PDA

View Full Version : Fun Climate Change Chart



David G
12-16-2015, 02:08 AM
Recently published by the National Review.

So I have a question. Can any of you conservatives tell me what the problem is with this chart? Or do you think, as the NR does, that this is the definitive illustration of the issue?



http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_nr_climate_chart.jpg

Dannybb55
12-16-2015, 07:26 AM
It is going to be 75 degrees on tbe 25th. In the 70s it was snowing by then.

mdh
12-16-2015, 08:36 AM
Record snowfall in Denver, yesterday.

Peerie Maa
12-16-2015, 08:58 AM
Its OK, it confirms a rise in temperature of about 1.5 deg C which is about correct.

The Mother Jones debunking is a bit of a non event, but necessary.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-16-2015, 09:15 AM
what the problem is with this chart? ...

The X axis should be plotted on an antilog scale?

Keith Wilson
12-16-2015, 09:28 AM
LOL! That's great!. :D How to lie with perfectly accurate charts. It would be even better to plot it in degrees Kelvin - Zero to 400K on the vertical scale, maybe?

CK 17
12-16-2015, 11:53 AM
I'd really like one of the denialistas to give us an example of what they would need to see to be convinced AGW is really happening. I'm trying to see the world through their eyes. really.

Canoeyawl
12-16-2015, 12:11 PM
?... I'm trying to see the world through their eyes. really.


You will have to learn to see conservatively...



http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v62/n5/images/4493262f1b.gif

David G
12-16-2015, 12:37 PM
So... none of our conservative friends want to argue that - as NR says - this is the Only Climate Change Chart you need to see?

Well, ok, I can see how you might not want to take up that banner.

How about arguing that it's a good idea - serving the ends of truth, accuracy, and the general good - for 'reputable' magazines to publish such cowflop??

paulf
12-16-2015, 12:43 PM
Even in that graph you can see the increase. Change the Y axis to between 55-60 it will show more.

oznabrag
12-16-2015, 12:54 PM
LOL! That's great!. :D How to lie with perfectly accurate charts. It would be even better to plot it in degrees Kelvin - Zero to 400K on the vertical scale, maybe?


So... none of our conservative friends want to argue that - as NR says - this is the Only Climate Change Chart you need to see?

Well, ok, I can see how you might not want to take up that banner.

How about arguing that it's a good idea - serving the ends of truth, accuracy, and the general good - for 'reputable' magazines to publish such cowflop??

Clearly, to those who understand how to read charts, and are familiar with the amount of change in average global temperature necessary to constitute an irreparable disaster, it is the only chart one needs to see to determine that there are people out there who use charts to lie about climate change.


Even in that graph you can see the increase. Change the Y axis to between 55-60 it will show more.

Daniel Noyes
12-16-2015, 01:10 PM
Recently published by the National Review.

So I have a question. Can any of you conservatives tell me what the problem is with this chart? Or do you think, as the NR does, that this is the definitive illustration of the issue?



http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_nr_climate_chart.jpg

Wow, OK that is pretty miss leading Ill admit, climate changes up and down occur over hundreds, thousands of years, to understand the changes in world temp the chart will have to go back 1000 years or better yet 10,000 years, this chart with such a short time frame that begins in the trought of a cooling period could easily be interpreted as a natural up swing.

Peerie Maa
12-16-2015, 01:20 PM
Wow, OK that is pretty miss leading Ill admit, climate changes up and down occur over hundreds, thousands of years, to understand the changes in world temp the chart will have to go back 1000 years or better yet 10,000 years, this chart with such a short time frame that begins in the trought of a cooling period could easily be interpreted as a natural up swing.

Here you go Daniel. same data (in Celsius) on a more legible chart.
https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/land-ocean-temperature-index.gif

David G
12-16-2015, 01:28 PM
Nick - Mr. Noyes is taking issue not with the x axis, but with the y axis.

His point seems to be - there have been wide swings historically, that this chart does not map. And that those natural swings will occur regardless. And that we, as humans have had little/no effect. It's a canard that has been rebuked and rebutted a number of times in a number of ways by reputable climate researchers... but the denial folks won't let THAT stop them.

Of course - by taking that stance - I can't help but notice that Mr. Noyes comes down on the side of agreeing with me. The claim of 'only chart you ever need to see' is incorrect <G>

Daniel Noyes
12-16-2015, 01:32 PM
definitely David, a ridiculous claim by the NR about as large and complicated a subject as climate change, sounds like they want some attention...

paulf
12-16-2015, 01:48 PM
It only takes a few degrees to really change Ocean currents and there by drastically change climate, and yes there have been large shifts in the earths weather over thousands of years.

The problem is we have 6-7 billion population not 500 million, and we are out on a limb sawing away. The climate is a big wheel and once we get it moving, good luck trying to stop it.

If you think we have problems now wait until a large percentage of viable crop land blows away because of climate change.

Just the noise in that graphic will cause us great problems. Yes a complicated subject that we don't really have a good handle on, so why build a fire in the corner of a room you can't leave?

Daniel Noyes
12-16-2015, 01:59 PM
If it is a clear and present danger, I"m confused by Dems killing Cape wind / wind power, Nuclear power industry in the US and major Hydro electric projects around the country... is it all about making fun of a few deniers and getting votes... with out any real action?

Peerie Maa
12-16-2015, 02:09 PM
Nick - Mr. Noyes is taking issue not with the x axis, but with the y axis.

His point seems to be - there have been wide swings historically, that this chart does not map. And that those natural swings will occur regardless. And that we, as humans have had little/no effect. It's a canard that has been rebuked and rebutted a number of times in a number of ways by reputable climate researchers... but the denial folks won't let THAT stop them.

Of course - by taking that stance - I can't help but notice that Mr. Noyes comes down on the side of agreeing with me. The claim of 'only chart you ever need to see' is incorrect <G>

OK,there is this one.
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.pngfrom http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/climate-change/

Boston
12-16-2015, 02:21 PM
I've had the privilege of working with climate scientists and of having several as friends close enough I can ask the occasional question of. The problem as I understand it, is the rate of change. The alterations in the atmospheric chemistry through the burning of fossil fuels force the retention of solar energy. Its entirely outside of the natural system. If you look at the graphs; when comparing similar resolutions, temps have been steadily increasing as fast as the system can adjust to the increasing CO2 levels for nearly the entire industrial age. Increase begins in about 1850 and steadily gets faster until about 1980 when temps begin to skyrocket as fast as the system could adjust.

The rate of change has apparently matched the ability to change and the system would need about 40 years to catch up with the CO2 forcing at this point, and its only getting worse. Hopefully this new climate agreement will help, but a move from fossil fuels to renewables is essential if we are to avoid the kind of effects seen in previous climate change events. Think KT boundary or High permian extinction events.

paulf
12-16-2015, 05:15 PM
I've had the privilege of working with climate scientists and of having several as friends close enough I can ask the occasional question of. The problem as I understand it, is the rate of change. The alterations in the atmospheric chemistry through the burning of fossil fuels force the retention of solar energy. Its entirely outside of the natural system. If you look at the graphs; when comparing similar resolutions, temps have been steadily increasing as fast as the system can adjust to the increasing CO2 levels for nearly the entire industrial age. Increase begins in about 1850 and steadily gets faster until about 1980 when temps begin to skyrocket as fast as the system could adjust.

