patrick.net

Libbie Control of universities and the curriculum.
Quigley says

So “climate change” means changing the history of weather? How would you do that

Species come species go.
It's normal cycle of species on this globe.
Tim Aurora says

Things such as local weather will change and maybe dramatically causing many long living species not enough time to adap

this, which sadly is extremely true
lostand confused says

fat cat bureaucrats while they dine on caviar in 5 star hotels on the public dime while lecturing us middle class about the evil 1%.

does not mean that this
WookieMan says

global warming, climate change, ozone hole

is not true.
The question is what to do? And answer probably does not lie in hybrid cars, bioethanol, new taxes, Al Gore's 1000000 sq ft house, another Rio summit about climate change to which bureaucrats fly in their jets from all over the world, and so on. If we want to have a decent life standard and pull people out of poverty, we need cheap and plentiful energy that is accessible to everyone, not only Hollywood millionaires. Which means nuclear assuming that we do not want to produce CO2. Sadly, no one wants to consider it.

Nah he's playing devils advocate.
But questioning liberal doctrine these days certainly unveils those suffering TDS. If only we could have a simple worded test like this for the major diseases of the world..
jazz_music says

lostand confused is apropos for sure.

drB6 says

WookieMan says

global warming, climate change, ozone hole

is not true.
The question is what to do? And answer probably does not lie in hybrid cars, bioethanol, new taxes, Al Gore's 1000000 sq ft house, another Rio summit about climate change to which bureaucrats fly in their jets from all over the world, and so on. If we want to have a decent life standard and pull people out of poverty, we need cheap and plentiful energy that is accessible to everyone, not only Hollywood millionaires. Which means nuclear assuming that we do not want to produce CO2. Sadly, no one wants to consider it.

I'm all for nuclear. I'm all for cheap and clean fuels. People, people are what will eventually destroy the planet. Not our power sources. The only long term solution is less people. Birth restrictions and government subsidized elderly suicides will happen. Not in our lifetime. Might be 100 years, might be 1,000 or 5,000. It's coming though.

The earth is the 1,200 square foot house in Milwaukee, WI that currently has 6 people living in it. Tight, but manageable. At some point there will be 30 people living in that house. At some point you can't sustain 30 people living in that small of a house. I'm just not sure how fast the house gets 24 more occupants. We can use LED bulbs or regular incandescent bulbs, it really doesn't matter. That house will be trashed in pretty short order regardless of what the electric usage is.

The only argument about all this should be how can we restrict population growth, yet still increase economic output. That's the million dollar question that needs an answer.

WookieMan says

The only argument about all this should be how can we restrict population growth, yet still increase economic output. That's the million dollar question that needs an answer.

The answer is the European 15th Century. Huge Population Loss - Burst of Technology - Huge Economic Growth. In fact the Black Death was probably the best thing to happen to Europe, period. The Chinese had all that tech but used it sparingly because human life was abundant and cheap, it didn't make sense to have windmills and watermills replacing sweat labor. Why bother making ship rigging more efficient? There are tons of sailors desperate for work.

Cheap energy from Molten Salt reactors. Meanwhile, pay people not to have kids.

Super dark idea: Pay people with IQs under 90 MORE to get permanently snip-snipped before they reproduce.

Onvacation says

bob2356 says

there might a place on the planet that are getting a month that is the warmest in 130 years

Where?
2018 might be the 7th or 8th warmest year on record following 2017 the second or third warmest year on record.
Climate change is real but it might not be getting warmer.

Maybe not, but it sure looks that way.

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record
Combining the data sets from NOAA and NASA finds:

The five warmest years in the global record have all come in the 2010s
The 10 warmest years on record have all come since 1998
The 20 warmest years on record have all come since 1995

I wonder why 90% of glaciers are shrinking if it's not getting warmer. Glacier national park today looks nothing like it did when I traveled there a lot in the 70's. Or habitat keeps moving closer to the poles. here in new englad plants and insects that never existed 40 years ago are here like woolly adelgids and ash borer. or animal habitat is moving closer to the poles. moose around me are pretty much all gone because winters don't get cold enough to kill winter ticks any more. I've only see one moose in the last 4 years, they used to be a common sight. The same thing is happening pretty much all over. Must be because it's not getting warmer.

bob2356 says

The five warmest years in the global record have all come in the 2010s
The 10 warmest years on record have all come since 1998
The 20 warmest years on record have all come since 1995

But 2017 was cooler and 2018 will be cooler still. If global warming were caused by co2 shouldn't the temperature be hockey sticking instead of leveling off and falling?

"Hockey sticking" verb, when the temperature rises so fast it causes Manhattan and Florida to go under water.

Onvacation says

bob2356 says

The five warmest years in the global record have all come in the 2010s
The 10 warmest years on record have all come since 1998
The 20 warmest years on record have all come since 1995

But 2017 was cooler and 2018 will be cooler still. If global warming were caused by co2 shouldn't the temperature be hockey sticking instead of leveling off and falling?

Why? One or two year variation is far from leveling off and falling. How do you devine that 2018 will be cooler less than 4 months in? That is a very impressive talent.



