patrick.net

It's fine to raise awareness of potential problems. What's not ok is to postulate that the glaciers will have all melt within 5 years and introduce draconian taxes and harass Joe Schmoe with an utterly unreliable mathematical model.

mell says

What's not ok is to postulate that the glaciers will have all melt within 5 years

Nobody did that. You might have heard someone suggest that it was was possible. Nobody really thought that the glaciers would probably be gone in five years, which is what postulating it would mean. It would mean taking it as fact that it was going to happen. (yes, I know Gore quoted someone saying glaciers could possibly be gone as soon as 2014), get's translated by the RW dimbulbs to be that Gore swears that all glaciers already have completely melted.)

I do take it as fact that warming is occurring and that policies should reflect that. Meanwhile Trump wants to bring coal back strong, and coal mining jobs (LOL), supposedly.

Clean coal !!

He's such a fucking liar.

THe kind of leader I would want would be investing in thorium nuclear reactors NOW ! But that's helping the future. LEt's not do that. I'm selfish, and I'll be dead in the future. Let's let some other assholes argue in the future about what could have been done. Fuck those people in the future.

lostand confused says

bob2356 says

Despite the very deceptive name global means across the globe. This is why it's not called chicago. warming

Global warming except in places where it si colder-o

Do you suppose there might a place on the planet that are getting a month that is the warmest in 130 years while chicago is getting a month the coldest? OMG say it ain't so joe. That global shit is soooo confusing.

mell says

harass Joe Schmoe with an utterly unreliable mathematical model.

WOuld it be harrassing Jow Schmoe to ask him to click on various years on this site and consider what's happening ?

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

I'll assume that what many get out of that is, "Oh I see the Danes are in on the commie liberal conspiracy."

People talk about "alarmists." If anything, I believe that those who don't want you to be aware of the magnitude of the problem, are being very successful with their disinformation campaign.

Hey, yesterday was a nice day by me in suburban Chicago. Was finally able to get out in the yard and get shit done. So let's not jump the shark on Chicago going into an ice age ;)

I'm all for cleaner fuels, tech, cars, etc. Keep it coming. Heck, legislate it to be mandatory if you want to. If global warming, climate change, ozone hole, Arby's bag on the side of the road is causing our temperature to change, what will actually stop it? There's only one answer (well two with a slight variation of the first) and it will never happen voluntarily.

I get so confused why people always debate/argue over this topic. There's a simple, but controversial solution (that will likely never happen) yet everyone is arguing about temperature and scientist. My one request is that some/all here need to start injecting humor into the topic. Because I've seen this same thread and these same comments 100 times here (and elsewhere) and nothing has changed from any of the parties over the years.

bob2356 says

Do you suppose there might a place on the planet that are getting a month that is the warmest in 130 years while chicago is getting a month the coldest? OMG say it ain't so joe. That global shit is soooo confusing.

Do you suppose that was always the case, nothing new here-LOLZ!!

Tim Aurora says

people like you

No. They renamed it climate change because the earth was not warming as predicted. Now even cold is considered global warming even though the earth is warming very little and MIGHT be cooling.

When the alarmists go ad hom it's because they have no real arguments.

Manhattan and Florida are still above water and the wetbulb death of millions are still alarmist fantasy.

WookieMan says

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

IT's because of the wonderful divide and conquer strategy deployed by the oligarchy. All they have to do is get Sean Hannity, Brietbart etc., questioning whether anthropogenic climate change is real. And the whole my team against your team bullshit kicks in.

Of course the goal is protecting the interests of big oil and big coal. If everyone were in agreement, then some of the money that's currently spent on wars or black ops or god knows what, might be invested in transitioning on a massive scale over to safe nuclear power.

Meanwhile Trump wants to lower future car emission standards that were set in the Obama era just to say, "nyea nyea nyea nyea nyea."

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.

marcus says

People talk about "alarmists." If anything, I believe that those who don't want you to be aware of the magnitude of the problem, are being very successful with their disinformation campaign.

So how big is the problem? When is Florida going under?

Onvacation says

No. They renamed it climate change because the earth was not warming as predicted. Now even cold is considered global warming even though the earth is warming very little ang MIGHT be cooling.

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.

Of course warming the whole planet means warming the arctic which in turn means unusual currents and unusual weather patterns.

How much intelligence does it take to rank these in order of importance in reflecting real warming trends occuring or not

1) average temeratures at the poles over time

2) average surface ocean temperatures

3) local weather at specific times.

Onvacation says

MIGHT be cooling

Again. Give me one year like 1994 (click link), that I might delude myself too.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Onvacation says

So how big is the problem? When is Florida going under?

I guess if nobody can tell you exactly what's going to happen and when, then that means we know absolutely nothing, and that there is no problem. Right ?

transitioning on a massive scale over to safe nuclear power.

You know, nuke power actually does add heat to the global environment. Converting matter to energy on the scale you are talking about generates massive heat at the plant, plus massive heat along the way to users through resistance in the electrical transmission wire. A wind turbine, hydro dam, or solar cells just take energy that was already here and just moves it.

if you really are concerned about global warming, you would be first in line to halt illegal immigration, and be in favor of a non-growing population. Adding more people in a First World country does not just mean more fossil fuel use, but more pollution such as farm fertilizer runoff, trash, and so on.

Meanwhile Trump wants to lower future car emission standards that were set in the Obama era just to say, "nyea nyea nyea nyea nyea."

Is that emission standards or fuel economy standards? The Obama EPA set a CAFE of 54 mpg by 2025. This fuel economy standard is what Trump spoke of changing. This is not a "nyea" moment, but a decision to help US automobile manufacturing and to let American people buy the cars they want by not having a CAFE standard that is too ambitious.

marcus says

Right ?

Right!
If people are telling you the sky is falling and it will all come down by 2015, you question their results.

I hear we have until 2110 now.

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?