The rate of change has apparently matched the ability to change and the system would need about 40 years to catch up with the CO2 forcing at this point, and its only getting worse. Hopefully this new climate agreement will help, but a move from fossil fuels to renewables is essential if we are to avoid the kind of effects seen in previous climate change events. Think KT boundary or High permian extinction events.

When the wheel starts rolling good luck stopping it.

CK 17
12-16-2015, 05:27 PM
Still waiting for an answer to post#7

paulf
12-16-2015, 05:52 PM
I'll throw one in to help them out CK:

When you can prove with the majority of research that the Ocean can "not" buffer CO2 via gas exchange over time. And the horologic cycle wont curb warming by increasing cloud cover and reflecting solar input away via albedo taking the place of the Ice cap.

These can both be shot down but they need starting ground. I've herd all of em.

Boston
12-16-2015, 06:25 PM
I'll throw one in to help them out CK:

When you can prove with the majority of research that the Ocean can "not" buffer CO2 via gas exchange over time. And the horologic cycle wont curb warming by increasing cloud cover and reflecting solar input away via albedo taking the place of the Ice cap.

These can both be shot down but they need starting ground. I've herd all of em.

Over time, being the key phrase. Over time life with spring anew and within a few tens of millions of years the system begins to find a balance again. But we don't have a few tens of millions of years. Rapid Global Climate Shift and its consequences are apparently the result of a snow ball effect within the system once certain carbon sinks are destabilized. It might be only a few years or decades in which major climate shift is possible. The evidence for this is everywhere

Daniel Noyes
12-16-2015, 07:07 PM
OK,there is this one.
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.pngfrom http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/climate-change/

What is a "temperature anomaly"
this graph seems as disingenuous as the first, no? have global average temperatures really risen 3 degrees celcius in the past 20 years? I thought 1 degree was a big problem?

If Climate Change is a clear and present danger as the Dems suggest, I"m confused by Dems killing Cape wind / wind power, Nuclear power industry in the US and major Hydro electric projects around the country... more confused than before

Daniel Noyes
12-16-2015, 07:20 PM
ther certainly is an aspect of "the boy who cried wolf" going on here, it seems wich ever researcher is able to make their special field of study seem the most dangerous or catastrauphic gets the most research dollars.

mega earthquakes
super volcanoes
extinction event asteroids
global climate change
super size salt water crocadiles... whats next?

unfortunately in science it seems that fearmongering often translates into more funding dollars :(

Boston
12-16-2015, 07:59 PM
Yikes, the denial is palpable.

OK so lets not focus on one bit of data or memories of predictions half a century ago.

What is it about the theory of climate shift you don't believe in ?

The simple facts are very well established

Burning fossil fuels releases fossil CO2 formerly locked away back into the climate system. Kinda a no brainer.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, another no brainer.

The altered atmospheric chemistry results in warming as fast as the system can warm up. Racing to catch up with the additional CO2

Temps rising at that rate melt ice and alter climate so fast it exceeds the process of evolutions ability to keep up with the result of mass extinction.

Its all over the paleo climate history.

So if we artificially create a climate catastrophe like those seen in for instance the KT or high Permian extinctions how is that not a problem ?

Daniel Noyes
12-17-2015, 08:50 AM
Yikes, the denial is palpable.

OK so lets not focus on one bit of data or memories of predictions half a century ago.

What is it about the theory of climate shift you don't believe in ?

The simple facts are very well established

Burning fossil fuels releases fossil CO2 formerly locked away back into the climate system. Kinda a no brainer.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, another no brainer.

The altered atmospheric chemistry results in warming as fast as the system can warm up. Racing to catch up with the additional CO2

Temps rising at that rate melt ice and alter climate so fast it exceeds the process of evolutions ability to keep up with the result of mass extinction.

Its all over the paleo climate history.

So if we artificially create a climate catastrophe like those seen in for instance the KT or high Permian extinctions how is that not a problem ?

the "FACTS" very well established?... a no brainer?? really? because I dont get that feeling, and people have been telling us the "facts were well established" for years.

Case in point;
we find out a week or so ago that cow farts are as much a contributor to global warming as all the automobiles on the highway? thats kind of a big piece of the puzzel undiscovered untill a week or so ago.

Democrats may have done a major dis-service to the issue by trying to politicize it to the degree they have. If this is a real problem that needs Bi-partisan action then trying to make political gains by using Climate Change as a political weapon is a shamefull act.

I find Democrats spend alot of time making fun of very specific, possibly uninformed or backward thinking Republicans, trying to score cheap political points and telling me that I have to vote Democrat because of Climate Change.

If Dems are right and Climate Change is a clear and present danger, I"m confused by Dems killing Cape wind / wind power, Nuclear power industry in the US and major Hydro electric projects around the country... is it all about making fun of a few deniers and getting votes... with out any real action?

Peerie Maa
12-17-2015, 11:09 AM
What is a "temperature anomaly"
this graph seems as disingenuous as the first, no? have global average temperatures really risen 3 degrees celcius in the past 20 years? I thought 1 degree was a big problem?

If Climate Change is a clear and present danger as the Dems suggest, I"m confused by Dems killing Cape wind / wind power, Nuclear power industry in the US and major Hydro electric projects around the country... more confused than beforeNo, that red bit is the prediction out to 2100, as clearly stated.
I don't know what the Dems are saying, unless you use "Dems" as a broad brush that includes me. What is clear is that the science is saying that there is a problem. It may be that your broken political system caused your Dems to listen to their big money lobbyists?

the "FACTS" very well established?... a no brainer?? really? because I dont get that feeling, and people have been telling us the "facts were well established" for years.

Case in point;
we find out a week or so ago that cow farts are as much a contributor to global warming as all the automobiles on the highway? thats kind of a big piece of the puzzel undiscovered untill a week or so ago.

Democrats may have done a major dis-service to the issue by trying to politicize it to the degree they have. If this is a real problem that needs Bi-partisan action then trying to make political gains by using Climate Change as a political weapon is a shamefull act.

I find Democrats spend alot of time making fun of very specific, possibly uninformed or backward thinking Republicans, trying to score cheap political points and telling me that I have to vote Democrat because of Climate Change.

If Dems are right and Climate Change is a clear and present danger, I"m confused by Dems killing Cape wind / wind power, Nuclear power industry in the US and major Hydro electric projects around the country... is it all about making fun of a few deniers and getting votes... with out any real action?

It has been known that cows burp methane, another greenhouse gas, for much longer than a week or so. If you want to understand AGW you need to do a bit more reading than what you were told in the last week or so.

TomF
12-17-2015, 11:16 AM
"Dems" (an American political party) really don't control the world's community of climate scientists. Not everything originates as a fight within American domestic politics.

David G
12-17-2015, 11:36 AM
I believe in democracy. I trust people to make good decisions. I stand with Lincoln --

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29358.html)
Abraham Lincoln (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Abraham_Lincoln/)



And yet there is, indeed, a phenomenon called the Democratic Fallacy. The misapprehension of democracy that leads one to believe that their ignorance is just as good as your well-informed knowledge and understanding. It seems that we have people here who continually fall prey to this failure.

paulf
12-17-2015, 12:28 PM
A good article if you care to read it. Explains things well.

