Temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030-2052 without rapid steps - U.N. report

[727Sky]

17 hours ago, bristolboy said:

No Greenland was not lush and green in 989. It did have some birch forest during the medieval warm period but as climate scientists repeatedly say and deniers repeatedly are deaf to, the medieval warm period was not global.

As scientist who study its glaciers know over 80% of Grreenland has been covered with glaciers for at least the last 400000 years. The last Time Greenland was fairly green was about 425000 years ago. According to the Vikings it got its name from Eric the Red who called it that to dupe his people into settling there. 

And climate scienists do not say that climate isn't changing. What they are saying is that the rate of change has speeded up dramatically.

Typical Viking propaganda then ?...I guess they should have named it Birchland and never moved there with their live stock which grazed upon the grasses and started their farms which seemed to be OK for 300 years...until the cycle changed and they froze .

[kwilco]

climate deniers love to cite historical and prehistorical evidence of climate change as evidence that the current changes either don't exist or aren't man-made........ the whole point being that there is a difference - and as you are actually pointing out scientific climate scientific evidence that climate scientists are fully aware of as they discovered it what makes you think - you  know something they don't?

[canuckamuck]

23 minutes ago, kwilco said:

climate deniers love to cite historical and prehistorical evidence of climate change as evidence that the current changes either don't exist or aren't man-made........ the whole point being that there is a difference - and as you are actually pointing out scientific climate scientific evidence that climate scientists are fully aware of as they discovered it what makes you think - you  know something they don't?

The scientists obviously do know the history but the propaganda misrepresents the history and makes it seem like we are experience something unprecedented. We are actually experiencing almost nothing at all, In fact there isn't a person alive who has experienced much more than a degree of change in their lifetime. The sea levels all seem to be in the same place, by comparing with old photos. But just wait, the grand solar minimum is going to change all that shortly. By 2050 the migration will all be southward in the northern hemisphere. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by canuckamuck

[727Sky]

15 minutes ago, kwilco said:

climate deniers love to cite historical and prehistorical evidence of climate change as evidence that the current changes either don't exist or aren't man-made........ the whole point being that there is a difference - and as you are actually pointing out scientific climate scientific evidence that climate scientists are fully aware of as they discovered it what makes you think - you  know something they don't?

He says it much better than I can.. 25 out of 25,000 climate scientist does not make a consensus .. Polar bears have increase population in spite of indigenous hunters.. Sea ice has not disappeared (2013 was the last date for the disappearance) as promise by the much vaulted computer models that were junk to begin with and have not improved at all as far as their forecasting ability..

There are two other videos so for those interested take a look.. For those whose minds are made up don't waste your time..

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

My quote was not misleading. My point was that the planet will be just fine. Human, like every other species on the planet will adapt to changing conditions or we will (like 90% of every species that has been here and has gone extinct) also go extinct. I am betting we will adapt and develop technology to overcome almost any climate change that is predicted to occur.

Of course your quote was misleading. You made it sound like George Carlin was on your side. And anybody who views the video will see otherwise. In fact, I'd say George Carlin was pretty much on the opposite of all your political beliefs.

[kwilco]

12 hours ago, 727Sky said:

Polar bears have increase population in spite of indigenous hunters.. Sea ice has not disappeared (2013 was the last date for the disappearance

You are apparently being duped or deliberately believing falsehoods.

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

Check out sea ice before you make such profoundly misinformed statements.

This is why it is pointless arguing with deniers ... they have absolutely no idea of the evidence. QED

[JimmyJ]

36 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You are apparently being duped or deliberately believing falsehoods.

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

Check out sea ice before you make such profoundly misinformed statements.

This is why it is pointless arguing with deniers ... they have absolutely no idea of the evidence. QED

"This is why it is pointless arguing with deniers ... they have absolutely no idea of the evidence. QED"

 

Yes, this is the bottom line - or at least part of it. Willful denial, conspiracy theorists, readers of junk science blogs, etc., etc.

 

I can't resist dropping in and browsing the thread - I sort of feel I'm in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 and eavesdropping on the evolution deniers.

 

It quickly becomes apparent that facts have no place in the discussion here.

