patrick.net

zzyzzx says

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

LOL I was just throwing something out there- seems someone has studied it

in following the debate I have noticed near intolerance on both sides

Global warming proponents use terms like "deniers" to describe global warming skeptics and try to have their points of view squashed.

Global warning skeptics often claim man can do absolutely nothing to influence the environment.

Both sides are very self righteous on something they have little personal scientific knowledge of or understanding other than the talking points their political bosses feed them.

casandra says

Was out on a boat off Florida a couple years ago and said to myself while looking back at it, had the ocean been just 10 or 15 feet higher none of this state would be habitable!

It wasnt ... how does one explain finding whale bones top of the mountains, Did they just walk there ?

smaulgld says

Global warming proponents use terms like "deniers" to describe global warming skeptics and try to have their points of view squashed.

Global warning skeptics often claim man can do absolutely nothing to influence the environment.

Unfortunately for you, a situation in which one side (not saying which) is largely correct and the other is out to lunch would also produce the situation you describe, so your remarks add nothing to the conversation.

EDIT - restoring my acidic remarks:

There are also the third-way, faux-neutral "both sides do it chanters" who pretend to be above it all.

As political bosses feeding everyone else but you, I just want to ask: Could you possibly be more condescending? I don't see how, but I'm curious if you have any ideas?

smaulgld says

Both sides are driven by ideology not science.

Yes.

smaulgld says

The left wants....

I love Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now!," but her coverage on this topic shows a complex alliance with multiple demands. Poorer countries do want redistribution by taxing "perpetrators" of global climate change. The numbers being tossed around are very large, hundreds of billions of dollars, to compensate any less industrialized country injured by sea level rise or weather events of any kind, on the theory that these events result primarily from CO2. Nevermind that methane and sulfuric acid and soot and toxic chemicals are probably much more significant forms of pollution; I wonder what % of the audience even knows what % of the atmosphere consists of CO2. But there's more: geo-engineering is also ridiculed, because the enemy is industrialization and wealth disparity. In other words, you can't talk about solving the problem, you can't even really talk about what the problems really are, because the debate has been hijacked.

I read with interest Iosef's comment about the pace of climate change driving extinctions, but I note it's off topic compared to the OP, which was about sea level rise. Sea levels have always changed, whole continents have drifted for billions of years before humans got involved.

A different thread made excellent points about malinvestment driven by Fed ZIRP and QE, which enables speculators to buy essentially lottery tickets in whatever bubble happens to be the mania of the day. As that linked article reported, the malinvestment drives serious consequences, as speculators use cheap finance to idle or misdirect potentially productive resources.

But, like two rival religions, anyone who says they're both wrong is demonized by both sides. In an ongoing war between Catholics and Protestants, or Christians and Muslims, few dare be agnostic or atheist.

I lose patience with foolish comments copying and pasting "Both parties are exactly the same" as a sarcastic response to the fact that both major parties are wrong. Both major parties are wrong in different ways. That doesn't make them the same, but it does give them one thing in common.

The OP began by saying a range of sea level rise is inevitable. Inevitable means we can't change it, so jazz music is correct: if you can't change something, then don't waste resources on it; go out and enjoy your life. I tend to think we could manage the climate if we invested in learning how, and that we should learn how because climate change can happen suddenly for many reasons: volcanoes, asteroids, etc.

It is rather sad that issues of science and engineering devolve into tribal and sectarian warfare. The Republican party is motivated by religious fanaticism and the Koch Industries' petroleum interests, but the Democrats are motivated by some sort of intellectual insecurity driving a need to feel "superior" (when Iosef points a finger on that topic, he has three pointing back at himself). Democrats can't acknowledge that capping and trading CO2 was always primarily about money and power not climate.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

As political bosses feeding everyone else but you, I just want to ask: Could you possibly be more condescending? I don't see how, but I'm curious if you have any ideas?

Not trying to be condescending but it may come across that way when not trying to claim to know all there is to know on a very complex topic about how the earth works and humans' impact on it.
The people on both sides that insist they know the answers and that the science is "settled" are not speaking from any true knowledge or intelligence but rather from political bias.