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/about/staff/pdf/pb-second-great-climate.pdf

(http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/about/staff/pdf/pb-second-great-climate.pdf)


"The next 300 years This trend is not going to stop of its own accord
any time soon. Modellers and climatologists are now
projecting CO
2
increases and consequential average temperature rises of around 3C by 2100 – possibly a
little less, but from recent reports more likely rather
more. Meanwhile, the World Energy Association
forecasts a 50 percent increase in fossil
fuel use over the next 20 years.
In the “business as usual” scenario
we can reasonably expect all of the accessible fossil fuel
deposits to have been e
xhausted by the year 2300,
resulting in the release of 5400 gigatonnes of carbon and
raising average global temperature about 8C (Bala
et al., 2006). Figure 6.3 shows the projected outcome in the context of the temperature history of the earth
described above.
With ‘business-as-usual’ by the end of the century a
nd the Earth 3C warmer, the Earth’s climate will have
risen out of the ‘ice-house’ state of the past 14 million y
ears, and before much longer, will have returned to
the ‘greenhouse world’. Even the increase of 3C would
mean the loss of Arctic sea ice, the low-mid latitude
glaciers, the Greenland Ice Sheet and mostly likely that
of West Antarctica – a total rise of about 12 metres
in sea level.
Our knowledge of the past gives us some important in
sights into the scale of the problems facing the planet.
The greenhouse world of the past, with its high CO
2
levels, would have been at least 6 degrees warmer and
had no ice sheet. Already, we know conclusively from ice cores that our CO
2
levels are higher than at any
time in the last 800,000 years. We know about the methane ‘kick’ of 2,000 gigatonnes that occurred 55
million years ago. We also know that there is about th
e same amount of methane hydrate lying beneath the
floor of the world’s oceans today, which could be triggered by a warmer world.
If the temperature increases projected for the next 100 to
300 years are realised, we can expect the Earth to
return to the greenhouse world of more than 34 milli
on years ago. This would be the second great climate
shift of the last 65 million years. But I am an optimist. We may not have much time, but at least the science
is now clear enough and the solution is straightforw
ard – reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a
safe level. This Climate Change and Governance Conference will help us begin to do that. "

Boston
12-17-2015, 03:51 PM
the "FACTS" very well established?... a no brainer?? really? because I dont get that feeling, and people have been telling us the "facts were well established" for years.

Case in point;
we find out a week or so ago that cow farts are as much a contributor to global warming as all the automobiles on the highway? thats kind of a big piece of the puzzel undiscovered untill a week or so ago.

Democrats may have done a major dis-service to the issue by trying to politicize it to the degree they have. If this is a real problem that needs Bi-partisan action then trying to make political gains by using Climate Change as a political weapon is a shamefull act.

I find Democrats spend alot of time making fun of very specific, possibly uninformed or backward thinking Republicans, trying to score cheap political points and telling me that I have to vote Democrat because of Climate Change.

If Dems are right and Climate Change is a clear and present danger, I"m confused by Dems killing Cape wind / wind power, Nuclear power industry in the US and major Hydro electric projects around the country... is it all about making fun of a few deniers and getting votes... with out any real action?

Yes the facts are extremely well established

No it wasn't "just discovered" Methane from farm production has been very well known for decades. Simply because its contribution was finally quantified doesn't mean methane hasn't been known to be on the increase and by how much.

http://www.center4climatechange.com/images/CO2CH4N2OGasesConcentrations.jpg

The rest of your complaints seem to be surrounding politics which have nothing to do with the science of climate change.

As I suspected most deniers don't actually comprehend the science and focus on ideological problems rather than face the science. If you'd like to discuss the science thats fine but politics isn't science.

Daniel Noyes
12-17-2015, 05:44 PM
Yes the facts are extremely well established

No it wasn't "just discovered" Methane from farm production has been very well known for decades. Simply because its contribution was finally quantified doesn't mean methane hasn't been known to be on the increase and by how much.

http://www.center4climatechange.com/images/CO2CH4N2OGasesConcentrations.jpg

The rest of your complaints seem to be surrounding politics which have nothing to do with the science of climate change.

As I suspected most deniers don't actually comprehend the science and focus on ideological problems rather than face the science. If you'd like to discuss the science thats fine but politics isn't science.

hmmm, strikes me that it's contribution being quantified "how much" is a fairly big part of the puzzle. especially if you are trying to make policy to alter the economy and change peoples daily habits.

Politics IS NOT science you are right... so why have the Dems been trying sooooo hard to score political points with this issue rather than build a consensus, there always taunting some country bumpkin or another.

I have noticed no Dems have addressed
killing Cape wind / wind power, Nuclear power industry in the US and major Hydro electric projects around the country...These are real world projects that would have an impact on Green House Gasses. Is it all about making fun of a few deniers and getting votes... with out any real action?

Daniel Noyes
12-17-2015, 05:48 PM
I worry about "cures" for global warming that target the economy/ price of energy to slow things down and make people use less energy, because the only reason we are able to spend money on making our environment cleaner is because we have a great, powerfull economy... look at the environment in the developing countries, terrible pollution, the cure for global warming is going to have to be fision or fusion.

Norman Bernstein
12-17-2015, 06:10 PM
I worry about "cures" for global warming that target the economy/ price of energy to slow things down and make people use less energy, because the only reason we are able to spend money on making our environment cleaner is because we have a great, powerfull economy... look at the environment in the developing countries, terrible pollution, the cure for global warming is going to have to be fision or fusion.

I know it's not a popular idea, and it has NO champions, but there IS a middle ground: reasonable efforts to rope in the emissions which contribute to global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it, which would extract some economic cost, but nothing catastrophic.

Unfortunately, deniers think that ANY controls on emissions for the sake of the climate are a trigger for the next Great Depression.... and hardcore climate advocates think that anything less than severe constraints resulting in economic misfortune would be adequate.

It's that old 'black and white' thinking thing.

Peerie Maa
12-17-2015, 06:19 PM
I worry about "cures" for global warming that target the economy/ price of energy to slow things down and make people use less energy, because the only reason we are able to spend money on making our environment cleaner is because we have a great, powerfull economy... look at the environment in the developing countries, terrible pollution, the cure for global warming is going to have to be fision or fusion.

Nothing wrong with using less energy. Car companies are supporting the economy by developing and selling fuel efficient cars. We have solar panels fitted so we need to buy less power, our roof and walls are insulated, and our windows are double glazed (in Germany the norm is triple glazed) to reduce heat transfer. All of these things were manufactured, which boosts the economy. The only blockers are those industries in coal and oil who do not want to move with the times, but just want to continue with the same old, and purchase your politicians to help them maintain their status quo.

The Bigfella
12-17-2015, 06:31 PM
http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20 from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

oznabrag
12-17-2015, 07:11 PM
. . .telling me that I have to vote Democrat because of Climate Change.

. . .

No, you have to vote Democratic, because all the Republicans want is to get your cash in their pockets without giving you anything in return.

Boston
12-17-2015, 07:21 PM
hmmm, strikes me that it's contribution being quantified "how much" is a fairly big part of the puzzle. especially if you are trying to make policy to alter the economy and change peoples daily habits.

Politics IS NOT science you are right... so why have the Dems been trying sooooo hard to score political points with this issue rather than build a consensus, there always taunting some country bumpkin or another.

I have noticed no Dems have addressed
killing Cape wind / wind power, Nuclear power industry in the US and major Hydro electric projects around the country...These are real world projects that would have an impact on Green House Gasses. Is it all about making fun of a few deniers and getting votes... with out any real action?

