Global Warming

It is now official. 2014 was either the warmest year on record or tied with a year in the 1800's for the warmest overall global temperature.

http://www.climate.gov/news-feature...014-state-climate-earth’s-surface-temperature

Global warming now seems uncontravertable. Two issues remain. What amount is caused by man and what if anything can or will be done about it.

 

Duh, they all use the same data from NOAA/NCDC which includes the new Karl et al 'pause buster' ocean data which they have grabbed onto like the IPCC did the now discredited Mannian tree ring Hockey Stick.

Hardly 'independent' since they are all 'interdependent' on the same data.

Is it any surprise that they just made 2014 the warmest year by changing the output making it warmer, like they have every iteration of the data even though other records show no such thing?

One should ask oneself why the NOAA/NCDC quit incorporating satellite data in 2008.

 

One should ask why deniers are so desperate to deny the truth!

 

So, you deny the truth I posted? You can check it out yourself but as usual, warmist do not look at the data but rely on media reports.

Now, can you guess why the NOAA/NCDC quit incorporating the more accurate satellite data in 2008?

 

Oh, oh - I know - it's so they could continue to fool us into what's really happening which is nothing, right? There really is no global warming and if that's so, then how could people have anything to do with it since it doesn't even exist? Phew - problem solved. Now, everybody - go back about your business and pay no attention to these fools in every government of the world as well as independent groups who are saying the same things - they're all lying to you. [/sarcasm]

 

You are right, some people believe only government and media but never look at the actual science.

 

'On Record" doesn't mean ka-ka given the age of the planet. Funny how lib/progs think they can plot a trend with a couple of points on the far end of a graph and call it scientific proof. It defies the laws of statistics. The climate has been changing for ions, with and without humans on the planet. Must have been quite the fragrance when the dino's were farting all over the place.

 

And here's another example of denialist "logic". Climate can change for other reasons, and THEREFORE human activity can't change it!

But here in the practical world, it doesn't much matter because by now little can be done about the coming changes, and even doing that little would cost far more than people are willing to pay. So it doesn't matter if you deny it or not, we've made our bed and we will lie in it, come what may. Scientists can say "I told you so" but that's thin satisfaction.

 

Here's an example of warmist "logic". Climate can change for other reasons, and THEREFORE only human activity is changing it, of course, based on models.

 

One should ask why global warming is a bad thing.

Do you know that having this much permanent ice is an anomaly and is not the natural state of the planet? What we are doing is slowly getting back to normal.

The second largest continent on the planet is covered in a sheet of ice. Can you imagine if that opens up and we use it strictly for farming that we could end world hunger? Fossil records also show that plant and animal life absolutely thrive in warmer conditions.

As for rising sea levels, well we can easily engineer around that. Its not like we have to have it done tomorrow.

So what is the problem with global warming again?

 

What's really funny is that people depending on a deep little gravity well orbiting a nuclear fireball 150 million kilometers away for their very existence think they have some sort of control over their universe...they don't.

 

But that's not what was presented. You have twisted it dishonestly. The argument is that climate can change for many reasons, and human activity is not automatically ruled out as a potential reason. The challenge is to determine to what degree human activity is a contributing factor.

Interesting that you are obliged to lie to misrepresent what you are reading. Does this not suggest to you that, just maybe, you are in denial?

 

People have pretty much crammed themselves into every opportunity to make a living. If global warming reduces the acreage of arable land, there's a problem. If global warming raises sea levels, there's a problem. Now, after a few centuries of severe dislocation I'm sure humanity can adapt to a warmer world, and even find some advantages to it. It's the transition that could be exciting.

 

Enter GMO foods.

We can grow nice ripe tomatoes in the desert now. Sure there will be some adjustments but the warming is happening slow enough that those changes can easily be incorporated into any system.

Besides that, we are going to have to face this problem eventually regardless of what humans do and I find it rather disturbing that rather than start dealing with it now that liberals would prefer to kick the problem down the road to future generations. What good is cutting emissions except for the fact that you don't need to worry about the problem and that someone else will?

