Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[PIK]

Does anybody really know what is going on? Look at the franken food peer reviewed report that now is being called totally BS.The eco freaks ruined it , by coming out with such outragous claims, that people just gave up learning about it. And we can thank saint suzuki and king gore for all the BS out there.

Edited December 6, 2013 by PIK

[Shady]

Interesting piece in the NY Post.

Global Warming Proof is Evaporating

http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

[Michael Hardner]

But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.

I couldn't get past that sentence ... it's just silly, but that paper isn't even respected as a newspaper so why would somebody expect them to report science properly ?

[BubberMiley]

Global Warming Proof is Evaporating

I thought you only denied man-made climate change, not climate change in general. You've got to get your denials straight, or else people aren't going to take you seriously.

[waldo]

I couldn't get past that sentence ... it's just silly, but that paper isn't even respected as a newspaper so why would somebody expect them to report science properly ?

since when has that ever stopped the intrepid Shady in his dogged pursuit of the facts!

Media Matters has a, as Shady says, "interesting piece" on his described NY Post "interesting piece"!

[BubberMiley]

I guess in the true spirit of a drive-by denial, there will be no clarification about what was interesting in that interesting piece.

[jbg]

Interesting piece in the NY Post.

Global Warming Proof is Evaporating

http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

I couldn't get past that sentence ... it's just silly, but that paper isn't even respected as a newspaper so why would somebody expect them to report science properly ?

Interesting piece in the NY Post.

Global Warming Proof is Evaporating

http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

I thought you only denied man-made climate change, not climate change in general. You've got to get your denials straight, or else people aren't going to take you seriously.

Any one who reads my posts knows that I do not believe in much of the global warming scare; either the fact of AGW or the need to take futile and expensive action against it.

That being said, anyone who lives anywhere near New York City does not consider the New York Post to be a serious source of information. Some of its editorials are good but its "news" isn't. Basically it's a scandal sheet. Typical headlines:

1. Shot cop mugged in gutter;
2. Dead!!!

[jbg]

I guess in the true spirit of a drive-by denial, there will be no clarification about what was interesting in that interesting piece.

As I just pointed out there is little interesting in the New York Post. At best it's live entertainment.

[waldo]

The use of real temperatures at real stations is a reality check. What's so hard about that to understand?

your (lack of) reality has been highlighted... again, you did nothing more than "eyeball" raw data, raw numbers, from a couple of U.S. continental land weather stations... and from that you declared "little or no temperature change" has occurred. On top of that you just now (a few posts back) claimed I refused to acknowledge these temperature records.

again, I most certainly did not ignore your raw data. As I just stated, because you so persisted in your nonsense, I provided you a linear trend plot that showed you just how much warming had occurred in one of those two stations you highlighted. More pointedly, I have repeatedly advised you that, "what you did is take single localized station data and applied nothing more than your "eyeball analysis" and presumed to extrapolate it across the broader large-scale regional and/or global temperature records/trends". If you want to claim a refusal to acknowledge... I suggest you look inwards!

[On Guard for Thee]

I have heard this story from those who don't want to believe we may be wrecking this joint that it's all cyclical and has happened before. Well I agree that science has shown there have been previous cycles. We just weren't here for them and we wont be again. And with regard to cycles, here is some unscientific but indisputable data to consider. We now have in excess of one billion automobiles firing up each day on the planet. And at the daily lowest levels of traffic flow there are a minimum of five thousand airplanes in the air over the continental US. I don't recall when the last time was we had that much CO2 generation going on.

[Keepitsimple]

I have heard this story from those who don't want to believe we may be wrecking this joint that it's all cyclical and has happened before. Well I agree that science has shown there have been previous cycles. We just weren't here for them and we wont be again. And with regard to cycles, here is some unscientific but indisputable data to consider. We now have in excess of one billion automobiles firing up each day on the planet. And at the daily lowest levels of traffic flow there are a minimum of five thousand airplanes in the air over the continental US. I don't recall when the last time was we had that much CO2 generation going on.

On Guard - sure we were here for them - you just haven't kept up - or choose to ignore the events. As the Alps have receded most recently, they exposed Roman-era villages that demonstrated that the Alps had receded before. In England, they used to grow grapes during the Mideivel Warming period back around 1000 AD for hundreds of years......yet by around 1800, they were skating on the Thames river. Closer to home, the vikings colonized Newfoundland during that same Mideivel Warming period but then it got too cold and they abandoned their settlements. Anecdotal evidence is abundant that the Arctic has had periods of relatively ice-free conditions during the 20th century. Warm, cold, warm, cold, warm......but I grant you - since we came out of the last ice age thousands of years ago, the sawtooth on the graph have been slowly warming the planet. Warm, cool, warm, cool.....the evidence is clear to see for all who would actually look. Humans have an influence but for heaven's sake - we are not as important or grand as the eco-nuts would have us believe. No warming for 17 years......ah - but the computer models say......

