Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[waldo]

I can even agree that we should be minimizing the amount of cr*p we throw into the atmosphere. There are far better reasons for avoiding pollution than climate change.

Bad arguments drive out good arguments. I fear, for the sake of environmentalism, that climate change is a very weak reed to lean on.

While this substantive post goes unresponded to

My point is that the spewing of any gases, not only GHG's are a matter of concern. We should be trimming all of it, emphasizing first the most harmful. We should also reduce in inverse proportion to effect on economy. A single-minded focus on GHG's is senseless.

your post was... substantive? If you say so!

you, "fear for the sake of environmentalism"... yes, clearly, if nothing else over the years, your strong environmentalism shines through... oh, wait...

here's a response to your... self-proclaimed substantive statement: MLW member, GostHacked, is the MLW frontrunner in your seemingly new-found desire to deny AGW/ACC by claiming the real concern/focus lies with traditional atmospheric toxic pollution. Your most contradicting position has you accepting to the atmospheric related science(s) and the associated work of engaged scientists... only to the point that, that science/those scientists, aligns only with/to considerations of traditional atmospheric toxic pollution. And, no, there is no, as you say, "single minded focus on GHGs".

in any case, even if one wants to play your simplistic game that presumes to prioritize action, economically prioritize action... that wants to narrow a focus on, "the atmosphere" (while somehow amazingly ignoring the AGW/ACC impacts on ocean/land/water/food/ecosystems/etc., etc., etc.), it's rather easy to align to your self-serving, narrowed perspective:

Revolatilization of persistent organic pollutants in the Arctic induced by climate change

imagine... Arctic warming is causing the release of toxic chemicals long trapped in the region's snow, ice, ocean and soil... that Arctic warming could be undermining global efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to toxic chemicals. Will you be rallying your expressed concerns for atmospheric toxic pollution... to align with concerns over Arctic warming?

[Guest Manny]

Revolatilization of persistent organic pollutants in the Arctic induced by climate change

imagine... Arctic warming is causing the release of toxic chemicals long trapped in the region's snow, ice, ocean and soil... that Arctic warming could be undermining global efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to toxic chemicals. Will you be rallying your expressed concerns for atmospheric toxic pollution... to align with concerns over Arctic warming?

Yeah that is important. It shows part of the positive feedback mechanism that can come into place outside of the normal balance/ negative feedback system in which nature maintains things within certain limits, and changes very slowly. Fast changes are catastrophic in nature.

I also read some time ago that there could be the release of ancient pathogens, bacteria and viruses that are frozen in the ice. The black plague and smallpox, ancient killers well known among people of the old world could make a resurgence.

[jbg]

here's a response to your... self-proclaimed substantive statement: MLW member, GostHacked, is the MLW frontrunner in your seemingly new-found desire to deny AGW/ACC by claiming the real concern/focus lies with traditional atmospheric toxic pollution. Your most contradicting position has you accepting to the atmospheric related science(s) and the associated work of engaged scientists... only to the point that, that science/those scientists, aligns only with/to considerations of traditional atmospheric toxic pollution. And, no, there is no, as you say, "single minded focus on GHGs".

Is this incoherent, or is the wording too complicated for me to understand?

[waldo]

But what if, as is likely, the risk from rising temperatures is real, but it emanates from natural forces such as Pacific ocean cycles, underwater volcanic activity or simply the end of an Ice Age?

there is no natural variability that can account for today's relatively recent warming. You know this - through many past MLW threads, you have tried, most unsuccessfully, to offer interpretations on the impacts of the PDO. I can't immediately recall you fronting "underwater volcanic activity"... or that warming reflects upon "an ending Ice Age". Perhaps you should have a go trying to offer substantiation to those. It's a shame no scientists have ever given consideration to your insightful alternates - go figure!

We would shut down large parts of the economy for nothing. At least King Canute's activities were a waste of time only for him.

at some point I may yet rise above your continued displays of incoherence... to the point of actually checking out this "King Canute" guy you keep touting!

Waldo, many seem to think we're in a long-term warming trend that started after the late 1700's. If indeed it is a natural phenomena should we play the role of King Canute with the tides.

The global warming panic set is essentially copying King Canute's actions with regard to the tides.

Act? The way King Canute held back the waves?

[cybercoma]

My point is that the spewing of any gases, not only GHG's are a matter of concern. We should be trimming all of it, emphasizing first the most harmful. We should also reduce in inverse proportion to effect on economy. A single-minded focus on GHG's is senseless.

Since apparently we're dealing in What Ifs right now, what if the most toxic pollutants are the ones that would have the greatest impact on the economy? Someone on Twitter today made an interesting point: @humourmetom NDP "carbon tax" will destroy economy, Harper gang says. While Cons destroy environment. One of those is permanent. #cdnpoli

[gunrutz]

One of those is permanent

I just looked outside, the planet is not covered in a boiling lake of molten rock. Some point.

[waldo]

I just looked outside, the planet is not covered in a boiling lake of molten rock. Some point.

good to know your reference benchmark - some point

the gunrutz measure of environmental destruction <=> a planet covered in a boiling lake of molten rock

[socialist]

good to know your reference benchmark - some point

the gunrutz measure of environmental destruction <=> a planet covered in a boiling lake of molten rock

That was funny waldo. poor gunrutz. Waldo, how soon do you think we will even have ice on the polar ice cap at the destructive rate we are destroying our mother Earth? I know i'm concerned.

