvious to point out.

 

What about "increased snowfall?"

 

 

As global warming produces more moisture-laden air, the Antarctic snowfall increases.

 

But what about "wind variations, ozone forcing, atmospheric dynamics, and an increase in polynyas?"

 

 

Greenhouse forcing (which you "accidentally" left out) and ozone forcing are types of radiative forcing, the name for the "heating effect caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." See Climate Change Indicators in the United States. And radiative forcing, as the article you want us all to read points out, does lead to changes in wind and ice movement. However, one can't maintain (with a straight face) that the article even hints that the changes caused by radiative forcing are not the result of global warming. :rolleyes:

 

I'm pretty sure that everyone understands that as global warming continues, the ice sheets will decline over the long term. Over the short term, as the article points out, global warming is causing the increase in Antarctic sea ice in several ways. Predominant, though, is the accelerating ice melt from Antarctic glaciers.

 

No. The authors gave "possible" explanations as to how global warming could have caused many of their possibilities. Natural changes could have also been the cause of every one of those possibilities. I did not

leave out greenhouse forcings, I simply referred to it as global warming - to keep our conversation consistent. Nowhere did the authors state that accelerated ice melt from receding glaciers was the predominant cause. Ice melt from increased snowfall or advancing glaciers is possible also.

 

Some people see global warming in everything, and close their eyes to natural fluctuations. You seem to want to fit the data into the global warming theory, instead of formulating a theory to fit the data. Political activism vs Science.

[PassedOut]

Natural changes could have also been the cause of every one of those possibilities.

There is nothing unnatural about the effects of global warming. When you increase heat, you naturally get the predictable effects. The predictable effects of global warming include an increase in Antarctic sea ice until equilibrium is reached. Given that we are continuing to increase greenhouse gases, what would be "unnatural" at this point would be the failure of the Antarctic sea ice to increase, given the simple physics of the situation.

[Daniel1960]

There was nothing "predictable" about the increasing Antarctic sea ice. Scientists are scrambling now to determine the cause(s). Some are trying to see how they can blame global warming. Others are looking more scientifically as to what is happening. Simple physics states that warmer temperatures lead to less ice, as witnessed around the rest of the globe. Antarctica should be no different.

[PassedOut]

There was nothing "predictable" about the increasing Antarctic sea ice. Scientists are scrambling now to determine the cause(s). Some are trying to see how they can blame global warming. Others are looking more scientifically as to what is happening. Simple physics states that warmer temperatures lead to less ice, as witnessed around the rest of the globe. Antarctica should be no different.

This is simply not true, and is insulting to scientists that I know and respect. I'd be surprised if you can find even one climate scientist who is surprised by the fact that Antarctic ice sheets are expanding because of global warming before they begin to retreat.

 

It's true that there has been (and is) uncertainty about the rate of that expansion and the point at which the retreat will begin. There has also been uncertainty about how much of the expansion results from changes in the wind and currents caused by global warming, how much results from the additional moisture held by the warming air, and how much results from the accelerating freshwater melt from the Antarctic glaciers. In particular, more accurate and recent measurements show a faster acceleration of the glacial melt than had been expected.

 

But the notion that "scientists are scrambling now to determine the causes" is pure rubbish. For example, here is an article in Nature GeoScience from March, 2013:

 

Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter. This powerful negative feedback counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. Although changes in atmospheric dynamics most likely govern regional sea-ice trends, our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt. We suggest that cool sea surface temperatures around Antarctica could offset projected snowfall increases in Antarctica, with implications for estimates of future sea-level rise.

I don't mind your holding and advocating for your very extreme views, but I'd prefer that you avoid insulting the scientists doing serious work on climate change.

[Daniel1960]

This is simply not true, and is insulting to scientists that I know and respect. I'd be surprised if you can find even one climate scientist who is surprised by the fact that Antarctic ice sheets are expanding because of global warming before they begin to retreat.

 

It's true that there has been (and is) uncertainty about the rate of that expansion and the point at which the retreat will begin. There has also been uncertainty about how much of the expansion results from changes in the wind and currents caused by global warming, how much results from the additional moisture held by the warming air, and how much results from the accelerating freshwater melt from the Antarctic glaciers. In particular, more accurate and recent measurements show a faster acceleration of the glacial melt than had been expected.