 

I've read articles for years about how poor science education is in the US, and this thread is empirical proof.

 

The poster who wrote he feels that global warming is a good thing because people like to go on vacation to warm places, not to the Poles, is a classic. But there are a lot of competitors daily.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by JimmyJ

[bendejo]

On 10/7/2018 at 6:33 PM, ezzra said:

"Après nous, le déluge" ("After us, the flood") is a French expression, attributed to Madame de Pompadour

 

Thanks for this.  I only knew it as the title of the last thing Jack Kerouac wrote.

 

 

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

You are apparently being duped or deliberately believing falsehoods.

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

Check out sea ice before you make such profoundly misinformed statements.

This is why it is pointless arguing with deniers ... they have absolutely no idea of the evidence. QED

Nothing in your polar bear article shows that the polar bears are not increasing. It only has a suggestion by some guy that there was probably more bears in the 60's than they knew, but they didn't have the ability to count them correctly. Of course we will never know.

Edited October 21, 2018 by canuckamuck

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Of course your quote was misleading. You made it sound like George Carlin was on your side. And anybody who views the video will see otherwise. In fact, I'd say George Carlin was pretty much on the opposite of all your political beliefs.

No my quote made it sound like George Carlin said the planet would be just fine (which is exactly what he said). As far as I can tell I have never met you so your knowledge of my political beliefs must be based on a limited number of comments that I have made on TV over the years, which does not comprise the whole or even a small part of my beliefs, especially when probably 50% of those comment have been made in response to really dumb comments or to troll someone that has made comments that are not very well thought out. George Carlin's political opinions (based on his stand up comedy and books) is likely much closer to what I believe than you could ever imagine (based on your comments). However, if George (RIP) had opinions that did not make sense or were illogical I would oppose them.

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

I've read articles for years about how poor science education is in the US, and this thread is empirical proof.

How so?

 

In particular, what makes you think that most people posting on the thread are American? Or that the scientifically most illiterate posts are being made by Americans?

 

If that's your idea of "empirical proof", that doesn't say much for the level of your own science education.

[727Sky]

7 hours ago, kwilco said:

You are apparently being duped or deliberately believing falsehoods.

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

Check out sea ice before you make such profoundly misinformed statements.

This is why it is pointless arguing with deniers ... they have absolutely no idea of the evidence. QED

While the Arctic has lost almost 30% of its' record high ice it is now above the 2012 low. The NW passage is closed (October 18th) due to ice while the NE passage is open. As I have said the forecast was for the arctic to be ice free by 2013 and that was after the forecast it would be ice free in 2008. Same people saying the ice would be gone along with the polar bears yet people have short term memories when it come to prior forecast of where the people and your taxes only have 10 years to save the world . They have been saying ten years until the time passes so they just tack on another 10 years.

 

Sorry a little historical data that does not agree with the IPCC

 

The good/bad news is the winters from here on out are going to be record breaking cold and snow if the Maunder minimum folks are correct.. Australia is in for a major drought that is supposedly going to last while there wheat production is going to crater just as much of the rest of the world... If any of this is wrong we will know by 2025 which way the temps are heading and the argument will be settled except for the die hard Klingons..

 

I will make a personal forecast that the ice cover at the poles will increase during the winter and decrease during the yearly melt phase. How much of a melt off is a worthy question that I do not know the answer to.. But I do know it ain't ice free as we were told it would be 5 years ago in 2013. But disregard that prior forecast for it does not fit into the faith of man made global warming and the IPCC new and bigger, better computer models..

[727Sky]

The Russian model on climate is the only model that actually reflects what can actually be measured .

 

Yet we don't need no stupid Russian science regardless !

 

Find someone with more credentials than this guy in the following video who also says the climate alarmist are nothing but alarmist with no actual science to back them up; only flawed models:

 

[Catoni]

On 10/20/2018 at 7:19 AM, bristolboy said:

As I guess I'm going to have to state ad nauseam, climatologists do not claim that greenhouses gases are the sole cause of global warming.  So, it's no disproof of the role they areplaying and have played to state that because other factors will done day put pressure on temperatures to go down, therefore greenhouse gases don't count. What anthropogenic global warming deniers don't seem to understand is that it's a question of rate of increase or decrease, not the simple fact of increase or decrease.