[waldo]

Humans have an influence but for heaven's sake - we are not as important or grand as the eco-nuts would have us believe. No warming for 17 years......ah - but the computer models say......

ya ya, even with your isolated focus ignoring oceans where >90% of all warming goes, even with your isolated focus only on surface temperature, even with your focus on a timeframe less than climatic... surface warming continues, but at a reduced rate compared to the prior decade. Of course, you also ignore studies that have distinguished the above normal occurrence of recent La Nina events... or natural influences outright; studies that show just how much actual surface warming is occurring. And, as highlighted a few times now, as I stated, if this study holds up,................. your denial won't have "the presumed paws" to fall-back on!

[On Guard for Thee]

On Guard - sure we were here for them - you just haven't kept up - or choose to ignore the events. As the Alps have receded most recently, they exposed Roman-era villages that demonstrated that the Alps had receded before. In England, they used to grow grapes during the Mideivel Warming period back around 1000 AD for hundreds of years......yet by around 1800, they were skating on the Thames river. Closer to home, the vikings colonized Newfoundland during that same Mideivel Warming period but then it got too cold and they abandoned their settlements. Anecdotal evidence is abundant that the Arctic has had periods of relatively ice-free conditions during the 20th century. Warm, cold, warm, cold, warm......but I grant you - since we came out of the last ice age thousands of years ago, the sawtooth on the graph have been slowly warming the planet. Warm, cool, warm, cool.....the evidence is clear to see for all who would actually look. Humans have an influence but for heaven's sake - we are not as important or grand as the eco-nuts would have us believe. No warming for 17 years......ah - but the computer models say......

Oh I am aware of those cycles: I was transporting a group of scientists when they discovered the petrified remains of palm trees on one of the arctic islands. I refer to various cataclysmic events that occurred when we weren't here and which would have wiped us out had we been. Obviously we didn't cause those. However, as you point out that sawtooth graph is doing two things: the distance between the tooth edges is growing, and the whole direction of the sawtooth is upward, with regard to average temp. As that happens glaciers and polar ice melt and don't get replenished. You don't need a computer model to predict the rise of sea levels in, let's say the Maldives or the Marshall Islands. Nope, just go ask the people who live there, or at least used to before their living quarters went underwater. Another non computer model idea that resonates with me is if you think of a large expanse of arctic sea ice during the days when you have sunshine in that area you have "reflection". Now when a big chunk of that sea ice disappears and exposes the sea water you have "absorption". It becomes less likely that sea ice will regenerate and there is a lot of it missing as is shown with satellite photos over the time we have had satellites. If you happen to live somewhere that relies on a glacier fed river, many areas of Pakistan are examples, you end up with at first floods followed by drought. And then what do you do maybe not having the wherewithal to pull up stakes and move on. It won't be like a nuclear bomb going off but if that sawtooth continues to head north then these things will continue and I will steal a line from TS Eliot "this is the way the world ends not with a bang, but a whimper"

[TimG]

As that happens glaciers and polar ice melt and don't get replenished.

We adapt.

let's say the Maldives or the Marshall Islands. Nope, just go ask the people who live there, or at least used to before their living quarters went underwater.

Yet you have no problem condemning billions to poverty and death by denying them access to energy at a reasonable price. Your moral compass is completely twisted.

you end up with at first floods followed by drought.

Build dams. Tried and true technology that stores water until it is needed.

A warmer world has more precipitation which means fewer problems with access to water (even the IPCC acknowledges this benefit from warming). This is a good thing to everyone who has not been programmed to believe that any human caused change must be bad simply because it is caused by humans.

Edited December 8, 2013 by TimG

[jbg]

Humans have an influence but for heaven's sake - we are not as important or grand as the eco-nuts would have us believe. No warming for 17 years......ah - but the computer models say......

Come on, you can "adjust" that into a "warming" in a heartbeat.

[waldo]

Yet you have no problem condemning billions to poverty and death by denying them access to energy at a reasonable price. Your moral compass is completely twisted.

alarmist! Oh my.

[waldo]

A warmer world has more precipitation which means fewer problems with access to water (even the IPCC acknowledges this benefit from warming). This is a good thing to everyone who has not been programmed to believe that any human caused change must be bad simply because it is caused by humans.

no - what the IPCC has stated in regards, "Heavy precipitation events; Increase in the frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation", is that (and following the IPCC likelihood and probability definitions):

- since 1950, with medium confidence, it is likely there have been more land areas with increases than decreases.

- projecting into the late 21st century, the likelihood of further changes is very likely over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions. However, changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.

[On Guard for Thee]

We adapt.

Yet you have no problem condemning billions to poverty and death by denying them access to energy at a reasonable price. Your moral compass is completely twisted.

Build dams. Tried and true technology that stores water until it is needed.