 

But the notion that "scientists are scrambling now to determine the causes" is pure rubbish. For example, here is an article in Nature GeoScience from March, 2013:

 

 

I don't mind your holding and advocating for your very extreme views, but I'd prefer that you avoid insulting the scientists doing serious work on climate change.

 

I do not mind that you hold to your extreme views either. However, do not assume that the scientists agree with you. Here are a few assessment of the climate models:

 

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/399/2015/tc-9-399-2015.pdf

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50443/pdf

 

Here are some IPCC predictions for Antarctic sea ice:

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-2-4.html

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=593

 

This explanation is from another website that I frequent, which was started by Gavin Schmidt, a strong global warming proponent:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/clarity-on-antarctic-sea-ice/

 

Let me quote, "The average expansion of Antarctic sea ice was not anticipated, but it hardly represents any sort of existential threat to our fundamental understanding of the climate system as a whole. It’s merely an interesting scientific challenge."

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/clarity-on-antarctic-sea-ice/

 

I would like to know who you think predicted 10 or 20 years ago that Antarctic sea ice would increase. I would be surprised if you can find even one climate scientists who made this prediction.

[PassedOut]

I would like to know who you think predicted 10 or 20 years ago that Antarctic sea ice would increase. I would be surprised if you can find even one climate scientists who made this prediction.

It is true that climate scientists expected the Antarctic glaciers to be much more stable than they turned out to be, so the earlier predictions did not include the effect of the unanticipated freshwater melt. Without that melt, models predicted that rising ocean temperatures would dominate the opposing effects of increased snowfall from the warmer air and of the wind shifts due to radiant forcing.

 

Climate scientists did understand that freshwater is lighter and freezes more quickly than saltwater. And climate scientists did realize that Antarctic freshwater melt would oppose the effect of rising ocean temperatures. Climate scientists simply expected the freshwater melt to be insignificant to the calculations. When that expectation turned out to be wrong, climate scientists reacted appropriately and modeled the effects of the accelerating freshwater melt.

 

This reality is a far cry from your description here:

 

There was nothing "predictable" about the increasing Antarctic sea ice. Scientists are scrambling now to determine the cause(s). Some are trying to see how they can blame global warming. Others are looking more scientifically as to what is happening. Simple physics states that warmer temperatures lead to less ice, as witnessed around the rest of the globe. Antarctica should be no different.

No one is "trying to see how they can blame global warming." The vast majority of climate scientists are honest, competent people measuring and explaining complex interactions as objectively and precisely as they can.

 

And it's definitely not the case that the expanding sea ice around Antarctica suggests greater stability of the Antarctic ice sheets, nor does any competent climate scientist believe that. On the contrary.

[Daniel1960]

It is true that climate scientists expected the Antarctic glaciers to be much more stable than they turned out to be, so the earlier predictions did not include the effect of the unanticipated freshwater melt. Without that melt, models predicted that rising ocean temperatures would dominate the opposing effects of increased snowfall from the warmer air and of the wind shifts due to radiant forcing.

 

Climate scientists did understand that freshwater is lighter and freezes more quickly than saltwater. And climate scientists did realize that Antarctic freshwater melt would oppose the effect of rising ocean temperatures. Climate scientists simply expected the freshwater melt to be insignificant to the calculations. When that expectation turned out to be wrong, climate scientists reacted appropriately and modeled the effects of the accelerating freshwater melt.

 

This reality is a far cry from your description here:

 

 

No one is "trying to see how they can blame global warming." The vast majority of climate scientists are honest, competent people measuring and explaining complex interactions as objectively and precisely as they can.

 

And it's definitely not the case that the expanding sea ice around Antarctica suggests greater stability of the Antarctic ice sheets, nor does any competent climate scientist believe that. On the contrary.

 

I am not saying they are dishonest. Rather, they view global warming as the dominant forces, and try to model ever climactic event on that basis. This is not unique to climate scientists. Astrophysicists are convinced that solar and galactic forces dominate our weather and climate.

 

Just because they can model past observations based on specified inputs, does not prove accuracy. Astrophysicists have had similar results modelling past climate regimes bast on solar output. I am not confident that their recent modelling, showing significant cooling in the coming decades, will come to fruition.