>”....rate of increase or decrease...”

 

 Well, 0.85 degree C increase over a 132 year period following 550 years of the cooler, much worse L.I.A., is not fast.  (I.P.C.C. Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assessment Reports) ( increase was between the years 1880 - 2012)

    If you want fast climate change you might try Abrupt Climate Change...like ten degrees temperature in ten years or less. Now THAT is fast climate change.

(But now some warming alarmist activists are trying to claim that less than one degree change in 132 years is abrupt. Hey...anything to boost the alarm.)

[727Sky]

 

[Catoni]

On 10/21/2018 at 5:33 PM, kwilco said:

You are apparently being duped or deliberately believing falsehoods.

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

Check out sea ice before you make such profoundly misinformed statements.

This is why it is pointless arguing with deniers ... they have absolutely no idea of the evidence. QED

     Exactly what is it these so-called deniers deny? ?   Please do elaborate....

 

    You should be signing your posts with....   

     QPNP

[727Sky]

It might have started with good intentions and flawed computer models but anymore it has not been about the science but about the money.

 

[727Sky]

How about some evidence with graphs and scientific research.. Mann is now saying 6 to 9 feet sea level rise.. a real debate with people who supposedly know what is going on:

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 12:19 AM, bristolboy said:

As I guess I'm going to have to state ad nauseam, climatologists do not claim that greenhouses gases are the sole cause of global warming.  So, it's no disproof of the role they areplaying and have played to state that because other factors will done day put pressure on temperatures to go down, therefore greenhouse gases don't count. What anthropogenic global warming deniers don't seem to understand is that it's a question of rate of increase or decrease, not the simple fact of increase or decrease.

and yet................. the sole method of "combatting" climate change is to reduce CO2 by building windmills and electric cars ( the biggest con in history ).

They don't even know if reducing CO2 in western countries will actually change anything, given China and India ( and probably most other countries- Thailand is doing sod all ) are continuing to pollute.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 12:24 AM, 727Sky said:

How about some evidence with graphs and scientific research.. Mann is now saying 6 to 9 feet sea level rise.. a real debate with people who supposedly know what is going on:

 

IF, IF, IF that is true, the "problem" will be solved as most humans will die. Gaia wins.

[RPCVguy]

I see the same arguments here as have repeatedly been posted on prior threads. The sadness I experience is knowing the youngsters alive now will bear the burden of dying in the harsher dystopian world ahead... one that need not have been transformed except for the hubris of their elders. It is already a Herculean prospect in reforestation and carbon sequestration [Survivable IPCC projections based on science fiction - Reality is far worse] that might reverse and stabilize what insulation to the atmosphere humans have already caused. Politically the USA is still enough divided as to make dealing with those arguments impossible... especially in the time needed to cut population and consumption, change to local food sourcing and non-industrial farming. (none of which do I see happening.)

Human society has already raised CO2 levels by 46% since industrialization began AND that is already causing albedo loss, and a variety of planetary amplification effects ... from melting of reflective snow and ice, to northern soils warming enough to increasingly release CO2 and methane as the dead foliage of long ages thaws and decomposes That accelerates the greenhouse gas concentrations of the atmosphere causing even more ice to melt and tundra to thaw. Wait, there's more. The Amazon and Central African forests are being cut (often for agriculture to feed Europe and N. America) What wasn't cut directly is now dying as there is less and less forest to maintain the evapotranspiration that brings moisture across continents. [A deforestation-induced tipping point for the South American monsoon system] Meanwhile the phytoplankton that allow photosynthesis in the seas struggle with lower pH levels. Thus the mechanisms for nature to absorb the CO2  are weakening. When forests burn, they add to the CO2 problem... and the IEA still shows years ahead of more greenhouse gases (insulation) being released.

