The North Pole just surged above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists

My degree is in science and technology from a European university, extensive education in math, statistics, physics, chemistry and other natural sciences, in addition to technical/computer disciplines. It surely beats your couple of popular lectures on environment and climatology 101 class.

That out of the way, that the planet is warming is not and has never been in dispute... but i am sure you knew that when you wrote your strawman.

 

It didn't answer my question. What I did realize is, Finland stands to gain more than anyone from a melting arctic. China does as well, but theirs will be monetary gains. It's a changing world. We will all have to get used to it. I'm pretty sure the world will cool, over time, in the same manner it has warmed. As industry needs change, and they are, we will see a change in the environment. It's happening, just not as quickly as you would like.

I imagine a migration of humans toward the poles as jobs increase and opportunities and weather changes. It will be good for the economy. As folks move out of those warmer climates, they will recover.

If you really think about this, you are lobbying, in a sense, for euthanasia and the selective murder of parts of the population, when you blame it on humans. The reduction in population is the only way to quickly change this. Do you start in the most productive nations, the most wealthy, the most populated, or where?

How will you sell the idea to the world? Will you move businesses or humans closer to where they are needed? Will it be a natural migration?

It's the only way. There is no amount of money that can change this. There is no amount of work that can be done to reduce the release CO2. Only the reduction of the population will do it.

Who will decide who lives and who dies? How will those deemed worthless and a burden be eliminated? How will pregnancy be controlled? Will folks be chosen based on income, intelligence or exactly what will be the most valuable members of society and how will they be selected to procreate?

Will new strains of virus be used to depopulate? Those naturally weaker will die off and no one has to be blamed?

How will this affect the strength of humankind? How will it affect the abilities of humans to stave off infections and disease?

 

The claim that the Earth is not warming (in defiance of the abundance of evidence) is one of the central pillars of denier arguments.

 

Because i am yet to see the evidence that it has. These "it might happen in the next 70 years" claims don't really help and they can't even adequately predict tonight's weather seriously, the proof is in the pudding.

 

Ok, if you do not doubt that the planet is warming, what do you doubt? That humans are the most likely and most significant causal factor? Do you doubt that the warming will continue over the next several decades? Do you doubt that the amount of warming will lead to several dire consequences for many of the currently living plants and animals?

 

So many questions and so few answers, except, it's your fault and you have to pay more taxes to someone who isn't going to do anything except get rich.

 

Isn't the fact that the last 5 years have all set records for global average temperatures proof that the models are accurate to some extent? That sea levels are rising faster than any point in recorded history, isn't that proof that the models are accurate to some extent? Expansion of low oxygen dead zones?

 

Hmm, not really, more like, why is it warming, is it natural or man made, is it net positive or negative for the planet, what are the short term and long term consequences, can we stop it or slow it down, should we?.....

So far the environmental science has strong opinions on these matters but virtually nothing to back them up and a pretty lousy record of predictions and modeling to boot.

 

I believe the Arctic will continue it's long secular warming trend due to the net effect of all natural and anthroprogenic sources. Natural mechanisms will have a net zero or even negative effect on temperatures and anthroprogenic mechanisms will have a net positive effect on temperatures. Note, some anthroprogenic mechanism have a negative effect on temperatures (like aerosols). It's the net effect that combines all known mechanisms that I'm referring to. The natural components are more likely to be more negative than predicted if the Sun enters a grand minimum or a large volcanic eruption occurs. Either may slow or pause the temperature increase, but it won't stop it at least over long periods of time.

 

"I don't remember" isn't a valid argument. Especially because you seem to be discussing in bad faith.

 

If modeling is your hang up then you can refer to hand calculated rates of warming without the aid of general circulation models. They aren't that much different than what modeling shows.

 

Distorting my post to safe face? How pathetic

 

My hang up is that these predictions are crapshoot and all these doomsday scenarios predicted in the last several decades have failed to even begin to come true.

 

Are you saying the following...

1. The Earth got warmer.
2. The north pole warmed faster than the equator.
3. The troposphere warmed.
4. The stratosphere cooled.
5. The diurnal temperature range decreased.
6. The oceans warmed.
7. Arctic sea ice extents decreased
8. Sea levels rose.

...never happened??

 

because if has happened before in the past absent of man caused CO2 immersions it puts in doubt the current change is caused by man made CO2 emissions

 

A crapshot prediction is Easterbrook taking solar cycle and temperature correlations from the past and appling them to the present without considering any other cause for climate change except for the Sun and then saying that 1998 would be the peak in terms of the global mean temperature. That's a crapshoot. And it was wrong. It was so wrong that he couldn't even get the direction of the temperature change correct.