[waldo]

That was funny waldo. poor gunrutz. Waldo, how soon do you think we will even have ice on the polar ice cap at the destructive rate we are destroying our mother Earth? I know i'm concerned.

given the ever increasing diminishing trend levels of all 3 measures of Arctic sea ice, extent/area/volume, coupled with the loss in quantity/quality of multi-year ice, predictions are continually being revised... from relatively recent updated predictions that centered in the 2030-to-2050 time frame, to even more recent updates that predict a summer ice-free Arctic by 2020. This is the most recent update I've read - just days old:

Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years

One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years.

In what he calls a "global disaster" now unfolding in northern latitudes as the sea area that freezes and melts each year shrinks to its lowest extent ever recorded, Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University calls for "urgent" consideration of new ideas to reduce global temperatures.

.

Wadhams says the implications are "terrible". "The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming."

"As the sea ice retreats in summer the ocean warms up (to 7C in 2011) and this warms the seabed too. The continental shelves of the Arctic are composed of offshore permafrost, frozen sediment left over from the last ice age. As the water warms the permafrost melts and releases huge quantities of trapped methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas so this will give a big boost to global warming."

[cybercoma]

Oh God, waldo. Shut up, will you. There's no molten rock covering the earth. Everything's fine.

[Shady]

can 'we' ever get beyond the seemingly hollow pledges toward emission reductions... are we still a long, long way from realizing those binding emission reduction agreements?

What? So reducing our emission's to 1990 levels is going to fix things? Of course not. It'll only destroy our economy, and the livelihoods of tens of millions of people. The key is better technology.

[socialist]

given the ever increasing diminishing trend levels of all 3 measures of Arctic sea ice, extent/area/volume, coupled with the loss in quantity/quality of multi-year ice, predictions are continually being revised... from relatively recent updated predictions that centered in the 2030-to-2050 time frame, to even more recent updates that predict a summer ice-free Arctic by 2020. This is the most recent update I've read - just days old:

Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years

Wow. I knew we were in trouble but i didn't realize it would be that soon. what can be done waldo?

[CPCFTW]

How is environmental damage permanent? A meteor wiped out nearly all life on the planet.. somehow I think the planet will recover from temperatures rising a few degrees due to GHG. What a horrible point.

[Shady]

How is environmental damage permanent? A meteor wiped out nearly all life on the planet.. somehow I think the planet will recover from temperatures rising a few degrees due to GHG. What a horrible point.

That's what I've been trying to tell these alarmists. Just think of this as the medieval warming period. In 15 to 20 years, technology will be significantly better, and combustion engines, etc will be a thing of the past, and any warming that may have occured for the past 20 or 30 years, will be a very small blip on the entire history of the climate of the earth. It's really no big deal.

[CPCFTW]

Question for the enviro-nuts here:

Does the increased GHG offer the earth additional protection from meteors/comets?

I'm not suggesting that it's good to pollute, but I'm just curious if there is a silver lining to GHG emissions.

[Bonam]

Does the increased GHG offer the earth additional protection from meteors/comets?

Er, no, not to any measurable extent.

[jbg]

What? So reducing our emission's to 1990 levels is going to fix things? Of course not. It'll only destroy our economy, and the livelihoods of tens of millions of people. The key is better technology.

It also happens that 1990 was, globally, an extremely hot year. The only thing that makes 1990 a benchmark is that the U.S. was in a recession and Europe was prospering. Their economy and emissions were about to drop into a precipice because of the end of the Cold War and shutdown of large amounts of Warsaw Pact industry.

[socialist]

Question for the enviro-nuts here:

Does the increased GHG offer the earth additional protection from meteors/comets?

I'm not suggesting that it's good to pollute, but I'm just curious if there is a silver lining to GHG emissions.

There is no benefit of pollution. the temperature is rising at an alarming rate. humans and their stupid consumption habits are killing my earth, that pisses me off. waldo just posted a great link. why don't you read it and try to learn something. i can't believe how stupid most people are when it comes to protecting the earth.

[Shady]

There is no benefit of pollution.

I agree. But C02 isn't pollution.

[socialist]

I agree. But C02 isn't pollution.

it's a harmful greenhouse gas.

[Shady]

it's a harmful greenhouse gas.

It's essential for plant life, and a natural substance. Like I said, it's not pollution like you falsely claimed.

[socialist]

given the ever increasing diminishing trend levels of all 3 measures of Arctic sea ice, extent/area/volume, coupled with the loss in quantity/quality of multi-year ice, predictions are continually being revised... from relatively recent updated predictions that centered in the 2030-to-2050 time frame, to even more recent updates that predict a summer ice-free Arctic by 2020. This is the most recent update I've read - just days old:

Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years

waldo, your knowledge on this subject is outstanding. i admire what you are doing by arguing with the fool deniers here. how did you become so knowledgeable in climate, you must be a climate scientist because you know so much about it. i've planted 1000s of trees to help the environment but it doesnt help much when there are so many ignorant fools out there which this forum exemplifies. i learn by reading every one of your posts. keep up the great work.

[jbg]

....the temperature is rising at an alarming rate...

I feel that way whenever a lovely or exciting snowstorm is switching over to rain.

[socialist]

It's essential for plant life, and a natural substance. Like I said, it's not pollution like you falsely claimed.

well, i will wait for waldo to prove you wrong. he knows lots on the subject.

[jbg]

well, i will wait for waldo to prove you wrong. he knows lots on the subject.

Particularly how to make multicolor posts and insult.