The church and science once thought the sun revolved around the earth and insisted on that fact.

Conservatives deny global warming and liberals insist on it. Neither side will change their mind because to do so would be to abandon their tribe.

LOL! man made ?

Cows with Gas: India's Global-Warming Problem

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html

By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

There are also the third-way, faux-neutral "both sides do it chanters" who pretend to be above it all.

Agree, this is the cable news model where instead of actually analyzing things, you're lazy and use the he said/she said stuff. If you actually analyzed the scenario properly, you'd know that one guy's sin is not of the same magnitude as the other guy's, so saying they both equally sin is grossly incorrect. Faux-neutral is a good way to describe it. The talking heads on the news just try to say they're being "balanced" when in reality they are helping the guy who sins more.

thomaswong.1986 says

LOL! man made ?

Cows with Gas: India's Global-Warming Problem

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html

By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct.

What about the buffalo in their million hordes that used to tramp and burp across the US plains?

The theory discussed in the article from 2007 has been thoroughly refuted.

Numerous searches have been made to try [to] establish whether or not cosmic rays could have affected the climate, either through cloud formation or otherwise. We have one possible hint of a correlation between solar activity and the mean global surface temperature. … Using the changing cosmic ray rate as a proxy for solar activity, this result implies that less than 14% of global warming seen since the 1950s comes from changes in solar activity. Several other tests have been described and their results all indicate that the contribution of changing solar activity either through cosmic rays or otherwise cannot have contributed more than 10% of the global warming seen in the twentieth century.

I have a request: how about an argument between those who believe the Earth is not warming, and these solar-warming theorists? Since one side believes it's not happening, and the other believes it's solar cycles, they should be at odds, yes? But on the Internet, I sometimes see the same conservative pushing both theories.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Unfortunately for you, a situation in which one side (not saying which) is largely correct and the other is out to lunch would also produce the situation you describe, so your remarks add nothing to the conversation.

THAT is condescending! :When you dismiss someone else's opinion as adding nothing.

I thought Obama stopped the Oceans' rise, when the last superdelegate cast the vote:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

those who believe the Earth is not warming, and these solar-warming theorists? ... I sometimes see the same conservative pushing both theories.

Where?

curious2 says

I lose patience with fools copying and pasting "both parties are exactly the same" as their sarcastic response to the fact that both major parties are wrong. They are wrong in different ways. That doesn't make them the same, but it does give them one thing in common.

Careful you risk being called condescending or having your views being dismissed if you take that position!

thomaswong.1986 says

By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct.

What about all the belching and farting from over 1 billion Indians?

smaulgld says

are not speaking from any true knowledge or intelligence but rather from political bias.

The church and science once thought the sun revolved around the earth and insisted on that fact.

Conservatives deny global warming and liberals insist on it. Neither side will change their mind because to do so would be to abandon their tribe.

No: liberals will abandon their tribe. I have done so on gun control and many market solutions, and the entire liberal establishment has moved well to the right since 1980.

Conservatives will not, because the essence of conservatism lies above the actual ideology: you do not speak ill of a fellow Republican (Reagan quote).

Loyalty to the group supersedes even the details of the ideology, because it has become a religion.

Analyzer says

Good news for the California drought.

I wish I could give them 1/2 our rain for the rest of this year!

curious2 says

that capping and trading CO2 was always primarily about money and power not climate

the cap and trade as THE solution is very problematic.
It's just too coincidental that bankers stand to make fortunes from such a scheme while saving the planet. Are there other solutions or does asking make one a "denier"?

smaulgld says

What about the buffalo in their million hordes that used to tramp and burp across the US plains?

Shouldn't you go back to posing as a disinterested sage, above it all?

These idiotic remarks do nothing to help your image as a fount of third-way wisdom; the reveal you to be the right-wing asshole you really are, who has to appear moderate to whore yet another goldbug blog.

smaulgld says

Not trying to be condescending but it may come across that way when not trying to claim to know all there is to know on a very complex topic about how the earth works and humans' impact on it.