 
The specific end result/ last straw is still unknown. Mass migrations will grow as droughts, heatwaves, crop failures, and floods prove more areas to be undesirable. (Mammals need to be able to cool themselves to control metabolic function. For humans the limit is 35ºC during high humidity days... Sweat wont evaporate enough to help. Short cycles of this already killed thousands in India, Pakistan and Iran during the last El Nino.) Crops also pass their optimal growing temperatures , grain yields fall as temperatures rise. That also brings famine and disease. But my bet is on wars as the major cause of deaths ahead this century. Authoritarian style leaders and desperate times often rely on war as a way to maintain national focus.

It is literally too late. Unlike dinosaurs, we humans are the species that will not go extinct from asteroids or massive lava flows. Humans will have done it to ourselves, and we'll take most of the biosphere to extinction with us. Anyone arguing that humans have not caused this is part of the societal inertia that prevents what might yet be done... Though I hold no hope on the subject, a slower collapse keeps open the possibility of a solution being found. Continuing the marketed binge party of consumption assures a steeper collapse sooner.
I think this is one of the cleaner statements ever to make it to TV:
▶ The Newsroom S03E03 climate change interview - YouTube

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

I see the same arguments here as have repeatedly been posted on prior threads. The sadness I experience is knowing the youngsters alive now will bear the burden of dying in the harsher dystopian world ahead... one that need not have been transformed except for the hubris of their elders. It is already a Herculean prospect in reforestation and carbon sequestration [Survivable IPCC projections based on science fiction - Reality is far worse] that might reverse and stabilize what insulation to the atmosphere humans have already caused. Politically the USA is still enough divided as to make dealing with those arguments impossible... especially in the time needed to cut population and consumption, change to local food sourcing and non-industrial farming. (none of which do I see happening.)

Human society has already raised CO2 levels by 46% since industrialization began AND that is already causing albedo loss, and a variety of planetary amplification effects ... from melting of reflective snow and ice, to northern soils warming enough to increasingly release CO2 and methane as the dead foliage of long ages thaws and decomposes That accelerates the greenhouse gas concentrations of the atmosphere causing even more ice to melt and tundra to thaw. Wait, there's more. The Amazon and Central African forests are being cut (often for agriculture to feed Europe and N. America) What wasn't cut directly is now dying as there is less and less forest to maintain the evapotranspiration that brings moisture across continents. [A deforestation-induced tipping point for the South American monsoon system] Meanwhile the phytoplankton that allow photosynthesis in the seas struggle with lower pH levels. Thus the mechanisms for nature to absorb the CO2  are weakening. When forests burn, they add to the CO2 problem... and the IEA still shows years ahead of more greenhouse gases (insulation) being released.

 
The specific end result/ last straw is still unknown. Mass migrations will grow as droughts, heatwaves, crop failures, and floods prove more areas to be undesirable. (Mammals need to be able to cool themselves to control metabolic function. For humans the limit is 35ºC during high humidity days... Sweat wont evaporate enough to help. Short cycles of this already killed thousands in India, Pakistan and Iran during the last El Nino.) Crops also pass their optimal growing temperatures , grain yields fall as temperatures rise. That also brings famine and disease. But my bet is on wars as the major cause of deaths ahead this century. Authoritarian style leaders and desperate times often rely on war as a way to maintain national focus.

It is literally too late. Unlike dinosaurs, we humans are the species that will not go extinct from asteroids or massive lava flows. Humans will have done it to ourselves, and we'll take most of the biosphere to extinction with us. Anyone arguing that humans have not caused this is part of the societal inertia that prevents what might yet be done... Though I hold no hope on the subject, a slower collapse keeps open the possibility of a solution being found. Continuing the marketed binge party of consumption assures a steeper collapse sooner.
I think this is one of the cleaner statements ever to make it to TV:
▶ The Newsroom S03E03 climate change interview - YouTube

Cheer up.

Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming

The world’s oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday.

Over the past quarter-century, Earth’s oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by Earth’s atmosphere — the yearly amount representing more than eight times the world’s annual energy consumption.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/31/startling-new-research-finds-large-buildup-heat-oceans-suggesting-faster-rate-global-warming/?utm_term=.a8f7545456ce

Oh...wait a minute...

