The "seas boiling" was over the top but if that's all it takes for you to ignore what science tells us about the climate then there must be some motivated reasoning on your part that has nothing to do with science.
The Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing.
Antarctic ice is not growing, at least not this year. Of course when talking about ice in the polar regions you need to distinguish between sea ice and ice that is on land. It's true that for the past few years Antarctic sea ice has set new records but this year the Antarctic sea ice extent is 10% below normal. See here and click on the "Antarctic" tab.
We know from the GRACE satellites that the Antarctic land ice continues to melt.
So no, Antarctic ice in both forms is not growing this year.
If global warming is real- the permafrost will go away, and what is currently tundra will quickly (like within a year or two) rot into very rich loam,...
A year or two????? Try a century or two if you're lucky.
Just eyeballing the graphs I can find it looks like the last time CO2 was over 1000 ppm was over 65 million years ago, before the demise of the dinosaurs. That means that nearly all of the mammalian species that have existed never lived in a world where the CO2 level was over 1000 ppm.
I've looked through that list before and the main thing it shows is that the deniers ignore the time frames placed on the predictions and always zero in on the most extreme part of the prediction rather than looking at the range of possibilities. How can a prediction be called a failure at this point when it's talking about things that will be happening in the 2050s? Climate science deniers expect the predictions to happen in the next 5 years and if it takes longer than that it doesn't matter to them.
Having the humility to admit that scientists who make it their life's work to study a subject area probably know more than you do about it would be the right mindset to me.
Snark aside, this is exactly right. When it comes to climate science, we have lost all humility for what we do not yet know, which is a critical element of science.
Guys like you seem to assume if we don't know everything about climate science that's equivalent to knowing nothing.
That's one paper that climate science deniers like to cite but evidence from the GRACE satellites contradicts it showing a net loss from the whole Antarctic ice sheet. Here's a story about the GRACE research that covers 2003-2014.
For every arctic, there's an antarctic. It was just two years ago that there was record ice in the antarctic area. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an... That certainly justifies spending hundreds of billions of dollars on bird-frying solar reflectors, or bird chopping windmills for a guestimated 0.2 degree reduction in the planet's temperature
There was record sea ice in the Antarctic a couple of years ago but the Antarctic Ice Sheet (that's the land based ice) continues to lose ice. Part of the reason for the record sea ice is that the melting of the ice sheet puts more fresh water in the ocean around Antarctica making it easier for the sea to freeze.
What replaces fossil fuels must have comparable energy densities and portability/replenishment/refueling cycle times and ranges.
You're thinking in terms of transportation which accounts for about 28% of our energy use (in the USA). Most stationary applications can use electrical power and it doesn't matter how that's generated. Even in transportation electric cars currently have the range for about 90% of most people's driving and with battery technology improving year by year the range continues to improve.
Solar and wind power are competitive on price with other forms of power generation and they continue to get cheaper. It's just a matter of building out the infrastructure.
It sounds like these people would welcome a global economic collapse, or at least a Western economic collapse, as a shortcut towards reducing major sources of GHGs like industrial/power generation activities and population numbers through attrition from the resulting wars, mass starvation, and domestic rebellion/violence/riots within the various affected developed nations that a major global economic disaster would precipitate.
Strat
As opposed to global economic collapse due to effects of global warming? Billions to trillions of dollars spent on adapting as coastal cities slowly go underwater, millions of climate refugees seeking new places to live, wars over resources as water supply and agricultural areas change.
Energy is mostly a fungible resource. Whether you produce it with fossil fuels or renewable energy it's still the same thing. It's time to let go of the past and look to the future.
And yet "corruptible government" around the world is able to deliver health care for half to two thirds the per person cost that we pay in the USA with equivalent outcomes.
Without personal gain, shit just doesn't get done. You don't work for free. Why do you expect anyone else to.
As a real patient, I would rather the entire the entire industry not be destroyed either by crass idiots or morons with "good intentions".
The issue isn't that simple and there's a lot at stake that you're blissfully unaware of.
Sheesh! The Epi-pens cost less than $50 in materials to make and yet the maker wants to charge over $300 apiece for them. The only way they can get away with it is by having an exclusive license to sell them in the USA. The only reason they can get away with it is they have no competition.
Yes, of course. But in the common vernacular "ice age" refers to a glacial period. I used to be pedantic about that too but I gave up a few years ago because it took too much effort to correct everyone all of the time.
1) No evidence that global warming or other climate change is big enough compared to other problems like overpopulation, poverty, habitat and arable land destruction, etc. There is a remarkable lack of evidence to support the claims of harm.
And there is a remarkable lack of evidence that you understand the issue of anthropogenic global warming well enough to make a qualified judgment about it.
We're not really overdue for the next ice age, just headed that way based on Milankovitch cycles. But we've pumped enough excess greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere lately to overcome that and any solar minimum that may occur. There will be no prolonged cooling period in your lifetime.
isn't it astounding that after literally decades of being utterly wrong about long term climate forecasts, people still listen to them?
But they haven't been that wrong. Go back and compare what they've said in the IPCC reports to what has actually happened and you'll find they underpredict more than overpredict. Plenty of people on both sides of the issue get hyperbolic in their statements but if you follow what actual scientists say in actual scientific papers you'll find they get more right than wrong.
During the Jurassic the Sun was also dimmer than it is now and the configuration of the continents was completely different. You can't compare the two periods without taking that into account.
Slashdot Mirror
The "seas boiling" was over the top but if that's all it takes for you to ignore what science tells us about the climate then there must be some motivated reasoning on your part that has nothing to do with science.
The Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing.