Again with the ideology

Any chance we can discuss the science ?

And while CH4 has been carefully tracked for decades exactly where its all coming from has always been of interest. But I'm sure you can understand that not to many students wanted to do their thesis on cow flop. So yeah, some brave soul finally puckered up and looked into it. Personally I'd probably have opted for a tundra study or even a deep ocean sink study rather than the cow flop study but someone had to do it and someone finally did. Give that kid an A

Interesting things happening in the arctic these days, and here the deniers have been told how CO2 is plant food. So why all the brown spots ? More cow flop ?
Arctic tundra “browning down” over past few years | NOAA ... (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiI7ITdkeTJAhUEMGMKHda4Cf4QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.climate.gov%2Fnews-features%2Ffeatured-images%2Farctic-tundra-%25E2%2580%259Cbrowning-down%25E2%2580%259D-over-past-few-years&usg=AFQjCNFDCp-EAY-AFaJT-q4NE7Sy8vCf-w&sig2=vG4jHbUwF13w6o8IF43b2A&bvm=bv.110151844,d.cGc)

Keith Wilson
12-17-2015, 07:23 PM
Good God, could you possibly cherry-pick data any more? At the summit of the Greenland Ice sheet??

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/12/You-Are-Here-Dec2013-V2.png

johnw
12-17-2015, 07:27 PM
In the 70's, the very same people were declaring a ice age and we were all "fooked". It was a world wide consensus back then as well.

What happened?

Same lemmings running over the cliff.

Rinse and repeat.

Well, if someone was wrong more than 40 years ago, it is certainly impossible that anyone could be right now.

By the way, you say it is the same people. What are their names, I'd like to look that up.

johnw
12-17-2015, 07:41 PM
Ah, found it myself. That study predicting global cooling was done by Prof. Hubert Lamb. He died in 1997, so it's unlikely he's still saying anything.

Here's what he wrote in 1984, however:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb
In the preface to his 1984 edition of the book, Lamb noted studies of the "carbon dioxide problem" and called for more investigation of past climate, particularly "evidence that some major climatic changes took place surprisingly quickly." He outlined recent research suggesting that the next glaciation would begin in 3,000 to 7,000 years, and wrote "It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb#cite_note-Lamb77_84-8)


Remember, the little ice age didn't end until the 19th century, when we began burning a lot of coal. Perhaps if we can learn to have just the right amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we can have a Goldilocks planet.

Keith Wilson
12-17-2015, 08:00 PM
Nicely done, Mr. Twodot. Y> This is what those two charts should really look like, with the modern data included.:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/c4u-chart5.png

mdh
12-17-2015, 08:05 PM
Well, fix it. Turn your computer off. Unhook the electric line to your house. Recycle your car. No heating oil or natural gas. Don't buy anything that is raised or delivered by internal combustion engines. Don't be a hypocrite.

Harry Miller
12-17-2015, 08:12 PM
Is there a change?

Probably.

There always will be.

Many scientists right now are saying that we have a ice age coming at us again.

Flip a coin.

Karen Gresham is alive and well.

Boston
12-18-2015, 11:21 AM
Well, fix it. Turn your computer off. Unhook the electric line to your house. Recycle your car. No heating oil or natural gas. Don't buy anything that is raised or delivered by internal combustion engines. Don't be a hypocrite.

Run your computer off a solar charger, super insulate and heat your home off carbon neutral fuels. Get a diesel car and run off biodiesel. Buy local.

There's lots we can do that doesn't require any reduction in our standard of living. AND ITS CHEAPER

Boston
12-18-2015, 11:23 AM
Karen Gresham is alive and well.

The ice age is coming argument is nonsense. 30~40 year old minority opinion. Arrhenius calculated global warming effects aver 100 years ago and nailed even way back then. The majority of earth scientists agreed even way back then, he won a nobel and as I recall ended up the chairman of the committee.

Captain Intrepid
12-18-2015, 11:43 AM
http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20 from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

Your chart is missing data.

http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/images/images_research_sep_09/EPICA_with_current.PNG

http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/past_atmos/composition_greenhouse/

Daniel Noyes
12-18-2015, 01:44 PM
http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20 from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

yeah so much more informative than the "scientific" graphs that quietly include PREDICTED temperature anomalies out 100+ years.

Daniel Noyes
12-18-2015, 01:49 PM
Again with the ideology

Any chance we can discuss the science ?

And while CH4 has been carefully tracked for decades exactly where its all coming from has always been of interest. But I'm sure you can understand that not to many students wanted to do their thesis on cow flop. So yeah, some brave soul finally puckered up and looked into it. Personally I'd probably have opted for a tundra study or even a deep ocean sink study rather than the cow flop study but someone had to do it and someone finally did. Give that kid an A

Interesting things happening in the arctic these days, and here the deniers have been told how CO2 is plant food. So why all the brown spots ? More cow flop ?
Arctic tundra “browning down” over past few years | NOAA ... (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiI7ITdkeTJAhUEMGMKHda4Cf4QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.climate.gov%2Fnews-features%2Ffeatured-images%2Farctic-tundra-%25E2%2580%259Cbrowning-down%25E2%2580%259D-over-past-few-years&usg=AFQjCNFDCp-EAY-AFaJT-q4NE7Sy8vCf-w&sig2=vG4jHbUwF13w6o8IF43b2A&bvm=bv.110151844,d.cGc)

yeha the OP is all about politics ideology and Political Spin as it pertains to the subject of Climate Change.

Both parties are guilty of Politicing on Climate change.

Im interested in What are the Dems doing about it?
Killing wind mill projects, nuclear power and major Hydro electric... so are the really convinced that Climate change is an issue???

Dems seem real intent on making Oil/coal companies hurt and very non-committal to supporting other major alternative energies.

Daniel Noyes
12-18-2015, 01:52 PM
Run your computer off a solar charger, super insulate and heat your home off carbon neutral fuels. Get a diesel car and run off biodiesel. Buy local.

There's lots we can do that doesn't require any reduction in our standard of living. AND ITS CHEAPER

Why not build Cape Wind, Nuclear power plants and Hydro electric and run your CAR, HOME, and COMPUTER off that... oh we cant because the Democrats killed those projects

Boston
12-18-2015, 02:02 PM
yeah so much more informative than the "scientific" graphs that quietly include PREDICTED temperature anomalies out 100+ years.

Look again, the graphs that show that spike are TODAYS measurements, not anything extrapolated out 100 years

Boston
12-18-2015, 02:03 PM
yeha the OP is all about politics ideology and Political Spin as it pertains to the subject of Climate Change.

Both parties are guilty of Politicing on Climate change.

Im interested in What are the Dems doing about it?
Killing wind mill projects, nuclear power and major Hydro electric... so are the really convinced that Climate change is an issue???

Dems seem real intent on making Oil/coal companies hurt and very non-committal to supporting other major alternative energies.

The politics are largely irrelevant. Once we've established that the science is irrefutable then the politics becomes superfluous. Simply the end game in implementing the solutions

Boston
12-18-2015, 02:07 PM
Why not build Cape Wind, Nuclear power plants and Hydro electric and run your CAR, HOME, and COMPUTER off that... oh we cant because the Democrats killed those projects

Why all the centralized power sources with all the associated costs ( in the case of nuclear astronomical ) and distribution systems ?

