Slashdot Mirror

Why are you so angry?

I provide facts which contradict what you have been brainwashed into believing and you respond with insults. Thats religion not science.
The Anti CO2 movement has taken on all the trappings of a Jihad and its difficult to reason with the faithful but still here goes- the SAHARA IS TURNING GREENER

https://www.climatecentral.org...

No. Current CO2 levels are abnormally low compared to Earths Geologic History.

If you're a rock, that's reassuring. If you're homo sapiens, you're more concerned with what your own biology has evolved to handle, and given anatomically modern homo sapiens have been around less than a 800K years, we're mostly concerned with that time frame. Prior to the recent increase, during the last 420K years, we've never experienced anything above the low 300 ppm levels. The last time CO2 levels were this (400 ppm) high was at least 10-15M years ago, at a time when our ancestors hadn't yet split from gorillas (possibly not even orangutans).

Those common ape ancestors of 10-15 million years were much different; smaller than modern humans overall, with much smaller brains. Modern human brains are far more energy hungry, and "energy" here means "food + oxygen". Note that while the rise in CO2 levels doesn't actually change oxygen levels that much, hemoglobin's effectiveness relies on atmospheric CO2 levels being much lower than O2 levels; hemoglobin doesn't directly "know" when to pick up oxygen and drop off CO2, it's influenced by the relative concentrations of each (among other things). So even if O2 levels stay steady, significant increases in CO2 throw off the equilibrium reactions hemoglobin depends on; our blood won't release as much CO2 or absorb as much O2 while it's in the lungs, so the whole body suffers. We can see this effect already in indoor areas with poor ventilation causing higher CO2 levels; I don't relish a world in which we're all constantly slightly hypoxic, with 15-50% decreased cognitive function, even outdoors in "fresh" air.

No matter the we have to use MORE fuel to produce the power for my car as long as it is not consumed where my car is.

It depends where you live. In many places in the USA, you'd probably be "greener" by skipping the EV, buying the cheapest (ICE powered) economy car instead, and putting the money you saved towards photovoltaics on the roof of your home. The photovoltaics will also yield a better ROI than the EV.

Sad fact is, we've still got a way to go before EVs are anything more than a way for the rich (and rich-ish) to feel smug about their vehicle choice.

You must have head of the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period - and the many other examples of this. Even the Little Ice Age.

1. The Medieval Warm Period was localized to the north Atlantic region, with the pacific region getting colder. Current warming is increasing average temperatures across the globe.

2. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period (as per the link) is believed to have been solved.

3. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from ~300 to ~400 PPM since the 60s, in line with increased fossil fuel emissions.

4. The cause of the current warming is believed (by 90+% of the scientists investigating it) to have been solved. Spoiler alert it's the increasing atmospheric CO2.

and the temperatures have dropped dramatically since then.

What?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/...
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc...
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/0...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
https://www.co2.earth/global-w...

Yes, I know... CNN is liberal fake news and NASA has also been infiltrated by liberals, as has been the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration... or any scientific organization for that matter.

From your own source, 21% of the world's energy already comes from renewables, and 11% from nuclear. So scaling up renewables seems like it'd be easier than scaling up nuclear, and a heck of a lot safer.

Are you certain of that? Can you show me your math?

Here's an example of some people that did the math.
http://www.climatecentral.org/...

They say that to match the power generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power stations, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass. Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity meets about 7 percent.

Just think about the environmental impact of having to dig up that much material to build all these windmills and solar panels. Then tell me how "easy" it would be to meet that demand for these materials.

The interesting statistics is the ratio of cold and hot records. If the trend in your noisy data is absent, you'd expect cold and hot records to be set at roughtly 1:1, regardless of your history of measurements. In reality, it currently looks like this.

We will roast ourselves, and acidify the ocean.

Good. Make Earth Great Again!

https://www.climatecentral.org...

The US fracking is mainly shale oil.