Antarctic ice is not growing, at least not this year. Of course when talking about ice in the polar regions you need to distinguish between sea ice and ice that is on land. It's true that for the past few years Antarctic sea ice has set new records but this year the Antarctic sea ice extent is 10% below normal. See here and click on the "Antarctic" tab.
We know from the GRACE satellites that the Antarctic land ice continues to melt.
So no, Antarctic ice in both forms is not growing this year.
If global warming is real- the permafrost will go away, and what is currently tundra will quickly (like within a year or two) rot into very rich loam, ...
A year or two????? Try a century or two if you're lucky.
Just eyeballing the graphs I can find it looks like the last time CO2 was over 1000 ppm was over 65 million years ago, before the demise of the dinosaurs. That means that nearly all of the mammalian species that have existed never lived in a world where the CO2 level was over 1000 ppm.
I've looked through that list before and the main thing it shows is that the deniers ignore the time frames placed on the predictions and always zero in on the most extreme part of the prediction rather than looking at the range of possibilities. How can a prediction be called a failure at this point when it's talking about things that will be happening in the 2050s? Climate science deniers expect the predictions to happen in the next 5 years and if it takes longer than that it doesn't matter to them.
The most abrupt change of the past 65 million years (excluding the asteroid hit) was the PETM and it was at least 10 times slower than today.
The issue isn't the temperature, it's how fast it's changing.
Human emissions of CO2 ~ 35 billion tons per year.
Having the humility to admit that scientists who make it their life's work to study a subject area probably know more than you do about it would be the right mindset to me.
Snark aside, this is exactly right. When it comes to climate science, we have lost all humility for what we do not yet know, which is a critical element of science.
Guys like you seem to assume if we don't know everything about climate science that's equivalent to knowing nothing.
That's one paper that climate science deniers like to cite but evidence from the GRACE satellites contradicts it showing a net loss from the whole Antarctic ice sheet. Here's a story about the GRACE research that covers 2003-2014.
For every arctic, there's an antarctic.
It was just two years ago that there was record ice in the antarctic area.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an...
That certainly justifies spending hundreds of billions of dollars on bird-frying solar reflectors, or bird chopping windmills for a guestimated 0.2 degree reduction in the planet's temperature
There was record sea ice in the Antarctic a couple of years ago but the Antarctic Ice Sheet (that's the land based ice) continues to lose ice. Part of the reason for the record sea ice is that the melting of the ice sheet puts more fresh water in the ocean around Antarctica making it easier for the sea to freeze.
What replaces fossil fuels must have comparable energy densities and portability/replenishment/refueling cycle times and ranges.
You're thinking in terms of transportation which accounts for about 28% of our energy use (in the USA). Most stationary applications can use electrical power and it doesn't matter how that's generated. Even in transportation electric cars currently have the range for about 90% of most people's driving and with battery technology improving year by year the range continues to improve.
Solar and wind power are competitive on price with other forms of power generation and they continue to get cheaper. It's just a matter of building out the infrastructure.
It sounds like these people would welcome a global economic collapse, or at least a Western economic collapse, as a shortcut towards reducing major sources of GHGs like industrial/power generation activities and population numbers through attrition from the resulting wars, mass starvation, and domestic rebellion/violence/riots within the various affected developed nations that a major global economic disaster would precipitate.
Strat
As opposed to global economic collapse due to effects of global warming? Billions to trillions of dollars spent on adapting as coastal cities slowly go underwater, millions of climate refugees seeking new places to live, wars over resources as water supply and agricultural areas change.
Energy is mostly a fungible resource. Whether you produce it with fossil fuels or renewable energy it's still the same thing. It's time to let go of the past and look to the future.
China is currently investing a lot more in renewable and nuclear energy than the USA.
Icelandic vulcanos produce more but thei don't count that. They can't do much about that either.
What's a "vulcano"? Is that a latin version of a Vulcan?
And yet "corruptible government" around the world is able to deliver health care for half to two thirds the per person cost that we pay in the USA with equivalent outcomes.
Without personal gain, shit just doesn't get done. You don't work for free. Why do you expect anyone else to.
As a real patient, I would rather the entire the entire industry not be destroyed either by crass idiots or morons with "good intentions".
The issue isn't that simple and there's a lot at stake that you're blissfully unaware of.
Sheesh! The Epi-pens cost less than $50 in materials to make and yet the maker wants to charge over $300 apiece for them. The only way they can get away with it is by having an exclusive license to sell them in the USA. The only reason they can get away with it is they have no competition.
Yes, of course. But in the common vernacular "ice age" refers to a glacial period. I used to be pedantic about that too but I gave up a few years ago because it took too much effort to correct everyone all of the time.
1) No evidence that global warming or other climate change is big enough compared to other problems like overpopulation, poverty, habitat and arable land destruction, etc. There is a remarkable lack of evidence to support the claims of harm.
And there is a remarkable lack of evidence that you understand the issue of anthropogenic global warming well enough to make a qualified judgment about it.
We're not really overdue for the next ice age, just headed that way based on Milankovitch cycles. But we've pumped enough excess greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere lately to overcome that and any solar minimum that may occur. There will be no prolonged cooling period in your lifetime.
isn't it astounding that after literally decades of being utterly wrong about long term climate forecasts, people still listen to them?
But they haven't been that wrong. Go back and compare what they've said in the IPCC reports to what has actually happened and you'll find they underpredict more than overpredict. Plenty of people on both sides of the issue get hyperbolic in their statements but if you follow what actual scientists say in actual scientific papers you'll find they get more right than wrong.
During the Jurassic the Sun was also dimmer than it is now and the configuration of the continents was completely different. You can't compare the two periods without taking that into account.
Of course the flooding in this case had nothing to do with the Mississippi River.
So what is your conservative solution to anthropogenic global warming? All I ever hear from your side is denial of the problem.