Why not keep it home grown ;--) I pay <$1 a gallon for my biodiesel. I pay <$150 or so per ton for pellet fuel which is carbon neutral. I payed a hundred or so for the solar charger for my computer which will unlikely ever pay me back but its the right thing to do so yeah. In general I save a fortune by keeping it simple.

Daniel Noyes
12-18-2015, 05:52 PM
The politics are largely irrelevant. Once we've established that the science is irrefutable then the politics becomes superfluous. Simply the end game in implementing the solutions
when the science is irrefutable is exactly when you need a political consensus to get things done!

I do not think the Political snark/snipeing EG. "http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?200489-Just-how-STOOPID-are-some-Americans " thread and the mountains of similar stuff on Face Book are helping to build a political consensus.

I get the feeling that Dems want to use Climate Change as a political tool to get more votes for their party and it's other unrelated issues, and as long as the issue remains a problem they have it to use as a vote magnate... so mabey it's a good thing for Dems that Cape wind has been terribly delayed, Nuclear has been stunted and stymied and no big dams have come on line...

I think bio-desiel is cool, so do a bunch of republicans I know, one of whom has a processing setup... Pellet fuel is great too, and if you want to charge your laptop with solar be my guest.............. But if that is Democrats alternative to a healthy Nuclear Power Industry, Hoover Dam, and 300' windmills we're all in a "boat" load of trouble (because of sea level rise)

Boston
12-18-2015, 06:31 PM
There is no such thing as political consensus. Politicians are in it for themselves all the way.

The science concerning climate shift on the other hand has reached an astounding consensus in which case we should all do our part to implement personal change in regards to reducing our individual carbon footprints. We might also circumvent the political process by using referendums to force business to cooperate with public demands

Boston
12-18-2015, 06:33 PM
when the science is irrefutable is exactly when you need a political consensus to get things done!

I do not think the Political snark/snipeing EG. "http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?200489-Just-how-STOOPID-are-some-Americans " thread and the mountains of similar stuff on Face Book are helping to build a political consensus.

I get the feeling that Dems want to use Climate Change as a political tool to get more votes for their party and it's other unrelated issues, and as long as the issue remains a problem they have it to use as a vote magnate... so mabey it's a good thing for Dems that Cape wind has been terribly delayed, Nuclear has been stunted and stymied and no big dams have come on line...

I think bio-desiel is cool, so do a bunch of republicans I know, one of whom has a processing setup... Pellet fuel is great too, and if you want to charge your laptop with solar be my guest.............. But if that is Democrats alternative to a healthy Nuclear Power Industry, Hoover Dam, and 300' windmills we're all in a "boat" load of trouble (because of sea level rise)

Nuclear power is a joke. An environmental disaster just waiting to happen

Peerie Maa
12-18-2015, 07:26 PM
yeah so much more informative than the "scientific" graphs that quietly include PREDICTED temperature anomalies out 100+ years.

Read post #46 and #51. Then you will not be mislead by incomplete data.

Peerie Maa
12-18-2015, 07:30 PM
when the science is irrefutable is exactly when you need a political consensus to get things done!

I do not think the Political snark/snipeing EG. "http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?200489-Just-how-STOOPID-are-some-Americans " thread and the mountains of similar stuff on Face Book are helping to build a political consensus.

I get the feeling that Dems want to use Climate Change as a political tool to get more votes for their party and it's other unrelated issues, and as long as the issue remains a problem they have it to use as a vote magnate... so mabey it's a good thing for Dems that Cape wind has been terribly delayed, Nuclear has been stunted and stymied and no big dams have come on line...

I think bio-desiel is cool, so do a bunch of republicans I know, one of whom has a processing setup... Pellet fuel is great too, and if you want to charge your laptop with solar be my guest.............. But if that is Democrats alternative to a healthy Nuclear Power Industry, Hoover Dam, and 300' windmills we're all in a "boat" load of trouble (because of sea level rise)

That is ripe. You are the one bleating on about "Why did the Dems". Both of your political parties are in the pockets of some industry group or another that is pursuing short term profit over long term common sense.

Dump the partisan politics and campaign for a cheaper less energy wasteful lifestyle.

Captain Intrepid
12-18-2015, 07:32 PM
Read post #46 and #51. Then you will not be mislead by incomplete data.

The Bigfella's charts are really good, they are stupendously picked to mislead, one a temperature record from a single location that says nothing about global conditions, and a CO2 measure that due to it's source doesn't include modern numbers but is on a scale that disguises that fact that.

George Jung
12-18-2015, 08:00 PM
Why no compromise, you ask (Norman)? Easy - to compromise would mean admitting that, in fact, AGW does exist - and that 'something' (likely unprofitable and damned sure anti-Republican) would/should be done.

So much noyes on this thread - it's difficult having an intelligent exchange. Like that damned fly at the picnic.

johnw
12-18-2015, 08:12 PM
when the science is irrefutable is exactly when you need a political consensus to get things done!

I do not think the Political snark/snipeing EG. "http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?200489-Just-how-STOOPID-are-some-Americans " thread and the mountains of similar stuff on Face Book are helping to build a political consensus.

I get the feeling that Dems want to use Climate Change as a political tool to get more votes for their party and it's other unrelated issues, and as long as the issue remains a problem they have it to use as a vote magnate... so mabey it's a good thing for Dems that Cape wind has been terribly delayed, Nuclear has been stunted and stymied and no big dams have come on line...

I think bio-desiel is cool, so do a bunch of republicans I know, one of whom has a processing setup... Pellet fuel is great too, and if you want to charge your laptop with solar be my guest.............. But if that is Democrats alternative to a healthy Nuclear Power Industry, Hoover Dam, and 300' windmills we're all in a "boat" load of trouble (because of sea level rise)

First of all, do you object to believing in a problem because it might help or hurt someone politically? That's irrelevant to whether the problem exists, as are Ian's incomplete charts.

Second, what killed nuclear was the fact that the industry could not deliver projects on time or on budget. In 1982, WPPSS was responsible for the biggest bond default in U.S. history (http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5482), and that pretty much put a stop to people being able to finance new nuclear plants for decades. Currently, it's hard to make an economic case for them anyway, because fracking has made natural gas so cheap. They just aren't cost competitive right now. You want a healthy nuclear power industry, build one that doesn't depend on federal subsidies and can deliver value for money.

As to how I charge my laptop, most of the power where I live comes from hydro power, so what's wrong with charging it? Some of the power comes from wind farms in the Horse Heaven Hills, is that a problem for you?

You know who's really pumping the climate change issue for votes? The Republicans, especially in places like West Virginia. Coal mines there are closing because they can't compete with natural gas, but politicians are glad to blame the other party.

You need to get your facts right so you can make better decisions.

George Jung
12-18-2015, 08:14 PM
Ah yes - a thinking man's analysis.

Wasted effort, unfortunately.

Boston
12-18-2015, 08:42 PM
I don't think Norm really listens to anyone but Norm.

mdh
12-20-2015, 04:06 AM
Run your computer off a solar charger, super insulate and heat your home off carbon neutral fuels. Get a diesel car and run off biodiesel. Buy local.