I don't know where you got that info (Canada, perhaps?) but it's precisely because of fracking that we have now have such historically-cheap natural gas.

Compare the following two maps; they speak for themselves:

shale gas and fracking water use. See any correlation?

The *ultimate* subsidy is the US sending our kids to die in the middle East, due to oil. There's no way gulf war I happened if some sub Saharan country invaded another resource poor country.
[...]if musk can show we might be able to wean the US offa oil, I'd much rather subsidize that then our children getting killed by an IED.

Here's the problem: we already have the technology to replace 100% of our transportation fuels with biofuels from algae. You use solar thermal heat pipes to move seawater into the desert, and then grow algae on thermal raceways with solar paddlewheels. The lipids become green diesel and the remainder is processed for Butanol. Unfortunately, green diesel use actually went down due to the EPA's reduction of the renewable fuel requirement in 2014 (and through to today) although the EPA blamed it on "Limitations in the ability of the industry to produce suffcient volumes of qualifying renewable fuel, particularly non-ethanol fuels" — though this is a completely transparent lie, since they were making more before the EPA cut back the target. As for Butanol, we would have been able to buy it already if not for a patent dispute between Gevo and Butamax. The patent in question was developed in part at a public university, therefore it was developed in part with our money, but it is held by BP and DuPont's shell company Butamax who has been suing Gevo for years to prevent them from selling us Butanol fuel.

So yeah, go Musk, go EVs, but we are not using petrochemicals to fuel our vehicles because we have to. We are doing it because Big Oil is a branch of government, lying betwixt Congress and the rest of society.

I cannot believe how freaked out everyone is about carbon, when it is a basic and abundant element of the planet...

People are "freaked out" about carbon-- specifically, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere-- because it is known to absorb outgoing infrared radiation, so the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the temperature balance of the planet. This is an effect that has been known for a very long time (here's a good review from the American Institute of Physics: https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm), but only recently has the amount of carbon dioxide put in the atmosphere by humans been enough to make the effect visible.

You're correct that it is "basic and abundant", although I'm not sure why that's relevant

the amount in the atmosphere is minuscule to begin with,

Correct. It was the great discovery of Tyndall in 1859 that extremely small amounts of trace gasses can affect the infrared absorption. https://earthobservatory.nasa....

never mind whatever we are adding in being a tiny fraction of what it is already.

Humans have increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by about 45% since preindustrial times, most of that in the last century (graph: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/...). Depends on whether you call that a "tiny fraction."

But, indeed, the natural greenhouse effect of about 30C (ref) is about much larger than the human contribution. That's one reason we understand the greenhouse effect; it's large enough to be easily measured.

The entire ecosystem of the Earth is built to process carbon, to consume carbon, to use carbon to sustain life.

Correct again. Over a period of few hundred thousand years, this will undoubtably be removed from the biosphere.

It would be lot faster than that, except we're cutting down trees a lot faster than we're growing trees.

It is so sad to see rational people get lost in a death cult that makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a shred of scientific understanding of the climate, or indeed basic material science...

I will assure you that I have a pretty good scientific understanding of climate, and also of basic materials science. This is how we understand the atmospheres of all the planets, not just Earth. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect is quite well understood science, and the absorption coefficients of trace gasses in the infrared are all well measured.

Then there are those worry about damage to the desert ecosystem.

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

Oh, and you are dead wrong on the your methane also, but nice attempt with the 'might'. its almost as if you dont know that normal land with mammals living on it also produce methane, and that lake bottoms are notoriously anaerobic..

You didn't even try to check, did you? Here is one source of many.

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

Story 1

This article says nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. Just that as there is a observable and measurable correlation between oceans warming and hurricanes growing more frequent and severe.