A warmer world has more precipitation which means fewer problems with access to water (even the IPCC acknowledges this benefit from warming). This is a good thing to everyone who has not been programmed to believe that any human caused change must be bad simply because it is caused by humans.

Here is a little basic science for ya. There is no more or less water in the world now than there ever was. (OK except for a few gallons we sent up into space and out of our environment with space travel). It's where that water is that helps or hurts us depending on where you happen to live. If you happen to depend on the Kunduz river, first of all you get flooded as the glacier melts and then you have drought once it is expended. Good bye crops. There is no more or less water, it's just now out of reach because it's in the ocean flooding some islanders home. Now everybody has to move somewhere. I don't see the benefit and I don't think that is at all what the IPCC really said.

[TimG]

I don't see the benefit and I don't think that is at all what the IPCC really said.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=180

Table 4-6 shows the numbers of people living in countries using more than 20% of their water resources in 2025 and 2050 and in which the amount of resources **decreases** by more than 10% as a result of climate change.

IOW - fewer people will experience water shortages as a result of climate change.

Floods, storms etc - humans have been dealing with them successfully for millennia. The suggestion changes represent a clear and present danger is completely absurd. Also - there is ZERO evidence that AGW had any impact on floods, storms or other weather extremes to date (also from the IPCC report). It is quite possible that any effect that AGW has on these events will be too small to measure for the foreseeable future.

Given the uncertainties there is simply not enough to justify and radical policy changes.

Edited December 9, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The IPCC report says:

Climate warming is unequivocal

Humans caused the majority of the warming

The warming is largely irreversible

Most of the heat is going into the oceans

Ocean acidification rates are unprecedented

To stay below 2 degrees of warming the world must become carbon negative

To stay below 2 degrees of warming most fossil fuels must stay buried in the ground

[TimG]

To stay below 2 degrees of warming the world must become carbon negative

I guess that means we need to adapt to a world that is greater >2 degC warmer because there is no way the world will go "carbon negative" until the global population stabilizes which should be sometime after 2050. Edited December 9, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I guess that means we need to adapt to a world that is greater >2 degC warmer because there is no way the world will go "carbon negative" until the global population stabilizes which should be sometime after 2050.

I suspect what we'll do is similar to what an alcoholic does with a bottle of booze once it's opened: throw the cork away and drink it all....all the oil, the gas. the coal etc., although we may never see the end of that bottle, especially when you add in the coal. The exxon mobils and the royal dutch shells of the world have enough dough to thwart any science that might interfere with their bottom line. Who knows, it could be those guys who are encouraging Harper to gut funding to scientists here.

Cheers,

[TimG]

I suspect what we'll do is similar to what an alcoholic does with a bottle of booze once it's opened:

No. We will follow the most rational choice given the options available. If there are any addicts they are the doomsday cultists who can't seem to find meaning in life unless they believe it is going to come to an end.

The exxon mobils and the royal dutch shells...

The conspiracy theories of a child. People are choosing not to act because there is no practical alternative to burning fossil fuels. As long as you refuse to accept that reality you will never understand why alarmists are losing the policy fight.

[On Guard for Thee]

No. We will follow the most rational choice given the options available. If there are any addicts they are the doomsday cultists who can't seem to find meaning in life unless they believe it is going to come to an end.

The conspiracy theories of a child. People are choosing not to act because there is no practical alternative to burning fossil fuels. As long as you refuse to accept that reality you will never understand why alarmists are losing the policy fight.

Sounds like you went to the same school as Joe Oliver who of course voiced that nonsense about people who are interested in the environment must be foreign funded terrorists.

[Keepitsimple]

The IPCC report says:

Climate warming is unequivocal

Humans caused the majority of the warming

The warming is largely irreversible

Most of the heat is going into the oceans

Ocean acidification rates are unprecedented

To stay below 2 degrees of warming the world must become carbon negative

To stay below 2 degrees of warming most fossil fuels must stay buried in the ground

Point one is a given - at least at this stage of the Earth's development.....Point 3 is also accurate - we can't control Climate Change. However, the point "Most of the heat is going into the oceans"........since land temperatures have stabilized for 17 years, the Antarctic has more ice mass than ever, and the Arctic shows signs of recovering its recent ice loss - ocean heat is pretty well the last bastion of the alarmists. It's hard to disprove (or prove) because we have no way of measuring the heat content of the deep oceans. Imagine - scientists have been fighting over land temperatures and frantically making adjustments for decades - and now we are to believe they know the amount of heat that's trapped in the oceans? This Johnny come lately theory only gained favour when land temperatures stopped rising, thereby repudiating the predictions/projections of virtually every one of the computer models.

Be on the lookout for massive flooding on the coasts because all this heat from the past 17 years is surely causing enough ocean expansion to raise sea levels to alarming levels. Stay away from those Florida keys.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Keepitsimple