If they start slashing Social Security and Medicare they'll start losing their seats in Congress. There's not enough money anywhere else except the DOD to make that much difference.
Economics is what's putting coal miners out of work. Coal can't compete with natural gas and wind and barely with solar. If coal had to pay the economic costs of it's pollution it probably couldn't even compete with nuclear power.
I actually looked up the address of Al Gore's home in Montecito on Google Maps and it's right around the 400 foot contour line, well above any possible sea level rise.
The problem with your Tides and Currents link is they just give a linear trend line. They don't show any curve for changes in the rate of rise. Most scientists studying this expect at least a meter (3 feet) of rise by 2100 and it won't stop there. It will take centuries for the big ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica to catch up with the current forcing. Over 10 feet of rise by 2200 isn't out of the question. I just wish I could live long enough to say I told you so.
Or maybe give the money back to people who grow the economy. The ultra-rich did not get that way by stealing money from everybody else despite what the SJWs want to believe.
With interest rates so low and investment money searching for things to invest in how do you expect the ultra-rich to grow the economy? If you want to grow the economy give money at the bottom end and it will filter up to the ones on top. Giving it to people already at the top just increases their rent seeking investments. If people down the economic scale can't afford to buy it why would they invest in something productive? Supply side/trickle down economics is a joke that's never worked.
Doubling down on the crazy "predictions" doesn't fly anymore. Sky didn't fall in two decades, and now no one but the terminally gullible will believe it's ever going to.
Ah you youngsters with your short attention spans. As XXongo said no one expected it to happen in two decades, just that we're setting it up to happen in the future. I wonder what you'll be saying in another two decades.
Don't you understand that when the USA gives foreign aid it's often with strings attached that require the money to be spent on American products. Yes, some of it gets skimmed off by the elites but not most of it.
Regarding food riots you might be surprised. If food gets expensive enough that people can't afford it there will be riots. That was one of the factors in the revolution in Egypt. The cost of wheat and bread rose so much because of the heatwave/drought in Russia that people couldn't afford it.
At least 5 nuclear reactors got approved during the Obama administrations. One that was half built more than a decade ago was completed, two in Georgia are still under construction and two in South Carolina have been cancelled due to the Westinghouse bankruptcy and excessive cost. The completion of the two in Georgia are also not a sure thing due to costs.
And as always happens when scientists find issues with measurements and make corrections the climate science deniers accuse the scientists of doing it for political reasons. It's actually projection. The deniers objections are political in nature so the other side must be doing that too. You should find competent scientists and have them examine the corrections to see if there is scientific validity to the corrections.
There is no data to push an anthropomorphic climate change concept.
Definition of anthropomorphic 1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes
anthropomorphic deities
stories involving anthropomorphic animals
2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
anthropomorphic supernaturalism
anthropomorphic beliefs about nature
The word you want is anthropogenic.
Definition of anthropogenic : of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature
anthropogenic pollutants
Regarding sea level changes being linear for the last ~150 years here is a statistician's analysis of that. It doesn't appear linear to me.
Water vapor can not be the main driver of temperature change because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly controlled by temperature and it will quickly condense out if temperature drops. If something is controlled by temperature it can not drive temperature. Sure water vapor is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect but without the support of the non-condensing greenhouse gases (mostly CO2 and methane) the level of water vapor would also drop substantially.
All of the IPCC climate models include water vapor as a feedback effect of the warming from non-condensing greenhouse gases.
Debt can not be increased beyond all bounds but the current debt is not the highest it's ever been and we managed that just fine. In fact the few times the US national debt was reduced to almost zero it was followed by a bad recession.
As far as Antarctica, what study shows the mass of snow and ice is not accumulating? it's gaining - not losing. In every single study you'll find that covers the entire continent (not just cherry-picked little areas).
The GRACE satellites beg to differ. They show an average of 125 gigatons per year of ice loss on Antarctica from 2002 to 2016, mostly in West Antarctica. The GRACE satellites measure changes in gravity. As Antarctica loses ice the change in the mass of the ice result in changes in gravity.
Economics says no to nuclear power. The only way it can compete in the current energy market is if the government wants to subsidize it with a lot of money. Now it may be that we should be doing that in order to combat global warming but the politics aren't there yet.
Our models predicting a curvature have been proven wrong every year since 1993 when we started satellite tracking of sea level rise. The actual data shows an impressively linear 3mm per year. There is no evidence refuting that linear rise. There is no evidence supporting the model's prediction of a curvature.
Recent research has found some problems with earlier satellite tracking of sea level rise:
How much of that debt was because of the stupid wars of the last President's predecessor and the Great Recession when deficit spending was actually warranted to minimize the economic chaos that ensued. The national debt is only an issue when there's a Democrat in the Whitehouse, otherwise as Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.", at least as long as there's a Republican in the Whitehouse.