Story 2

This article mostly talks about the fact that hurricanes may become more intense and that a category 6 will eventually have to be created if that happens because hurricanes with windspeed ranging from 257.5 kph to 407 kph are being lumped together into category 5. It goes on to speculate that dumping the category system might be a better idea than creating a category 6. Towards the end it even says: This oscillation means the Atlantic is expected to cool in the future, obscuring links among hurricane activity and global warming. Perhaps counterintuitively, recent computer modeling studies predict fewer tropical cyclones if the ocean heats up further as a result of global warming. But they also predict intensification of the ones that do form, albeit with limited confidence. Frequency drops by 6 to 34 percent this century, according to 2010 review article in Nature Geoscience, whereas intensity rises 2 to 11 percent. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) , i.e. fewer hurricanes but the ones we'll get will be more severe. Nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.

Story 3

The independent isn't really a scientific source but all this piece says is that somebody found evidence that warmer oceans seem to be linked to an increase in hurricane frequency and that in a warm year hurricanes are twice as likely as in a cold year. The real news here is that somebody found a way to extract data about hurricanes from old measurements made before the satellite age. They say nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.

Story 4

Still nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. It does talk about more hurricanes but the frequency is nothing like you claim: ”If this trend continues, it is realistic to expect a ten-fold increase in hurricanes like Katrina. That amounts to once every two years,”

Story 5

And yet again nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. This guy talks about improvements in computer modelling since 2005 and seems to be making the case that global hurricane frequency will not increase but that the severity of the hurricanes we do get will increase. I.e. about the same number of hurricanes but they'll be more destructive.

Yea, you did a search.

Found all these in less than 1 minute, and everyone voted you up because they want you to be right, but obviously you are not. I like the one claiming Category 6 hurricanes will be hitting any day now.

Bonus speech by Al Gore saying the same thing.

Read that long winded piece and it is mostly a regurgitation of d

Story 1
Story 2
Story 3
Story 4
Story 5

Yea, you did a search. Found all these in less than 1 minute, and everyone voted you up because they want you to be right, but obviously you are not. I like the one claiming Category 6 hurricanes will be hitting any day now.

Bonus speech by Al Gore saying the same thing.

From a major Global Warming prpaganda site Warmer Winters are what are driving most of the rise in temps

http://www.climatecentral.org/... contains the graph
http://assets.climatecentral.o...

This shows the rise in the CO2 level in the atmosphere over the last 5 years.
For over a year now, it's been over 400ppm, and the rise in 2015-16, over the same period the year before has been the largest this past year than any time in the last five years.

400 ppm CO2 is about as low as CO2 concentrations have ever been on Earth.

CO2 levels have been over 20 times higher than they are now.

So no, it's not all that clear that 400 ppm CO2 is a disaster.

Because 5 years is nothing. Start talking about 5 million, or five hundred million.

http://www.climatecentral.org/... contains the graph
http://assets.climatecentral.o...

This shows the rise in the CO2 level in the atmosphere over the last 5 years.
For over a year now, it's been over 400ppm, and the rise in 2015-16, over the same period the year before has been the largest this past year than any time in the last five years.

400 ppm CO2 is about as low as CO2 concentrations have ever been on Earth.

CO2 levels have been over 20 times higher than they are now.

So no, it's not all that clear that 400 ppm CO2 is a disaster.

Because 5 years is nothing. Start talking about 5 million, or five hundred million.

http://www.climatecentral.org/... contains the graph
http://assets.climatecentral.o...

This shows the rise in the CO2 level in the atmosphere over the last 5 years.
For over a year now, it's been over 400ppm, and the rise in 2015-16, over the same period the year before has been the largest this past year than any time in the last five years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/... contains the graph
http://assets.climatecentral.o...

This shows the rise in the CO2 level in the atmosphere over the last 5 years.
For over a year now, it's been over 400ppm, and the rise in 2015-16, over the same period the year before has been the largest this past year than any time in the last five years.

If there were less people like you, the goal would be realistic.

http://thinkprogress.org/clima...

"the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm]"

This!

We're already past 400 ppm ... and that's measured in open spaces. The concentrations in classrooms tend to be much higher.