 

Scientists tend to play to their strengths. In addition to astrophysicists, oceanographers point to ocean currents as the dominant weather forcing for our planet. Climatologists claim it is carbon dioxide. Each discipline has a certain amount of validity in their claims. However, selecting one as being correct, based on pre-tuned models, lacks significant scientific understanding. That does not necessarily dispute their accuracy. It just means that we are lacking in sufficient proof.

[WellSpyder]

The predictable effects of global warming include an increase in Antarctic sea ice until equilibrium is reached.

You may think it was predictable, but I am not aware that it was predicted!

 

There is a big difference between being able to explain afterwards why something happened, and actually expecting it before it happened. (I am an economist by profession, a field where "experts" often seem to be on the wrong end of this comparison!)

 

I am not trying to argue that the failure to predict an increase in Antarctic sea ice invalidates global warming science, but it would certainly have been a more impressive validation of the science if this had been foreseen rather than being explained afterwards.

[PassedOut]

You may think it was predictable, but I am not aware that it was predicted!

 

There is a big difference between being able to explain afterwards why something happened, and actually expecting it before it happened. (I am an economist by profession, a field where "experts" often seem to be on the wrong end of this comparison!)

 

I am not trying to argue that the failure to predict an increase in Antarctic sea ice invalidates global warming science, but it would certainly have been a more impressive validation of the science if this had been foreseen rather than being explained afterwards.

Obviously.

 

But the reason that the increase was not predicted many years ago was not because scientists didn't understand that freshwater melt from Antarctic glaciers would increase the sea ice around Antarctica. It was because then they had no evidence that those glaciers were as unstable as they turned out to be, and therefore had no basis for predicting the increase in sea ice.

[Al_U_Card]

Glaciology and the mechanisms of glacial melt are pretty well understood and have been since well before the IPCC and its "GW causes-all" agenda.

 

The only wild card in the mix appears to be the volcanism under the WAIS that is producing melt greater than expected for the cooling of the locale (despite CAGW predictions of increased ice melt and higher temps). The hand-waving explanations associated with discrepancies between model projections and reality only serve to demonstrate just how far off the models are from what is actually occurring, thereby (further) invalidating their usefulness for scenarios of future global or especially regional climate conditions.

[y66]

For those of you who can't get to DC for Grandparents' Climate Action Days on September 9 and 10, there will be another event coinciding with Pope Francis' address to Congress on September 24th sponsored by Moral Action on Climate.

[Al_U_Card]

For those of you who can't get to DC for Grandparents' Climate Action Days on September 9 and 10, there will be another event coinciding with Pope Francis' address to Congress on September 24th sponsored by Moral Action on Climate.

 

I wonder about 2 things. First, how much "climate change" are they expecting to reverse/prevent?

 

Second, James Hansen is front and center in the first link and the Pope is in the second link. What do they have in common? Well, Hansen was molesting the Gisstemp data for years...

 

Seriously, the first is an appeal for donations (registration?) to support the eldersclimateaction organization. (Hopefully Passedout and WinstonM will contribute...)

 

The real question is will these elders and their organization turn off the A/C and lower the heating in winter? Stop jetting about to various sites to protest overuse of carbon-rich transportation? Give up on modern technology to ensure that our grandchildren have some woodchips to burn for heat? Calculate the net effect of their actions and realize that the whole thing is a scam on elders (and everyone else) and they should report it as such.

[y66]

 

#followfrancis

[Al_U_Card]

Climate justice?

 

Meaning payback for all that nasty CO2 that has been "spewed" into the atmosphere?

 

As in, the biosphere is greening and crop yields are increasing thanks, in part, to warmer, wetter temperatures and MORE CO2, a VITAL plant nutrient.

 

So when and where should all those benefiting from this largesse send their cheques? :blink:

[Winstonm]

And now a word from our sponsor:

 

Exxon Mobil Corp. (ExxonMobil) is an American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas. It is the largest direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company,[3] and was formed on November 30, 1999 by the merger of Exxon (originally the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey) and Mobil (originally the Standard Oil Company of New York).

 

The world's 5th largest company by revenue, ExxonMobil is also the second largest publicly traded company by market capitalization.[4][5] The company was ranked No. 6 globally in Forbes Global 2000 list in 2014. ExxonMobil's reserves were 25.2 billion BOE (barrels of oil equivalent) at the end of 2013 and the 2007 rates of production were expected to last more than 14 years.[7] With 37 oil refineries in 21 countries constituting a combined daily refining capacity of 6.3 million barrels (1,000,000 m3), ExxonMobil is the largest refiner in the world,[8][9] a title that was also associated with Standard Oil since its incorporation in 1870.