I had a similar experience but from a physical chemistry perspective. When you look at the IR+RAMAN spectra for CO2 and H2O it becomes clear that there is absolutely no amount of CO2 that will cause significant warming (the peaks from CO2 are already highly saturated, meaning adding more isn't going to make it any warmer--like having 50 washrags stacked on your chest and trying to get warm by stacking 50 more directly on top of them, where H2O is like a blanket).
Any observed warming can be easily explained with water vapor concentrations, which have also been increasing. The method to deal with that kind of warming doesn't involve shutting down all industry in the world and instituting global communism. In fact, since H2O is in such a tight equilibrium that warming can be fixed in a few days if it becomes bad enough that we have to do it.
You might want to read these articles about why your "CO2 is saturated" argument is wrong:
Also, I'm curious how you think we can fix the warming in a few days by doing something about water vapor? With over 70% of the planet covered by water I don't see any way of significantly affecting the level of water vapor in the atmosphere.
There are things happening that are irreversible at least on any time scale that's relevant to humans alive today. Temperatures will not go down unless we can bring the level of CO2 down significantly, ice will continue to melt for centuries until the glaciers catch up to the warming that's already happened and as a result sea level will continue to rise as it melts and as the oceans continue to warm up. Global warming and the climate change that results from it is like a large ship. It takes time to get it moving and will take a similar amount of time to get it stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
If they start slashing Social Security and Medicare they'll start losing their seats in Congress. There's not enough money anywhere else except the DOD to make that much difference.
Economics is what's putting coal miners out of work. Coal can't compete with natural gas and wind and barely with solar. If coal had to pay the economic costs of it's pollution it probably couldn't even compete with nuclear power.
I actually looked up the address of Al Gore's home in Montecito on Google Maps and it's right around the 400 foot contour line, well above any possible sea level rise.
The problem with your Tides and Currents link is they just give a linear trend line. They don't show any curve for changes in the rate of rise. Most scientists studying this expect at least a meter (3 feet) of rise by 2100 and it won't stop there. It will take centuries for the big ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica to catch up with the current forcing. Over 10 feet of rise by 2200 isn't out of the question. I just wish I could live long enough to say I told you so.
There was no massive hurricane drought. They just didn't happen to hit the United States which for most Americans means they didn't happen.
Or maybe give the money back to people who grow the economy. The ultra-rich did not get that way by stealing money from everybody else despite what the SJWs want to believe.
With interest rates so low and investment money searching for things to invest in how do you expect the ultra-rich to grow the economy? If you want to grow the economy give money at the bottom end and it will filter up to the ones on top. Giving it to people already at the top just increases their rent seeking investments. If people down the economic scale can't afford to buy it why would they invest in something productive? Supply side/trickle down economics is a joke that's never worked.
I happen to agree pulling out...no reason to obligate $$$ from the US treasury that is already quite stretched with domestic needs.
Then the Congress passes "tax reform" that will add another $1.5 trillion the the debt.
Doubling down on the crazy "predictions" doesn't fly anymore. Sky didn't fall in two decades, and now no one but the terminally gullible will believe it's ever going to.
Ah you youngsters with your short attention spans. As XXongo said no one expected it to happen in two decades, just that we're setting it up to happen in the future. I wonder what you'll be saying in another two decades.
Don't you understand that when the USA gives foreign aid it's often with strings attached that require the money to be spent on American products. Yes, some of it gets skimmed off by the elites but not most of it.
Regarding food riots you might be surprised. If food gets expensive enough that people can't afford it there will be riots. That was one of the factors in the revolution in Egypt. The cost of wheat and bread rose so much because of the heatwave/drought in Russia that people couldn't afford it.
At least 5 nuclear reactors got approved during the Obama administrations. One that was half built more than a decade ago was completed, two in Georgia are still under construction and two in South Carolina have been cancelled due to the Westinghouse bankruptcy and excessive cost. The completion of the two in Georgia are also not a sure thing due to costs.
And as always happens when scientists find issues with measurements and make corrections the climate science deniers accuse the scientists of doing it for political reasons. It's actually projection. The deniers objections are political in nature so the other side must be doing that too. You should find competent scientists and have them examine the corrections to see if there is scientific validity to the corrections.
What data is there to push the anthropomorphic global climate change concept? Actual real data, not output from models. Because the actual data shows sea level changes incredibly linear for the last ~150 years, the actual warming being a lot less than the models predict, and the modeled sensitivity of climate to CO2 levels being a factor of 2 to 3 too high
There is no data to push an anthropomorphic climate change concept.