Presumably the same is true for boardrooms.

So, as the CO2 issue becomes worse, we're going to become less capable of dealing with it. Climate deniers really shouldn't keep kicking the can down the road.

Carbon dioxide can last in the atmosphere for thousands of years without efforts to remove it.

What does that even mean? Besides being a handy quote to invoke panic in math and science illiterates.

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere until some process removes it. The amount is based upon the difference in production vs consumption. Atmospheric CO2 varies seasonally due to differences in the amount of plant respiration between the northern and southern hemispheres. This is evident in the sawtooth superimposed on the long term trend. This means that CO2 concentrations will respond quickly to changes in production/consumption rates. There is no 'thousand year' lag.

This was from a month ago.

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

So the best modeling offered can predict next years climate with 62% accuracy. That says a lot about climate modeling over the next century.

Keep in mind that while short term predictions can be chaotic, it's sometimes easier to see long-term patterns emerge, and to extrapolate data from those trends, like trending lines through a scatter plot. I agree that anything looking a century out is guesswork at best, but I'm not sure I'd say the same looking a decade out.

Historically, many climate-related doomsday predictions have been laughably innacurate. It's for this reason that I continue to be somewhat skeptical about current doomsday or long term projections, because so far *no one* has had much success with those sorts of predictions. Even so, as we have better instrumentation and more historical data with which to create models, it's all but inevitable that our climate prediction models become more accurate as well, certainly for shorter to medium length predictions, and maybe someday, even longer term.

Hotter years typically have more forest fires.Years are getting increasingly more hot.

More CO2 is resulting in more foliage. Seems nature has it's own kind of "balancing market".

Well, plants need water just like they need CO2, but obviously too much water will not promote growth.

Same with CO2 - not necessarily a 100% positive thing.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

Well, we had a good run.

Or, maybe like the entire history of mankind and economics, "used up" means there's demand for more production, or alternative production.

More CO2 is resulting in more foliage. Seems nature has it's own kind of "balancing market".

I'll be looking for a better arbitrary wordplay metric of impending doom.

We already have sat measurements for a few years: http://www.climatecentral.org/...

Funny, how you don't demand references from the other AC the one, who made the unsubstantiated statement about 2014 being "the hottest" on record.

Why would he? It's common knowledge to anyone who is paying attention.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/nws-confirms-sandy-was-not-a-hurricane-at-landfall-15589

I see people saying this a lot but I've never seen any solid evidence that it's still true. In 2014 and so far in 2015 China has actually reduced its coal use by a significant amount. China coal use continues to fall precipitously. Maybe they're replacing older inefficient plants with newer ones or maybe they're not using so much for home heating, etc. but any drop in coal use by them is a good thing.

http://instituteforenergyresea...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

And here's the explanation:

Isolated in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and at over 11,000 feet above sea level, the upper north face of Mauna Loa volcano is an ideal location to make measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide that reflect global trends, not local influences such as factories or forests that might boost or drop carbon dioxide within their vicinity. The CO2 sensors at Mauna Loa are positioned such that they sample an incoming breeze direct from the ocean, unaffected by human activities, vegetation or other factors on the island. (The Mauna Loa Observatory is high enough that the incoming breeze rides above the thermal inversion layer.)

Volcanoes are considerable sources of carbon dioxide themselves. However, the sampling location was chosen to be normally upwind of Mauna Loa's vent, and Keeling perfected methods for detecting and correcting intervals when the wind blew the wrong way.

Measurements at about 100 other sites have confirmed the long-term trend shown by the Keeling Curve, although no sites have a record as long as Mauna Loa.

Source: http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/keeling_curve

This was predictable based upon the Keeling curve, which has a seasonal oscillation based upon northern hemisphere plant growth. http://www.climatecentral.org/... About two years ago, the peaks of the CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Kea exceeded 400 ppm. Now the average is 400ppm, and in about two years, the trough of the CO2 concentration will exceed 400ppm.