What the liberals should be doing is pushing for ending construction along the coast, moving agriculture further inland, building preventive measures such as sea walls and channels but no, what they tell is, "we can delay it so we don't have to be the ones to deal with it"!

They are swine.

 

Though we will need to do it with far less water, because we are draining every aquifer we can find. But that's another issue.

And you believe the alternative is to IGNORE the issue rather than try to postpone it? How is that an improvement? Still, you are quite right. In the longer run, the ONLY solution is for humans to reduce their total population, by a factor of at least two, maybe three. If we do not, global warming only hastens the onset of overpopulation issues.

Well, if the conservatives have been lobbying for these measures, I have not seen it. All I've seen is conservatives denying anything is happening at all.

And what is pretending nothing is happening? Wisdom?

 

IPCC

"Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely [95% confidence] to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

 

Opposite to what American scientists predicted, last year Russian scientists claimed that for 2015 and forward the warm temperature will diminish because the Sun will enter in a calm cycle.

So far, Russian scientists are correct. This year the Summer is not as hot as last year and Winter might be cooler as well.

Just recently, a new ice age is coming, and the solar influence is the cause.

http://www.dhakatribune.com/world/2...ming-next-15-years-new-model-suns-cycle-shows

The idea of humans causing global warming is already a fade.

 

We can build desalination plants to provide all the water we need. For 1 billion dollars we can build a large plant that produces 50 million gallons of water a day.

Where did I say to ignore it? And there is no population issue on Earth. Do not mistake the lack of lousy systems with not having enough resources. If the world ran better we could easily support 10x the population we have now.

Typical liberal deflection. "well the republicans aren't doing it either". I never said they were any better on this issue did I? But they also are not the ones predicting doom and gloom scenarios like the left are.

Once again, please show me where I denied anything is happening.

/endthread

 

Do you have a point? Your quote says there's a 95% probability that human activity is the "dominant" driver of current climate change. Now, what percent is "dominant"? You claimed above that "warmists" are insisting that it's 100% (the "only" cause of change). Your own quote refutes you.

 

And where do we get the power to run this plant? Why, we get it from burning fossil fuels. How about that?

Now, let's look at this more closely. I agree that those who recognize AGW are proposing steps which will probably only postpone the problem. But they are not opposed by those who wish to take expensive steps right now, but rather are opposed by those who wish to take no steps at all. So right now, there are two camps: ignore, and postpone. You have attacked the postpone camp only. You haven't a single negative word to say about the ignore camp.

We'll just have to disagree on this one.

Yes, that's right. They don't want to hear it, and hope that if they deny it hard enough, it will just go away.

I tried to explain here. You are attacking the "postpone" side, and the ONLY other side is the "ignore" side. If you wish to promote a third side, the way to do that is to PRESENT that third alternative, and show why it's superior to the other two. You have not done this. You are also badmouthing "liberals". Yet your implied proposal - that BIG money be spent IMMEDIATELY - is more wildly liberal than the position you attack. You DO realize this, right?

 

You did not post "truth", you posted another BS conspiracy. You are not the expert, your accusations about the scientists and their data is complete conspiracy lunacy.

 

Then lets look at your false statement.

The debate never has been if man contributes. The debate is how much. What is the sensitivity of Climate to CO2? There is no definite answer to that. If there were, there would be no debate.

 

Ways of knowing climate: Hubert H. Lamb and climate research in the UK

 

This is not MY false statement. This is the false claim I was correcting.

I doubt if a definite answer to that is even theoretically possible. The best the IPCC can say is that according to their analysis, there is a 95% chance that human activity (primarily CO2) is the dominant factor. Dominant usually means, the most important among several. Kind of like Trump is currently the dominant Republican candidate, with 19% of those polled supporting him. 19% is not 100%, it's not even close to 50%. So the IPCC isn't trying to say that CO2 is all there is. It's saying there are many drivers, and currently, everything considered, CO2 is leading the pack. But things like solar output changes, orbital changes, albedo changes, volcanism, cloud cover, are all in the mix.

 

Could give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about global warming and the beta males that scream about it.