Perhaps you should leave it to the scientific establishment, then?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

solutions, and the entire liberal establishment has moved well to the right since 1980.

Conservatives will not, because the essence of conservatism lies above the actual ideology: you do not speak ill of a fellow Republican (Reagan quote).

You have taken you individual change and ascribed it to the entire group of liberals and then ascribed fixed traits to an entire group of conservatives.

There are individuals liberals AND conservatives who will abandon their tribe. Citing Reagan doesn't mean all conservatives follow everything he ever said.

But you are making a similar point -once in a tribe it's hard to abandon it. Yet you seem to be saying liberals, using your self as an example, are more likely to be open minded to changing their views than conservatives. I don't believe it!

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Perhaps you should leave it to the scientific establishment, then?

Which one?

Dan8267 says

Or in the case of climate change, because the same science that got us to the moon provides overwhelming physical and verifiable evidence and the same people who got us to the moon, NASA, confirms this science.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

go tell the Chinese about it... your wasting our time here.

stop blaming the US for all the worlds problems.. which you constantly

do...

smaulgld says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Unfortunately for you, a situation in which one side (not saying which) is largely correct and the other is out to lunch would also produce the situation you describe, so your remarks add nothing to the conversation.

THAT is condescending! :When you dismiss someone else's opinion as adding nothing.

You are aware that you do just that ad nauseum with your "both sides do it" statements, yes?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

the reveal you to be the right-wing asshole you really are, who has to appear moderate to whore yet another goldbug blog.

Nice ad hominem attacks! Very credibility gaining indeed.

smaulgld says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Perhaps you should leave it to the scientific establishment, then?

Which one?

The 97% of researchers who have concluded that (a) it's happening and (b) we did it.

For a neutral observer, you certainly make all the right-wing arguments fluently.

How long did it take such an independent humble thinker as yourself to learn to parrot all the talking points without thinking?

zzyzzx says

What about all the belching and farting from over 1 billion Indians?

lets face it... animals produce more shit left on the ground to produce
methane.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

The 97% of researchers who have concluded that (a) it's happening and (b) we did it.

who is "we".... send the bill to China and India.

thomaswong.1986 says

go tell the Chinese about it... your wasting our time here.

stop blaming the US for all the worlds problems.. which you constantly

do...

anyone want to chip in and buy Al Gore a one way ticket to China...

let him spread the word of Global Warming there...

Iosef V HydroCabron says

For a neutral observer, you certainly make all the right-wing arguments fluently.

Did it occur to you that each major party might be cherry-picking arguments from neutral observers, and not the other way around? You seem to accuse other people of being parrots, but accusations are not evidence, and I think you might have the causation backwards.

curious2 says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

those who believe the Earth is not warming, and these solar-warming theorists? ... I sometimes see the same conservative pushing both theories.

Where?

thomaswong.1986 says

Al Gore

Al Gore is fat, yes.

That means it's not man-made fer sure.

zzyzzx says

What about all the belching and farting from over 1 billion Indians?

Not to mention the Corn Complex, which replaces grass-fed, roaming cattle whose poop keeps marginal soils functioning, with feed lot cattle that produce far more methane - and other concentrated waste that poisons the rivers which leads to the oceans.

curious2 says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

For a neutral observer, you certainly make all the right-wing arguments fluently.

Did it occur to you that each major party might be cherry-picking arguments from neutral observers, and not the other way around? You seem to accuse other people of being parrots, but accusations are not evidence, and I think you might have the causation backwards.

curious2 says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

those who believe the Earth is not warming, and these solar-warming theorists? ... I sometimes see the same conservative pushing both theories.