The way things are going that'll be the last point we see 400ppm until the next extinction event.

The people doing this work are scientists. That means they work with probabilistic uncertainty bands, not vague measures like "within 80% of the predicted value". They also recognize that you can't make short-term predictions of a noisy system (the Earth's weather) with a narrow uncertainty band. So if anything they have erred on the side of making cautious forecasts -- i.e., things are turning out worse than the thresholds that scientists were willing to go public with (i.e., the lower edge of the 95% uncertainty band around anyone's forecast for a particular year's temperatures will be significantly cooler than their central estimate).

Because of this, no one would have been willing to predict (with high degree of certainty) that 13 of the warmest years since 1880 would occur in 2000-2014. But they have.

I challenge you to show me any global climate model that predicts that doubling CO2 concentrations won't warm the planet, or that shows that we would have had this century's steady increase in temperatures even if we hadn't increased CO2 concentrations. You can pretend there is no connection between CO2 and temperature, but you are the one burying your head in the sand.

Show me the math for both ICE cars and Tesla, from well-head to road.

The math is here, showing that where you drive is as important as what you drive. But as a sibling post notes, even this math doesn't count the energy required to produce gasoline from scratch.

In germany they will. So in Denmark, Portugal probably Spain, Italy and even Greece, too.

Germany is going to bankrupt itself trying... The cost of power there is already stupid high and it will only go higher.

BTW, how much natural gas does Germany import from Russia? Isn't that part of the geo-political problem there?

Most of the "emerging" nations are installing solar right now instead of new coal/nuclear or other plants.

There of course is great publicity whenever that happens, but you have to look a the numbers.

What percentage of the world's power comes from solar? What was the percentage last year? What will it be next year?

What would it cost to replace existing power with solar and wind?

Run the numbers and you'll find it is a fantasy.

Perhaps you might check the news about the "storage problem" of "nuclear waste".

It isn't a problem, except for the NIMBY crowd and for the laws against reprocessing the waste into plutonium.

And? What would be the problem with that? Just because "some one else" is polluting and destroying the planet you like to join him to pollute more and destroy faster?

Consider the person who is moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic while it is sinking, thinking it will make a difference.

If climate change is indeed a man-made problem, then the efforts that are being made now won't be enough to change the outcome.

That does not make any sense. Is China now burning more than the USA or is it catching up to burn "just as much" in the next 5 years?

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

The US burns less than 1 billion tons of coal, China burns 4 billion tons of it.

"And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years."

they are closing down old, inefficient coal burners and investing heavily in wind and solar.

And building new coal plants...

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

http://energydesk.greenpeace.o...

"Hydro doesn't release greenhouse gasses"

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

etc etc etc.

This was known about when I studied civil engineering 30 years ago before moving across into electrical/electronics.

Back then the levels weren't known. They've proven surprisingly high.

On top of that, all the easy hydro sites are already tapped out.

I wouldn't consider 10 as 'slightly less' than 15 in most contexts. I also don't know what you're trying to teach or demonstrate to me, seeing as how:
1. Power demand is leveling off in the USA, per household use is decreasing, and the rate of growth for number of households is also slowing.
2. If you're going to go from 10TWh to 15TWh, that means that you have to build a ton of new power plants, and the EPA has made building new coal plants even more uneconomical than new nuclear.

You are correct that the growth rate in the US is slowing... it hasn't stopped, just slowing...

I'm trying to point out that percentages can lie, it sounds really good to go to 20% solar, until you look at the total number. If your total number goes up by 50%, then you aren't making progress, you're falling behind.

New coal plants aren't being built because natural gas has become cheap. We are still increasing our power production levels, but we're doing it with natural gas. Solar remains a rounding error, wind is doing ok however and will keep growing slowly.

---

It is also worth noting that the USA is not the world. China is a problem, as are many other nations...

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.

From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.

At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.

And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.