There's lots we can do that doesn't require any reduction in our standard of living. AND ITS CHEAPER

Right over your head, eh. You don't get a solar charger unless it was made with solar power out of material that wasn't mined or produced byfossil fuel power. Biodiesel really sucks, especially in cold climates. I'll give you a hint at what life would be like when you eliminate your fossil fuel carbon footprint. Walk around your house and note everything that's never been on a truck.

PeterSibley
12-20-2015, 04:15 AM
Right over your head, eh. You don't get a solar charger unless it was made with solar power out of material that wasn't mined or produced byfossil fuel power. Biodiesel really sucks, especially in cold climates. I'll give you a hint at what life would be like when you eliminate your fossil fuel carbon footprint. Walk around your house and note everything that's never been on a truck.

Repeat after me, we can't do it, it's too hard America.

Captain Intrepid
12-20-2015, 04:33 AM
The American Can't Do Spirit!

Boston
12-20-2015, 10:16 AM
Right over your head, eh. You don't get a solar charger unless it was made with solar power out of material that wasn't mined or produced byfossil fuel power. Biodiesel really sucks, especially in cold climates. I'll give you a hint at what life would be like when you eliminate your fossil fuel carbon footprint. Walk around your house and note everything that's never been on a truck.

sounds like words like progress and transition are a tad, well, over your head, to put it in your own words.

George Jung
12-20-2015, 10:23 AM
Nah.... ol' mdh and Noyes just need a lil' Christmas spirit... and a triple mocha latte', with rum.



https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/12376553_1099536693410416_2038914028229954029_n.jp g?oh=2c7821315d9b6aebfd5b18c0f1276f96&oe=56DE3E52
(https://www.facebook.com/berkeleybreathed/photos/a.114529165244512.10815.108793262484769/1099536693410416/?type=3)

David G
12-20-2015, 11:21 AM
The thing that continues to amaze me is the number of folks who are willing to swallow the b.s., and take up the banner for those whose pockets are being lined. Despite the fact that doing so puts themselves, their communities, and their descendants in danger. The prodigious power of propaganda.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/62936_1081875525167645_8529474065872284283_n.jpg?o h=ff3b223c873ff690b97100df1081f91d&oe=56D96DA2

Too Little Time
12-20-2015, 12:15 PM
The Bigfella's charts are really good, they are stupendously picked to mislead, one a temperature record from a single location that says nothing about global conditions, and a CO2 measure that due to it's source doesn't include modern numbers but is on a scale that disguises that fact that.
While I will agree with your comments in general. There are very few places where there is a temperature record that goes back very far. So don't insist on records that don't exist.



There is no such thing as political consensus. Politicians are in it for themselves all the way.

The science concerning climate shift on the other hand has reached an astounding consensus in which case we should all do our part to implement personal change in regards to reducing our individual carbon footprints. We might also circumvent the political process by using referendums to force business to cooperate with public demands
I think you confuse your decision on what to do about climate change with what others want.

I have less than 30 more years of life, so the outcome does not affect me, but I would suggest that those who will be around in the future should prepare do deal with the effects of climate warning rather than try to prevent the effects. And that dealing with the effects of climate change does not require the government to act. Individuals can act to take care of themselves.


If I were going to be around long enough, I would find a location which is predicted to have a nice climate in the future, I would buy land there, and I would build the infrastructure to live there. But I will leave that to my kids and grand kids.

Boston
12-20-2015, 12:54 PM
The part you don't seem to realize is that the effects are unsurvivable. Prevention is the only choice

Too Little Time
12-20-2015, 01:24 PM
The part you don't seem to realize is that the effects are unsurvivable. Prevention is the only choice

If your claim is true, then it is too late. So what we do does not matter.

Peerie Maa
12-20-2015, 01:56 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Boston http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4743560#post4743560)
The part you don't seem to realize is that the effects are unsurvivable. Prevention is the only choice

If your claim is true, then it is too late. So what we do does not matter.

I suspect that Boston meant if we carry on doing what we are doing without change the effects are not survivable.

Meanwhile I wish you well with your TLT against the planet thinking. Or is that I've got mine, the next generation can suck it up?

Boston
12-20-2015, 01:59 PM
If your claim is true, then it is too late. So what we do does not matter.

You are very confused and seem to be looking for any excuse to simply give up on the survival of both your own children and mine.

mdh
12-20-2015, 08:43 PM
Hypocrites

Boston
12-20-2015, 08:58 PM
people who live in delusions

The simple reality is we can improve. A failure to do so is whats hypocritical

mdh
12-20-2015, 09:12 PM
I exupected something more like, "I built a bicycle out of elm and osage orange, and only used rocks for tools."
There are countrys, places that have little fossil fuel carbon footprints. Do you feel greedy for having used so much and now intend to deny them theirs. Don't you just want to go there and live like that, or just keep guzzling and lip seevicing.

Daniel Noyes
12-20-2015, 09:13 PM
Second, what killed nuclear was the fact that the industry could not deliver projects on time or on budget. In 1982, WPPSS was responsible for the biggest bond default in U.S. history (http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5482), and that pretty much put a stop to people being able to finance new nuclear plants for decades. Currently, it's hard to make an economic case for them anyway,

from your posted link;
Plant 2 at Hanford was completed in 1984 and is today (2000) called the Columbia Generating Station. It produces 12 percent of the power supplied by the Bonneville Power Administration at a cost of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Seattle customers pay an average of 3.89 cents per kilowatt hour.

the environmental movement began to question the wisdom of nuclear power. The Washington Environmental Council filed suit to require City Light to produce an environmental impact statement on the nuclear plants which would have delayed the process five years. The environmental group dropped its suit when City Light Superintendent Vickery opened up the decision-making process. He established a 27-member Citizens' Overview Committee,


(the poster is fun, especially since the sun is powered by nuclear fusion and we certainly need that into the fore-seeable future :)

http://www.smileandsavetheplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/no-nukes-muse-600x449.jpg

Too Little Time
12-20-2015, 09:24 PM
I suspect that Boston meant if we carry on doing what we are doing without change the effects are not survivable.

Meanwhile I wish you well with your TLT against the planet thinking. Or is that I've got mine, the next generation can suck it up?
Saying my children should find a nice place to live does not argue against doing something to effect change.

I think people who try to live along the current sea coasts are going to have a tough time when sea level rises. They might take my suggestion and move to a more favorable local.

There is a thread about hoaxes and lies. You almost made a claim that with change the effects of global warming are survivable.

Daniel Noyes
12-20-2015, 09:27 PM
Cape Wind (very similar to the nuclear power story)

Year round and summer residents expressed concerns over the location of the project: some claim that the project will ruin scenic views from people's private property as well as views from public property such as beaches, as the turbines will be only 4.8 miles from the shore[53] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind#cite_note-53) and therefore decrease property values, ruining popular areas for yachting, and cause other environmental problems. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has argued that Nantucket Sound is known worldwide for its wildlife and natural beauty.

In 2014, a judge dismissed the 26th lawsuit against Cape Wind and commented "There comes a point at which the right to litigate can become a vexatious (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation) abuse of the democratic process."[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind#cite_note-64)[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind#cite_note-65)
In January 2015, Ian Bowles, the Massachusetts Energy and Environment head, cited the recent breach of contract from Cape Wind as a reason the development is most likely abandoned, "Presumably, this means the project will not move forward."[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind#cite_note-BG20150106-5)

Boston
12-20-2015, 09:32 PM
I exupected something more like, "I built a bicycle out of elm and osage orange, and only used rocks for tools."
There are countrys, places that have little fossil fuel carbon footprints. Do you feel greedy for having used so much and now intend to deny them theirs. Don't you just want to go there and live like that, or just keep guzzling and lip seevicing.