The magic word is trend line.

bob2356 says

The magic word is trend line.

Hockey stick.

marcus says

I posted it twice already. Do you dare check it out. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php It shows every year in the arctic.

These charts show that the weather is cyclical. The arctic temperature was spiking up in the 70s the same way it is today.

The real question is why did dmi change the scale so that when you look at older years the peaks don't look as high?

Regarding 2017.

"The average amount of heat absorbed and trapped in the upper ocean last year was also higher than ever seen before"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2017-ranked-among-three-hottest-years-ever/

2017 was either the second warmest or third warmest on record, depending on who you ask. I guess it's better than every single year being a new all time hottest on record. But not much.

Onvacation says

The arctic temperature was spiking up in the 70s the same way it is today.

There were a couple years with spiked fluctuations, but not with it staying so much above the averages like it does every year the past five years..

Hell, in recent years the spike lows are above the averages. You can't see the difference from the 70s ?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

The only argument about all this should be how can we restrict population growth, yet still increase economic output

Why do you think restricting population growth will hurt economic output? As technology progresses, economic output per person increases.

We need to restrict population growth - economic output will take care of itself.

marcus says

2017 was either the second warmest or third warmest on record, depending on who you ask. I guess it's better than every single year being a new all time hottest on record.

How much has the temp gone up this century?
marcus says

not much

WookieMan says

I get so confused why people always debate/argue over this topic.

To stop the brainwashing.

Many children think that the world has catastrophically warmed and the only way to fix it is to recycle, turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater while stopping the evil polluting corporations by protesting.

Onvacation says

bob2356 says

The magic word is trend line.

Hockey stick

If there are people out there that don't know the difference then there is very little that can be done to help them.

bob2356 says

If there are people out there that don't know the difference then there is very little that can be done to help them

bob, 90% or better of Americans have no idea what the scientific method is or why it's important. That is why they are constantly being duped by hucksters with "sciency" schemes like "Magnets" and "alkaline water" and "wristband therapy."
Those are all billion dollar "Industries" based on absolute verifiable-by-actual-science lies, and they're so very profitable!
If there's anything we've learned, it's that a "Truthy" lie is more credible than a credulous fact.

bob2356 says

If there are people out there that don't know the difference then there is very little that can be done to help them.

Agreed!
When you mistake the steep part of a sine wave for the asymptote of destruction there is little hope.

marcus says

What are these billions in taxes being spent on climate change ?

$$ Billions have been given to climate change research and initiatives. Any simple Google search will find dozens of hits.

marcus says

Of course the goal is protecting the interests of big oil and big coal.

In 2018 Paul Ryan received around $500k from oil/gas. Many others received a fraction of that. Its certainly worth considering the effect of those donations.

marcus says

You mean like all the stupid scientists that come out of schools like, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Cal Tech, Oxford, Cambridge etc. ? Yes, the evil democrats have really pulled on over on those dumb ass "book larnin" folks.

This is where the left's standard perspective becomes insufferable. $$Billions has been put towards global warming. There is many times more capital flowing into climate change initiatives than from oil/gas companies.

Do you think $$billions, selectively distributed to broke research scientists who try to prove global warming theories, has no effect on the scientific literature? That's pure lunacy

Theories are meant to be questioned and tested and improved. The PC culture (which marcus displays w hus "book larnin" comment) combined w $$billions = propaganda for the purpose of power. Any reasonable adult should be able to admit this much.

marcus says

There were a couple years with spiked fluctuations, but not with it staying so much above the averages like it does every year the past five years..

Any idea why they changed the scale in the older years? It makes the temperature spike in 2018 look higher than the spike in 1976.

I digress.

Notice in your link that the actual melting season, the time when the temperature is above freezing and ice can actually melt, has not really changed since 1958. There is a short summer season where the ice actually is melting.

The way the media was spinning it you would think that the arctic was melting from these ten degree below freezing spikes.

These arctic spikes in temperature are not unprecedented. They happened in the 70's as you can see in the charts you linked. I recall reading somewhere that there where similiar spikes in the 30's. The spikes in temp are still well below freezing.

Predictions on when the arctic will be ice free?

Onvacation says

Predictions on when the arctic will be ice free?

By 2014 as manbearpig said.

mell says

By 2014 as manbearpig said

You mean Nobel laureates can be wrong?

jazz_music says

WookieMan says

I get so confused why people always debate/argue over this topic.

People do that because of a billion dollars invested in the same advertisers that created the tobacco health debate.

I'm confused. I believe we're trashing the planet, so don't take my comment here wrong. But who's to say that climate change isn't the new big tobacco? Big oil is obvious, they hire scientist to tout their views. There are other industries that stand to make profits though with knocking big oil down a peg or three. Unfortunately, I have a hard time trusting any of it to be honest because they all have a monetary agenda.

The only thing that really matters, regardless of what/who we want to blame, is that humans are trashing the planet. We need less of them. This is the only solution for climate change deniers or climate change believers. The ONLY. And this is why I don't get these arguments.

We've got regions in the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen, that struggle with fresh water resources, right now. There's an entire continent south of Europe that is in utter and endless poverty and corruption. Yet we sit here and argue about ice cubes melting essentially? We can't even handle the people that are here, polluting the earth as much as they do, and we're worried about glaciers and ice caps? lol.