 

We return you now to your regularly scheduled denial.

[Al_U_Card]

Yes, they do sponsor all kinds of green activities, movements and eco-friendly, energy producing industries...thanks for bringing that up!

[y66]

What Megablazes Tell Us About the Fiery Future of Climate Change by Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone.

[y66]

From As Presidential Debaters Dodge Climate, 10 House Republicans Resolve to Pursue ‘Environmental Stewardship’ (Sept 17, 2015):

 

“[The] House of Representatives commits to working constructively, using our tradition of American ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism, to create and support economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address the causes and effects of measured changes to our global and regional climates, including mitigation efforts and efforts to balance human activities that have been found to have an impact.”

 

So read the brief, vague, but welcome resolution on “environmental stewardship” introduced today by Representative Chris Gibson, a Republican representing New York’s 19th Congressional District who has long had to woo Democrats to keep his seat, and has said human-driven climate change is real and needs to be addressed. He was joined by nine other House Republicans in seats with similar political contexts, with more slated to sign on.

 

It’s hardly new for some Republicans to acknowledge the basics of global warming science (see Newt Gingrich in 2007) and call for steps to limit heat-trapping gases and cut vulnerability.

 

But this modest resolution is a welcome reminder that moderate and environment-minded Republicans exist behind the haze of unscientific sound bites dominating political news this year, particularly after the second set of Republican presidential debates last night.

 

It’s important to emphasize just how bland this statement is. E & E Daily did a great job of laying out the context here, showing where the pinch points were to get even this level of buy-in:

 

The resolution goes further than a set of amendments the Senate voted on in January that affirmed that human emissions were driving climate change by calling for action to address the problem (E&E Daily, Jan. 28).

 

The Gibson text doesn’t emphasize people’s influence on the climate, but it embraces the impacts that scientists say are already occurring or are likely to in the future. The document doesn’t mention humans except in the last sentence, when it asserts that Congress should “balance” the impacts of our species through mitigation and other undefined policies.

 

That statement was softened over the summer. An earlier draft of the resolution obtained by E&E Daily stated that Congress should seek to “proactively reverse or balance human activities that have been found to be contributing factors.”

 

Can this movement spread? Past experiences of lawmakers in more conservative regions don’t bode well. But if the focus is on climate-smart energy and pollution steps more than fighting that vague and politicized thing called “global warming,” it’s conceivable.

Here is the full resolution:

 

Whereas it is a conservative principle to protect, conserve, and be good stewards of our environment, responsibly plan for all market factors, and base our policy decisions in science and quantifiable facts on the ground;

 

Whereas prudent, fact-based stewardship of our economy and our environment is a critical responsibility for all Americans in order to ensure that we preserve our great Nation for future generations;

 

Whereas there has been a marked increase in extreme weather events across the United States, including more frequent heat waves, extreme precipitation, wildfires, and water scarcity;

 

Whereas this has had noticeable, negative impacts that are expected to worsen in every region of the United States and its territories, including, among other significant weather events and environmental disruptions, longer and hotter heat waves, more severe storms, worsening flood and drought cycles, growing invasive species and insect problems, threatened native plant and wildlife populations, rising sea levels, and, when combined with a lack of proper forest management, increased wildfire risk;

 

Whereas increased pollutants and other factors contribute to local, regional, and national environmental and human health impacts, including increased mercury in the fish we eat, elevated asthma attacks in our children, acid rain, smog, degraded water quality, urban heat islands, and rapid storm water runoff that leads to costly infrastructure projects;

 

Whereas the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review states that the effects of a changing climate are ‘‘threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions’’;

 

Whereas, if left unaddressed, the consequences of a changing climate have the potential to adversely impact all Americans, hitting vulnerable populations hardest, harming productivity in key economic sectors such as construction, agriculture, and tourism, saddling future generations with costly economic and environmental burdens, and imposing additional costs on State and Federal budgets that will further add to the long-term fiscal challenges that we face as a Nation;

 

Whereas any efforts to mitigate the risks of, prepare for, or otherwise address our changing climate and its effects should not constrain the United States economy, especially in regards to global competitiveness; and Whereas there is increasing recognition that we can and must take meaningful and responsible action now to address this issue: Now, therefore, be it

 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives commits to working constructively, using our tradition of American ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism, to create and support economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address the causes and effects of measured changes to our global and regional climates, including mitigation efforts and efforts to balance human activities that have been found to have an impact.