Um, might want to sober up some before posting again

Boston
12-20-2015, 09:38 PM
from your posted link;
Plant 2 at Hanford was completed in 1984 and is today (2000) called the Columbia Generating Station. It produces 12 percent of the power supplied by the Bonneville Power Administration at a cost of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Seattle customers pay an average of 3.89 cents per kilowatt hour.

the environmental movement began to question the wisdom of nuclear power. The Washington Environmental Council filed suit to require City Light to produce an environmental impact statement on the nuclear plants which would have delayed the process five years. The environmental group dropped its suit when City Light Superintendent Vickery opened up the decision-making process. He established a 27-member Citizens' Overview Committee,


(the poster is fun, especially since the sun is powered by nuclear fusion and we certainly need that into the fore-seeable future :)

http://www.smileandsavetheplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/no-nukes-muse-600x449.jpg

whoa there big fella

2.3 cents per kilowatt hour ?

I'm not buying it.

Add up the cost of discovery, extraction, clean up and recovery of the extraction site, transportation, refinement, transportation again, storage, installation, removal, long term storage and internment. And thats just the fuel. Now add the cost of construction, maintenance, accidents, clean up, refueling, fuel storage, impact of natural disasters ( think fukishima ) and the one that most people ignore, decommissioning.

Now tell me again about that 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour

Boston
12-20-2015, 09:40 PM
[QUOTE=Too Little Time;4743921]Saying my children should find a nice place to live does not argue against doing something to effect change.


Thats not what I'm saying and you know it. Talk about obtuse.

Ignoring the climate change issue is tantamount to foisting our issue off on our children, assuming we have that much time. The deal is only a selfish a$$ would spend their children future in such a way

mdh
12-20-2015, 10:09 PM
whoa there big fella

2.3 cents per kilowatt hour ?

I'm not buying it.



Add up the cost of discovery, extraction, clean up and recovery of the extraction site, transportation, refinement, transportation again, storage, installation, removal, long term storage and internment. And thats just the fuel. Now add the cost of construction, maintenance, accidents, clean up, refueling, fuel storage, impact of natural disasters ( think fukishima ) and the one that most people ignore, decommissioning.

Now tell me again about that 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour

Add up the fact that Hillery sold half our uranium to Russia.

oznabrag
12-20-2015, 10:12 PM
Add up the fact that Hillery sold half our uranium to Russia.

Do you have any evidence to back this?

Boston
12-20-2015, 10:53 PM
Do you have any evidence to back this?

Unlikely

Its far more likely another unsubstantiated claim by the ultra right intended to discredit anyone who disagrees with them

mdh
12-21-2015, 05:28 AM
It was in the news last spring and will likely reappear after the convention. Evidence on the Clintons is much like evidence on Al Capone.

Peerie Maa
12-21-2015, 06:23 AM
This:

Saying my children should find a nice place to live does not argue against doing something to effect change.

I think people who try to live along the current sea coasts are going to have a tough time when sea level rises. They might take my suggestion and move to a more favorable local.

There is a thread about hoaxes and lies. You almost made a claim that with change the effects of global warming are survivable.
Reads a lot better than this:


I have less than 30 more years of life, so the outcome does not affect me, but I would suggest that those who will be around in the future should prepare do deal with the effects of climate warning rather than try to prevent the effects. And that dealing with the effects of climate change does not require the government to act. Individuals can act to take care of themselves.


If I were going to be around long enough, I would find a location which is predicted to have a nice climate in the future, I would buy land there, and I would build the infrastructure to live there. But I will leave that to my kids and grand kids.
Your first paragraph in your earlier post implies, (perhaps not your intention) that it is not your problem.
However perhaps we do both agree that we all should do as much as we can to lessen the disaster.

Whether the disaster is survivable or not and how much of humanity will survive is the field of Gypsy Rose Lee and her crystal ball. It is to be hoped though that as nations around the world realise that something must be done, their actions will not be too late.

Too Little Time
12-21-2015, 09:46 AM
Your first paragraph in your earlier post implies, (perhaps not your intention) that it is not your problem.
However perhaps we do both agree that we all should do as much as we can to lessen the disaster.

Whether the disaster is survivable or not and how much of humanity will survive is the field of Gypsy Rose Lee and her crystal ball. It is to be hoped though that as nations around the world realise that something must be done, their actions will not be too late.

Actually, you infer that it is not my problem.

My intent was: There are things one can do for one's self. And one should do those rather than wait for the government to do something.


You would like me to infer that it is not too late for nations to act. I am not going to make that inference. I will let my kids and gran kids determine if action will be effective or not.

Peerie Maa
12-21-2015, 09:48 AM
Actually, you infer that it is not my problem.

My intent was: There are things one can do for one's self. And one should do those rather than wait for the government to do something.


You would like me to infer that it is not too late for nations to act. I am not going to make that inference. I will let my kids and gran kids determine if action will be effective or not.

Sheesh, I offer an olive branch and you turn it around and try to hit me with the thick end.

Have a happy holiday.

Too Little Time
12-21-2015, 10:02 AM
Ignoring the climate change issue is tantamount to foisting our issue off on our children, assuming we have that much time. The deal is only a selfish a$$ would spend their children future in such a way
Discussion works best when you do not demand people accept your position. It works better without the insults.

My opinion of the recent global warming meetings is that not enough is going to be done. I am helpless to do anything about that. You are also helpless.

You seem to want to rearrange deck chairs. I am content to enjoy my kids and grand kids. For both of us the boat sinks.

Boston
12-21-2015, 10:16 AM
You seem to be making a lot of contradictory statements.

Climate change is about the most highly researched areas of study out there. The theory is virtually universally accepted within a wide variety of scientific fields. There really isn't much to discuss other than just how bad the results will be and how fast its happening. Even then the near universal agreement is that its happening a lot faster than we ever suspected it would.

I'm not so sure its just our children that will be suffering because of our pore/pour/poor choices today. Its looking more and more like we're beginning to see consequences already and they are only getting worse and worse.

Too Little Time
12-21-2015, 10:50 AM
Sheesh, I offer an olive branch and you turn it around and try to hit me with the thick end.

Have a happy holiday.
I did not think we were at war. I certainly did not intend to hit you with a stick.

Everyone should have a good holiday. And a good day everyday.

Too Little Time
12-21-2015, 10:59 AM
You seem to be making a lot of contradictory statements.

Climate change is about the most highly researched areas of study out there. The theory is virtually universally accepted within a wide variety of scientific fields. There really isn't much to discuss other than just how bad the results will be and how fast its happening. Even then the near universal agreement is that its happening a lot faster than we ever suspected it would.

I'm not so sure its just our children that will be suffering because of our pore/pour/poor choices today. Its looking more and more like we're beginning to see consequences already and they are only getting worse and worse.

You seem to draw a lot of false inferences.

But worse is that you seem to draw conclusions that may or may not be true. And offer them as truth.

You seem to think that what we do today is going to have significant effects in the rest of my lifetime - 30 years. I think the science says regardless of what we are willing and able to do we will not see significant improvements in my lifetime.