---

The point is, it doesn't matter how many more megawatts of solar/wind/hydro you bring on if you're still bringing on more coal.

For that matter, it wouldn't matter if we STOP building new coal, we have to shut down the ones we have, or CO2 will keep going up.

Be a denier, or be a believer. If you read this from the source itself, tell me if it makes any scientific sense at all. I believe in science. The problem is there are too many idiots in the mix that confuse actual facts.

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

The USA is less than 2% of the surface area of the planet. 2014 is on track to be the hottest year on record. Notice on the world map figure that there is a cold feature centered on the Great Lakes region. Another interesting item from the reference: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2013, and 2003, in that order are the warmest years on record.

You have to start some where. Everyone likes to poke at China, but last I checked, per-capita the U.S. is still the world's largest polluter. China carries roughly half the world's solar panel production and is second only to Germany in installed capacity. As an investor in renewables, China is well in the lead of ever other nation.

Your quote is reference the Annual Average...which it is set to do, and shows absolutely NO SIGNS of not crossing that milestone.
Your post is one born of ignorance and an attempt to spread confusion.

Technically it was passed by in 2013...several times. But the monthly averages still came out slightly below 400ppm. April 2014 however was the first time the Monthly Average PPM level crossed 400ppm. And it's been theres since.

In fact I really dont see the point of your post. The trendline is quite clear, and is continually up. It has yet to FAIL to increase.
It couldnt be more irrelegent of ignorant if you had said "oh good, they have a testable predictiona bout gravity. but will they still claim gravity is real if hte apple fails to fall to the ground?"

http://www.climatecentral.org/...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
http://www.scientificamerican....

Your quote is reference the Annual Average...which it is set to do, and shows absolutely NO SIGNS of not crossing that milestone.
Your post is one born of ignorance and an attempt to spread confusion.

Technically it was passed by in 2013...several times. But the monthly averages still came out slightly below 400ppm. April 2014 however was the first time the Monthly Average PPM level crossed 400ppm. And it's been theres since.

In fact I really dont see the point of your post. The trendline is quite clear, and is continually up. It has yet to FAIL to increase.
It couldnt be more irrelegent of ignorant if you had said "oh good, they have a testable predictiona bout gravity. but will they still claim gravity is real if hte apple fails to fall to the ground?"

http://www.climatecentral.org/...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
http://www.scientificamerican....

google global warming hiatus ipcc

http://www.motherjones.com/env...

http://washington.cbslocal.com...
http://www.weather.com/news/sc...
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...

NONE of the models in the IPCC come close to predicting the current pause in temperature (nearly 17 years long at this point) - meaning those theories put together by all the smart people are wrong. That's science. When facts and theory collide, theory should lose.

What "pause" is that? For the past 340 months, global temperature has been above average. I feel like I need to point out that each of those months also increases the average temperature, so the threshold to stay above average keeps getting higher. Nevermind that the probability of 340 consecutive higher-than-average is 4e-103, about the same as hitting 12 consecutive Powerballs.

In the last 15 years 12 of the them have broken records for heat. How is that not a lick of warming?

The planet is the warmest it has ever been in human history. That is normal and expected, given the fact we're currently in a warming cycle (even without's man's influence). So we're already sitting at the very top of "mankind's historical temperature records". By normal weather variation, 7.5 of those 15 years are going to be "historical records". Secondly, it's the rate of warming that is more important than "is any warming occuring?". Scientisits dictate that "more CO2 == faster rate of warming".

Exactly how is the historical record in any way not confirming global warming?