 

These are measurements that are not in dispute, these are not predictions.

And I already explained what is in dispute before. Here is my previous response:

Why is it warming, is it natural or man made, is it unprecedented or absolutely normal and natural for the planet, is it net positive or negative for the planet, what are the short term and long term good and bad consequences, can we stop it or slow it down, should we?.....

So far the environmental science has strong opinions on these matters but virtually nothing to back them up and a pretty lousy record of predictions and modeling to boot.

 

This reasoning is called affirming a disjunct. Just because humans weren't influencing the climate in the past doesn't mean we can't influence it today.

 

What did I distort? You said you didn't remember climate scientists disagreeing with Gore. I said that what you, personally, remember isn't a valid argument.

As it happens, scientists at the time said he got the science broadly right, but they disagreed with him on various points, including his presentation of the relationship between warming and hurricanes. They said his presentation was fine as a sort of Climate Science 101, but lacked discussion of much of the complexities of climate science.

As others have pointed out, Gore also used the most extreme example from a prediction model to show what MIGHT happen. Scientists saying he got the fundamentals broadly correct were not necessarily agreeing with that prediction.

The fact that you don't remember any of this is irrelevant.

In the end, the film was not, and never intended to be, a scientific treatise. Gore was trying to raise public consciousness about global warming and the threat it posed. In that he succeeded. But pointing out errors in Gore's film is not an effective way of pointing out errors in the science. For that, you need to point out errors in the, er, science.

 

I will say this based on a cursory check to find out if your claims are valid, or your own opinion.

Scientists who are experts were stunned by sudden warming.

I guess I must add that the closest land mass to the North pole is about 500 miles away from the North pole so how do they measure it at the north pole? And the further north you go, the less the coriolis effect happens. Think of the north pole as you would a kids toy where they get onto the spinning wheel. Those closest to the center can hang on easier than those at the edge of the wheel who are going much faster in a larger arc.

What is happening to the Coriolis is the effect is less by far than further from the pole.

 

Wait, if you swing your cat by the tail and kill him, does this mean if other cats died, it was for swinging them by their tails?

 

How so? The cigarette analogy is spot on.

Your point would be valid only if there was some similarity between past warming and current warming. There isn't. The current warming is WAY faster than past warming. Factoring in the known natural causes of warming, none of them explain the current warming.

The ONLY thing that correlates with the current warming trend is the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

So knowing that this warming is different, and having ruled out natural causes, you're left with, "why is there an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases?"

The answer to that is known with great certainty: humans.

How do we know this? Several ways.

1. The increase in greenhouse gases correlates with increases in human activity;
2. Greenhouse gas concentrations are higher around areas of human activity, as one would expect if humans were the cause.
3. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric gases lets us figure out the source of the gas. Much of it turns out to be from burning fossil fuels.
4. Some of the most potent greenhouse gases in the atmospher -- like halocarbons -- do not exist in nature. They are 100% manmade.

That's just a quick hit. The levels and amounts of evidence on this score are huge.

There's just no rational basis for denying that the planet is warming, and that humans are causing it.

The only remaining question is, what will the effect be, and what can/should we do about it?

But it's hard to have that conversation when you're still stuck back on Square 1.

 

Here is the thing. You never ever try to average the entire globe. And the alarm you see on maps is tenths of a degree, not dozens of degrees.

What is so sad is the presentation is done by politicians and not true scientists. I present in the Curry corner actual work done by scientists to add to your education. On this forum is the Curry Corner where I present actual scientists works. But most know what politicians say.

Politicians in general are lawyers. Few scientists go to Congress. Scientists in that body do not agree that you can get away with this by blaming man.

One more salient factor. Congress can try to pass a law banning smoking. They manage to screw that up. They are not reliable when it comes to science.

 

And this is known as the "single cause" fallacy. Warming events may have happened before and they could have happened due to causes that are completely unrelated to man made global warming. But, that occurrence would have almost zero impact on whether the current event is caused by man made global warming.

Again, consider the analogy of smoking cigarettes causing cancer. Cancer has been around for millions of years. Smoking cigarettes have been around for 100 years. Does the fact that cancer occurred before the existence of cigarettes mean that smoking cigarettes can not cause cancer today?

 

Now it's an honest response, not a cheap twisting of what i said. You have links to show that the scientific environmentalist community loudly and decisively disputed Gore's doomsday scenario at the time and attempted to explain to the world that they disagree with Gore's Armageddon prophecies?

Regardless, it's obvious now that they all, Gore, and the scientists were all absolutely wrong given that there has been no Armageddon so far, there's isn't one now and last i checked, no Armageddons on the horizon either... Gore was not even remotely close.