You seem to think that what we do will have long term significance to our descendants. I think the science says it is too late.

Boston
12-21-2015, 11:17 AM
So you are giving up

I certainly think we may be over the top and can't do much to fix this, but I say its worth a shot. Its only the survival of the entire planet not to mention the human race. Might want to go ahead and give it our best shot

oznabrag
12-21-2015, 11:26 AM
It was in the news last spring and will likely reappear after the convention. Evidence on the Clintons is much like evidence on Al Capone.

Fox news?

Breitbart?

National Enquirer?

You got nothin' and you KNOW you got nothin'.

Too Little Time
12-21-2015, 12:18 PM
So you are giving up

I certainly think we may be over the top and can't do much to fix this, but I say its worth a shot. Its only the survival of the entire planet not to mention the human race. Might want to go ahead and give it our best shot

Again you draw a false inference.

I am suggesting that individuals move to locations that will have a more acceptable climate. That is far from giving up.

I am just not interested in your solution.

mdh
12-21-2015, 12:40 PM
Fox news?

Breitbart?

National Enquirer?







You got nothin' and you KNOW you got nothin'.


The money's in Clinton's account, the uranium's going to Russia. You figure it out, Sherlock.

Peerie Maa
12-21-2015, 01:07 PM
The money's in Clinton's account, the uranium's going to Russia. You figure it out, Sherlock.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?200729-Hoaxes-and-false-stories-sell-better-than-the-truth

oznabrag
12-21-2015, 01:11 PM
The money's in Clinton's account, the uranium's going to Russia. You figure it out, Sherlock.

Absolutely incorrect, Watson.

Are you telling me you have access to Clinton's 'account'?

Are you saying you have access to bills of lading that show 'half of our Uranium' being shipped to Russia?

You have made an outrageous claim to certain knowledge that Hillary Clinton A) Stole a National Strategic Nuclear Resource, and B) Sold that resource to a Nuclear Power.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of this, so you make some feeble attempt at an insult, and re-iterate your accusation.

I am guessing you spent the hour or so between my calling you out and your response, such as it is, furiously googling for some shred of evidence that Rush didn't lie to you.

Now, you're too embarrassed to admit it.

Boston
12-21-2015, 03:32 PM
Again you draw a false inference.

I am suggesting that individuals move to locations that will have a more acceptable climate. That is far from giving up.

I am just not interested in your solution.

Thats crazy. Everyone just move to the subtropics ? And what are the people in the subtropical zones supposed to do ? You are talking about maybe 6 billion people, moving. Its simply crazy to think thats any kind of workable solution.

Too Little Time
12-21-2015, 08:00 PM
Thats crazy. Everyone just move to the subtropics ? And what are the people in the subtropical zones supposed to do ? You are talking about maybe 6 billion people, moving. Its simply crazy to think thats any kind of workable solution.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

If you want to live underwater then stay in place, if you don't want to live underwater moving is a good option.

If you can tolerate a 20 degree temperature rise where you are then stay in place, if not moving is a good option.

But do what you want.

mdh
12-21-2015, 08:00 PM
Absolutely incorrect, Watson.

Are you telling me you have access to Clinton's 'account'?

Are you saying you have access to bills of lading that show 'half of our Uranium' being shipped to Russia?

You have made an outrageous claim to certain knowledge that Hillary Clinton A) Stole a National Strategic Nuclear Resource, and B) Sold that resource to a Nuclear Power.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of this, so you make some feeble attempt at an insult, and re-iterate your accusation.

I am guessing you spent the hour or so between my calling you out and your response, such as it is, furiously googling for some shred of evidence that Rush didn't lie to you.

Now, you're too embarrassed to admit it.

Obviously, you've mistaken me for someone else. I posted what I did straight from memory. Last spring or early summer there was a book, a NYT. article, and several reports on news programs, tv and radio, and radio talk shows. As I recall, ABC & NBC hardly covered it at all, CBS did a minimal mention of it. Hillry shrugged and put it off on someone else, it wasn't important enough a matter for her busy agenda. By all accounts, hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars ended up in the Clintons account, and American uranium went to Russia.

I think that's about enough of a highjack of this thread. You don't care if she sold your mother to Putin, you'd still vote for her. She's a pathological liar liar pantsuit on fire. She lied about Ben Gazi, she lied about emails, she lied about her name. And you're still gonna vote for her, so, at this point, what difference does it make?

oznabrag
12-21-2015, 08:14 PM
Obviously, you've mistaken me for someone else. I posted what I did straight from memory. Last spring or early summer there was a book, a NYT. article, and several reports on news programs, tv and radio, and radio talk shows. As I recall, ABC & NBC hardly covered it at all, CBS did a minimal mention of it. Hillry shrugged and put it off on someone else, it wasn't important enough a matter for her busy agenda. By all accounts, hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars ended up in the Clintons account, and American uranium went to Russia.

I think that's about enough of a highjack of this thread. You don't care if she sold your mother to Putin, you'd still vote for her. She's a pathological liar liar pantsuit on fire. She lied about Ben Gazi, she lied about emails, she lied about her name. And you're still gonna vote for her, so, at this point, what difference does it make?

None, to you.

I did mistake you, however, for someone who gave a rip whether what he says is grounded in fact.

Sorry to intrude.

George Jung
12-21-2015, 08:33 PM
Obviously, you've mistaken me for someone else. I posted what I did straight from memory. Last spring or early summer there was a book, a NYT. article, and several reports on news programs, tv and radio, and radio talk shows. As I recall, ABC & NBC hardly covered it at all, CBS did a minimal mention of it. Hillry shrugged and put it off on someone else, it wasn't important enough a matter for her busy agenda. By all accounts, hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars ended up in the Clintons account, and American uranium went to Russia.

I think that's about enough of a highjack of this thread. You don't care if she sold your mother to Putin, you'd still vote for her. She's a pathological liar liar pantsuit on fire. She lied about Ben Gazi, she lied about emails, she lied about her name. And you're still gonna vote for her, so, at this point, what difference does it make?


Oh yeah, there's definitely a pathological liar - but it ain't Hillary.

Shameless, old son.

mdh
12-21-2015, 09:11 PM
Just for fun, google "hillary's houses".

Flying Orca
12-22-2015, 10:53 AM
In the 70's, the very same people were declaring a ice age and we were all "fooked". It was a world wide consensus back then as well.

Actually, it wasn't - it was a single paper that was badly reported and sensationalized by Newsweek, and even at the time it represented a speculation that ran counter to what most climate scientists thought would happen. To compare it to today, when we have thousands and thousands of papers (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publ ish_actual_papers.html)following multiple lines of evidence (http://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm)that global warming is unequivocally happening, is overwhelmingly likely to be mostly caused by humans, and is very likely to have significant negative impacts upon our civilization (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf), is nothing short of staggeringly ignorant.

Boston
12-22-2015, 11:24 AM
Exactly.

The "but the same people were warning about an ice age" argument is a classic in the denial world. And as usual it just doesn't pan out under even the most rudimentary analysis. Oh there were a few fringe papers but as has been pointed out, the vast majority of work by the vast majority of climate scientists going all the way back 120+ years to Arrhenius all predict the same thing. Ever since the discovery of coal gas ( CO2 ) and its effects as a greenhouse gas its been widely believed that introducing it to the atmosphere would warm the planet.

Its actually very basic