Because historically we've seen similar rises and falls in temperature when mankind wasn't even around. Climate scientists try to use the rapid climb in temperature from 1950 - 2000 as a sign of "abnormality", because clearly the change would have been "slower and more deliberate" if the evilness of man did not intrude. But when you ask why this rapid rise in the rate of heating did not continue in the past 15 years where CO2 has still been spiking, they're fast to search for boogey men and fudge factors to attribute it to. Global CO2 emissions today are 30% higher than they were in 2000 (even higher than was predicted by the IPCC). Yet where's the accompanied climb in the rate of warming? The opposite has actually occurred...the rate of warming has slowed: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/why-the-globe-hasnt-warmed-much-for-the-past-decade-15788
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/what-caused-global-warming-to/7173667

You can claim it's being sinked in the ocean, or counterbalanced by aerosols, leprechauns, or fairies, but you can't pretend the last 15 years doesn't throw a wrench into the "effect of manmade CO2" claims of the IPCC.

The event in Australia broke more records than you could possible shake a stick at. Go here for just the briefest scientific review of the incident. Here's a quote: "A relatively small change in the average temperature can easily double the frequency of extreme heat events. Australia has warmed steadily since the 1940s, and the probability of extreme heat has now increased almost five-fold compared with 50 years ago." What part of this do you not get. Globally, spring comes 3 weeks earlier than 50 years ago. The clear and unmistakable results of climate change measure in the ten of thousands of unique individual events and phenomena. Taken as a body of evidence you'd have a better chance of arguing against evolution (and the body of evidence doesn't stop ideologues from doing that either.) Why is it that I'm yelling "Hey, dummy your arse is burning!" and instead of putting it out and thanking me for saving your life, you choose instead get insulting and indignant.

I'm point at trends, when data point after data point in one direction you get a trend. The system is incredibly complex, melting in the arctic messes with the haline cycle (and recent changes in the Gulf Stream suggest global current changes may be imminent.) These changes would have profound effects on global climate particularly cutting warm currents to the extreme latitudes causing dramatically colder winters. So there are a number of possible outcomes, when you perturb a system as complex as global weather, it's like throwing dice, many possible things can happen because there are many competing feedback loops and we still can't produce predictive models with the subtlety to give us long term predictions of complex chaotic systems.

That said, we can look at more general possibilities and compare them against what has already happened, in other words if I create a model starting in 1850 and successfully predict general large scale climate features and event up until now, I have a reasonable probability of predicting some of the large scale events coming. As for pulling out a single anything, that's crap no single data point informs you of anything. Again, the only thing that matters are trends, and we have those, we have a whole bunch of trends.

And I wish for the love of Jebus you guys could have one of these conversation without blowing all kinds personal FUD, you can stick your presumptions where the sun don't shine. You haven't the foggiest idea what my political opinions are but its clear that if your as good at guessing politics as you are about noticing its getting hotter every year that it explains why you can't seem to make a cogent observation about physical reality. In the flagellating department I believe its better to give than to receive. Guilt is what nice people do to assuage their consciences for being irresponsible or committing unkind acts. I don't practice either, therefore no guilt. I never said the world was ending, not today or a week from Tuesday or in a thousand years. Humanity is extincting about a 1000 species a day now. Most are insects and various invertebrates. Still, in your and my lifetime, we'll see the last of all the big mammals in Africa, most in Asia, and nearly half of the world's rain forest will go away. The impact of the change we're perpetrating on the environment will come back to haunt us because our biology is intimately tied to the global biology... nature of ecosystems. Every human being is a river of biota, moving through us every moment are ten times as many cells without a human genome as with. Plow the ecosphere under and we're committing slow motion suicide. Life has ben here nearly 4 billion years and suffered far worse than us, it will get along fine without us. We're an apex predator, we'll be one of the first things to go. Or, we'll pull our collective heads out of our rear ends and design a global technology that supports human advance without turning the world into a toilet. Why is that

Just look at the curve The rise is so steady every year in the last fifty has set a record and every year in the next fifty probably will too.

Here is a map that shows what is the least CO2-polluting type of car for each state, based on the source of the state's electricity. All numbers are based on a full life cycle analysis of each vehicle.

In many states, the Prius is more environmentally friendly than the Nissan Leaf. But in all states, the Prius is more environmentally friendly than any non-electric, non-hybrid vehicle.