Where?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

How long did it take such an independent humble thinker as yourself to learn to parrot all the talking points without thinking?
reveal you to be the right-wing asshole you really are, who has to appear moderate to whore yet another goldbug blog

I admire the incessant desire to employ the ad hominem mode of argumentation (name calling). I look forward to your next insult.

smaulgld says

I admire the incessant desire to employ the ad hominem mode of argumentation (name calling). I look forward to your next insult.

smaulgld says

Both sides are very self righteous on something they have little personal scientific knowledge of or understanding other than the talking points their political bosses feed them.

Do you actually believe that you're not insulting people here?

For someone who steps in to tell both sides why they're fools and followers, you are awfully sensitive.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Al Gore is fat, yes.

That means it's not man-made fer sure.

those who believe and talk of Global Warming are all in the wrong place...

if you want to make an impact, move to China, where you clearly have issues of pollution.

else, your just wasting time and raking money from donors and book deals.

thunderlips11 says

Not to mention the Corn Complex....

Thanks - I did forget to mention them. Even if McDonald's raises wages to $15/hr for the workers who peddle the subsidized cornfed beef, there will remain the serious problem of methane emissions. And, regarding methane, there is a huge amount of methane hydrate [corrected - see below - thanks Iosef] on or near seafloors. As oceans warm, that will bubble up if we don't find a way to harvest it. Also ocean acidification due to industrial sulfuric acid emissions seems a more serious threat of extinction events than CO2 does, but I digress.

thomaswong.1986 says

else, your just wasting time and raking money from donors and book deals.

I'm awash in cash from this racket, no doubt.

You should see the massive payments I get from wealthy coastal liberal elites for posting this stuff.

thunderlips11 says

Not to mention the Corn Complex, which replaces grass-fed, roaming cattle whose poop keeps marginal soils functioning, with feed lot cattle that produce far more methane - and other concentrated waste that poisons the rivers which leads to the oceans.

there you go again... as if this is all USA fault. Lets starve the USA population to fix global warming, and let the polluting nations off
the hook..

this is why liberals keep failing... they blame the wrong party on the
problems.

curious2 says

Thanks - I did forget to mention them. Even if McDonald's raises wages to $15/hr for the workers who peddle the subsidized cornfed beef, there will remain the serious problem of methane emissions.

you guys are something else... now blame MCD for all the global warming and air pollution problems... such cowards.

If sea level rise is inevitable, low lying properties should start to lose value, especially those near water and close to sea level. These prices will tell you what people really believe.

I'm looking forward to picking up a cheap beach house if people really do fear these prognostications.

@Iosef V HydroCabron:

I've read a lot of the IPCC consensus, and they say basically that climate change is real (duh!) and that there is a strong _possibility_ that we may be responsible for _some_ of it. That's an unfalsifiable statement because of two layers of weasel words, so it can't be argued against. Anything between 0% and 100% falls inside this definition.

I've yet to see any credible science which says how much of climate change is due to us, which is critical in figuring out how our efforts can act against it. If we cut CO2 emission to zero, and thereby force most mankind into subsistence agriculture and starvation by effectively outlawing energy, how much difference would this make? Mankind currently emits 4% of the earth's annual CO2, mind you, this is a lot in an equilibrium system, so given the absolute best we can do, returning to the stone age, how much would that help?

Once we have that endpoint, and doing nothing as the other, we can make rational decision on what to do. How much climate change are we willing to accept to prevent human misery and suffering? Is it maybe more effective to adapt to the climate change for now?

Years ago Bjorn Lomborg pointed out, and more recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson reiterated, it may make sense to put those resources into developing science to solve the problem. Imagine if we could create artificial photosynthesis, allowing us to generate our own hydrocarbons from sunlight and atmospheric CO2, all fuel would now be carbon neutral and instantly usable by all existing fossil fuel based technology, this would be world changing! Or, if we improve LFTR reactor technology, giving us unlimited electricity, and even the ability to use waste heat to synthesize artificial gas or diesel for applications that can't be converted to power.

curious2 says

Also ocean acidification due to industrial sulfuric acid emissions seems a more serious threat of extinction events than CO2 does, but I digress.

so lets shut down all the Mfg factories in USA.... opps sorry! we aint got none. They all went to China!