Definition of anthropomorphic
1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes
anthropomorphic deities
stories involving anthropomorphic animals
2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
anthropomorphic supernaturalism
anthropomorphic beliefs about nature
The word you want is anthropogenic.
Definition of anthropogenic
: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature
anthropogenic pollutants
Regarding sea level changes being linear for the last ~150 years here is a statistician's analysis of that. It doesn't appear linear to me.
Sea level rise has accelerated
Water vapor can not be the main driver of temperature change because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly controlled by temperature and it will quickly condense out if temperature drops. If something is controlled by temperature it can not drive temperature. Sure water vapor is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect but without the support of the non-condensing greenhouse gases (mostly CO2 and methane) the level of water vapor would also drop substantially.
All of the IPCC climate models include water vapor as a feedback effect of the warming from non-condensing greenhouse gases.
Debt can not be increased beyond all bounds but the current debt is not the highest it's ever been and we managed that just fine. In fact the few times the US national debt was reduced to almost zero it was followed by a bad recession.
...
As far as Antarctica, what study shows the mass of snow and ice is not accumulating? it's gaining - not losing. In every single study you'll find that covers the entire continent (not just cherry-picked little areas).
The GRACE satellites beg to differ. They show an average of 125 gigatons per year of ice loss on Antarctica from 2002 to 2016, mostly in West Antarctica. The GRACE satellites measure changes in gravity. As Antarctica loses ice the change in the mass of the ice result in changes in gravity.
Antarctic ice loss 2002-2016
The ozone hole is closing up because we actually got together and did something about it. Montreal Protocol
Economics says no to nuclear power. The only way it can compete in the current energy market is if the government wants to subsidize it with a lot of money. Now it may be that we should be doing that in order to combat global warming but the politics aren't there yet.
Our models predicting a curvature have been proven wrong every year since 1993 when we started satellite tracking of sea level rise. The actual data shows an impressively linear 3mm per year. There is no evidence refuting that linear rise. There is no evidence supporting the model's prediction of a curvature.
Recent research has found some problems with earlier satellite tracking of sea level rise:
Satellite SNAFU masked true sea level rise for decades
How much of that debt was because of the stupid wars of the last President's predecessor and the Great Recession when deficit spending was actually warranted to minimize the economic chaos that ensued. The national debt is only an issue when there's a Democrat in the Whitehouse, otherwise as Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.", at least as long as there's a Republican in the Whitehouse.
...
Have a look at principia-scientific.org if you want to see evidence for yourselves.
No, have a look at principia-scientific if you want to be mislead about the evidence.
I had a similar experience but from a physical chemistry perspective. When you look at the IR+RAMAN spectra for CO2 and H2O it becomes clear that there is absolutely no amount of CO2 that will cause significant warming (the peaks from CO2 are already highly saturated, meaning adding more isn't going to make it any warmer--like having 50 washrags stacked on your chest and trying to get warm by stacking 50 more directly on top of them, where H2O is like a blanket).
Any observed warming can be easily explained with water vapor concentrations, which have also been increasing. The method to deal with that kind of warming doesn't involve shutting down all industry in the world and instituting global communism. In fact, since H2O is in such a tight equilibrium that warming can be fixed in a few days if it becomes bad enough that we have to do it.
You might want to read these articles about why your "CO2 is saturated" argument is wrong:
A saturated gassy argument
A saturated gassy argument - Part II
Also, I'm curious how you think we can fix the warming in a few days by doing something about water vapor? With over 70% of the planet covered by water I don't see any way of significantly affecting the level of water vapor in the atmosphere.
That sounds like projection on your part.
Instead what we got was record temperature and an astronomical increase in ignorant assholes.
Versus know-it-all assholes who can’t even begin to explain (or understand) how climate models work. But somehow it’s the other guy who's “ignorant”.
I have my doubts about how well you can explain how climate models work.
The scientists predictions have pretty much always been long term. You just haven't been paying attention.
A while back, I made a list of various predictions saying that climate change was irreversible, or soon would be irreversible. The East Anglia climate email leak shows that a lot of climate scientists weren't acting in good faith. We can still accept the science they do, but there is no reason to trust their judgment (and again, the emails provided reason to believe their judgment is poor).
There are things happening that are irreversible at least on any time scale that's relevant to humans alive today. Temperatures will not go down unless we can bring the level of CO2 down significantly, ice will continue to melt for centuries until the glaciers catch up to the warming that's already happened and as a result sea level will continue to rise as it melts and as the oceans continue to warm up. Global warming and the climate change that results from it is like a large ship. It takes time to get it moving and will take a similar amount of time to get it stopped.