It's going to sound sick, but figure out a way to knock out 3B people and cap it at that and there's "maybe" a chance to save the planet. There's no way I'll ever be able to claim victory on this prediction, but I think this place is fucked in the next 500 years. Like extinction fucked.

WookieMan says

The only thing that really matters, regardless of what/who we want to blame, is that humans are trashing the planet. We need less of them. This is the only solution for climate change deniers or climate change believers. The ONLY. And this is why I don't get these arguments.

BINGO.

The Technofantasists think we can increase the demand on the power grid with EVs (which require massively polluting refining of rare earth metals and are minimally recyclable) while growing the population and converting to renewables all simultaneously.

The realistic and immediately 'doable' solution is to tax those with more than two kids and pay people to get irreversible tied tubes.

I bet half of adults in Africa would tie their tubes for $5k. We don't even need to pay the Argentines, Italians, Swedes, or Germans, they are doing it all by themselves. But that means no immigrants with 5 kids, either.

Lots of opposition - landlords don't want to face a huge drop in demand for housing in 20 years. Vacancies up the ass. No more $2000 for a studio, they may have to offer the whole Victorian for $2000.

CBOEtrader says

Theories are meant to be questioned and tested and improved. The PC culture (which marcus displays w hus "book larnin" comment) combined w $$billions = propaganda for the purpose of power. Any reasonable adult should be able to admit this much.

But denier scientists directly in the pay of energy companies are of course totally objective?? ROFLOL. Pretty interesting that the two most prolific climate denier scientists were also the scientists who produced most of the research for the tobacco industry saying tobacco wasn't harmful. They are astronomers. Just a little teeny, tiny bit out of their field in tobacco or climate science. .

WookieMan says

I believe we're trashing the planet,

Well known but sad fact.
bob2356 says

But denier scientists directly in the pay of energy companies are of course totally objective??

Link to said scientists please. The energy companies don't hire "denier scientists"

Onvacation says

These arctic spikes in temperature are not unprecedented. They happened in the 70's as you can see in the charts you linked. I recall reading somewhere that there where similiar spikes in the 30's. The spikes in temp are still well below freezing.

You still don't get it, and the scale has nothing to do with it. The lows of the down spikes are now above the averages. Everything is above the averages.

Recent years are absolutely nothing like the seventies. Yes there were wide swings in the seventies, they went from way below the LT averages to way above. Basically equidistant around the LT averages.

Now the wild swings are from way way way above the averages down to only a little above the averages.

This isn't hard to comprehend. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Onvacation says

There is a short summer season where the ice actually is melting.

Yes, but can you figure out why more would be melting during that time than years ago ? Hint: The winters up there are way less cold related to a feedback loop between how deeply the earth and oceans are chilled up there in the winter and the climate. If you cool something like the surface of the oceans it holds or retains that coldness (absence of heat). It must not be retaining as much coldness, since the strong trend you can see is that the winters are way less cold in recent years.

Think about it. Why doesn't it warm up way more (in summer) or way faster ? Because at this point there is still ice up there. But what if it disappears ? Is that what this leads to ?

I guess if we're all going to die before we find out the exact answer to these questions then it just doesn't matter.

Onvacation says

Predictions on when the arctic will be ice free?

I have no clue. I guess that means it isn't a problem. Don't worry, be happy. La deee dahhh....

marcus says

I have no clue.

Neither do the alarmist scientist with their failed models of doom.
Time tells truths that now will never know.

Onvacation says

Neither do the alarmist scientist with their failed models of doom.

Funny how you trust scientists when their science brings you new toys or better tools. But when it brings you bad news, you go in to a state of denial, based on what ? Propaganda payed for by big oil ?

www.youtube.com/embed/MsioIw4bvzI

"...research suggests a 75% chance of an ice free arctic during some of the summer months as early as 2013."

Lol

www.youtube.com/embed/1KkrlhoFbBM

"They can measure this precisely."

Lol

The coldest winter I ever had was a summer in San Francisco.

Onvacation says

Link to said scientists please. The energy companies don't hire "denier scientists"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
https://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2015/got-science-march-2015
https://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/
http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-575

How many do you want?

Check a copy of dark money out of your local library and read it if you want the details, names, dates, amounts paid and by who, research references, etc. etc., etc...

bob2356 says

How many do you want?

And Manhattan is still above water in spite of all those alarmist predictions!

marcus says

Funny how you trust scientists when their science brings you new toys or better tools. But when it brings you bad news, you go in to a state of denial, based on what ? Propaganda payed for by big oil ?

Not all scientists believe in CAGW. And the scientist that do have had to manipulate the data to match their beliefs.

Onvacation says

bob2356 says

How many do you want?

And Manhattan is still above water in spite of all those alarmist predictions!

Huh? What alarmist predictions were the industry funded climate change deniers making that would put Manhattan under water?

Onvacation says

Not all scientists believe in CAGW. And the scientist that do have had to manipulate the data to match their beliefs.

As do the ones that don't. or just make it up.