[Al_U_Card]

What Megablazes Tell Us About the Fiery Future of Climate Change by Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone.

An interesting article about a specific climatic condition. Many areas of the world undergo periodic or sustained drought on a regular basis. California's recent drought is not exceptional but it is severe. To their north, a somewhat more unusual situation but hardly the result of 0.7 C global temperature increase. El Nino and the Pacific SST in that region are more responsible and just as "unusual". Look at overall US wildfires and you will see that the actual trend is decreasing in duration and severity.

 

Interestingly, past instances of extreme drought are most often associated with cooler regional temperatures. (Warmer is wetter and usually better for humanity.)

 

Science is about observation, evaluation and estimation. Climate science is about fabulation, obfuscation and vilification. Models are unfit for anything but inciting fear of the future without draconian restrictions to our lifestyles. Just go to actual facts and figures to see that the climate is not, at present or in the immediate future, in danger by our hand

[y66]

From Senate Democrats to Unveil Climate Change Bill by Coral Davenport:

 

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leaders on Tuesday plan to unveil a measure intended to signal their full-throated support of President Obama’s aggressive climate change agenda to 2016 voters and to the rest of the world.

 

The Democrats hope that the bill, sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell, of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee, will demonstrate a new unity for the party on energy and climate change, and define Democrats’ approach to global warming policy in the coming years.

 

The measure would establish as United States policy a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2 percent each year through 2025 — a cut even larger than the target set by the Obama administration.

 

The bill has no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress, but Democrats say they believe that forcefully pushing for climate change policies could help them win control of the Senate in 2016. And if they regain the majority, they will move to enact climate legislation along the lines of the Cantwell bill.

 

“This is the kind of thing I’d embrace,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, who is expected to become the Senate Democratic leader after the current leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, retires next year. “A plan that looks something like this is going to be high on the next Congress’s agenda.”

 

Senate Democrats timed the release of the bill to coincide with a push this week at the United Nations General Assembly toward reaching a sweeping climate accord this fall at a summit meeting in Paris. They hope to indicate to world leaders that despite Republican opposition to the plan, they stand ready to back Mr. Obama’s policies.

 

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, has opened an all-fronts campaign to block the president’s climate initiatives. Mr. McConnell has sought to undercut Mr. Obama’s efforts to enact tough new regulations on greenhouse gas pollution and his bid to forge the global climate change pact in Paris.

[Daniel1960]

From Senate Democrats to Unveil Climate Change Bill by Coral Davenport:

 

If this is the Democrats plan to retake the Senate, they may want to rethink their strategy. This issue continues to rank very low on the voter's priority lists:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

 

http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/15/publics-policy-priorities-reflect-changing-conditions-at-home-and-abroad/

[PassedOut]

The pope has a bully pulpit too: Pope Francis, in White House Ceremony, Praises Obama’s Action on Climate Change

 

During brief remarks, the pope waded into two of America’s most highly charged political debates, praising the United States as a nation of immigrants and offering a strikingly forceful and explicit endorsement of Mr. Obama’s regulatory program to fight climate change. By contrast, he skirted lightly past disagreements over moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage as well as the excesses of capitalism.

 

“Mr. President,” Francis said, speaking in English despite his discomfort with the language, “I find it encouraging that you are proposing an initiative for reducing air pollution. Accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation. When it comes to the care of our common home, we are living at a critical moment of history.”

 

Devoting more of his address to that issue than to any other topic, the pope said there was still time to heal the planet for its children. “To use a telling phrase of the Rev. Martin Luther King, we can say that we have defaulted on a promissory note and now is the time to honor it,” he said.

We do indeed.

 

Not that any one voice will convince everyone, but every voice helps some. And the pope's voice carries more credibility than most.

[Al_U_Card]

With true believers....that is why it fits in so well with the new religion of climastrology....climatism...climation.

Credibility needs be built on facts not faith unless, like them, you are in the belief business.