Anyway there are things that can be done if governments committed themselves to engaging as though it were a war. The sad things is that the West, particularly the USA  is on a war footing and subidizing fossil fuels via its defense budget. How much defense spending is devoted to maintaining order in the Mideast? Would the Mideast matter much in the scheme of things if petroleum and natural gas were things of the past?

What could government do right now? For one thing, there's the new rechargeable zinc oxide batteries that can be built at a cost of less than $100 per kilowatt capacity. That's the threshold that makes it economically viable to use batteries to store power created by renewable resources such as wind and solar.

 

 

[connda]

Excellent!  Shipper will save transportation costs by transiting the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route.  Cheaper goods in the market!!!  Least we not forget the new outstanding fishing locations once their free of ice. 

[RickBradford]

Whether the alarmist claims are correct or not, the one undeniable fact is that no governments are going to do anything like enough to deflect the expected global warming. 'Tackling' global warming is political poison.

 

What, run everything on solar and wind power? Well, good luck with that. How about nuclear? Nope, the Green/Left has regulated that option out of viable existence.

 

The world will continue to run on fossil fuels for several decades to come. That was enshrined into international law at the Paris climate conference of 2015, which is looking ever more "historic" as the months go by. It confirmed that we will not hold global temperature rise to an extra 0.5C from today (1.5C since 1850, the basis of the OP report), or even 1.0C from today. That is, unless the solar scientists are right in thinking that a new mini ice age is just round the corner.

 

If you think current global warming constitutes disaster, now's the time to check out real estate in Oymyakon or Norilsk.

 

In a sense, we deserve this. If the Green/Left activists really cared about 'saving the planet' rather than bashing Western capitalism, they might have been able to craft a more palatable political message which would have had a chance of succeeding. But that kind of cooperation has been, and will always be, beyond them.

 

That's the ball game. We're in for warming of a moderate amount. Let's see what happens. Oh, and it would be worthwhile to dismantle all these expensive and unnecessary make-work climate bureaucracies, and use the money for something useful like providing clean water to the planet's needy people.

[bristolboy]

On 10/22/2018 at 12:44 PM, 727Sky said:

While the Arctic has lost almost 30% of its' record high ice it is now above the 2012 low. The NW passage is closed (October 18th) due to ice while the NE passage is open. As I have said the forecast was for the arctic to be ice free by 2013 and that was after the forecast it would be ice free in 2008. Same people saying the ice would be gone along with the polar bears yet people have short term memories when it come to prior forecast of where the people and your taxes only have 10 years to save the world . They have been saying ten years until the time passes so they just tack on another 10 years.

 

Sorry a little historical data that does not agree with the IPCC

 

The good/bad news is the winters from here on out are going to be record breaking cold and snow if the Maunder minimum folks are correct.. Australia is in for a major drought that is supposedly going to last while there wheat production is going to crater just as much of the rest of the world... If any of this is wrong we will know by 2025 which way the temps are heading and the argument will be settled except for the die hard Klingons..

 

I will make a personal forecast that the ice cover at the poles will increase during the winter and decrease during the yearly melt phase. How much of a melt off is a worthy question that I do not know the answer to.. But I do know it ain't ice free as we were told it would be 5 years ago in 2013. But disregard that prior forecast for it does not fit into the faith of man made global warming and the IPCC new and bigger, better computer models..

So much tripe here. No reason to address it all so I'll just deal with one: The forecast that the ice would be gone in the summer by 2013. It wasn't the forecast. It was a forecast by someone named Malinowski. And it was very much an outlier. Most forecasts don't predict that the arctic will be free of ice in the summer until sometime in the 2030's at the earliest.

And while the amount of sea ice varies from year to year the trendline is clear:

 

 

[bristolboy]

50 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Whether the alarmist claims are correct or not, the one undeniable fact is that no governments are going to do anything like enough to deflect the expected global warming. 'Tackling' global warming is political poison.

 

What, run everything on solar and wind power? Well, good luck with that. How about nuclear? Nope, the Green/Left has regulated that option out of viable existence.

 

The world will continue to run on fossil fuels for several decades to come. That was enshrined into international law at the Paris climate conference of 2015, which is looking ever more "historic" as the months go by. It confirmed that we will not hold global temperature rise to an extra 0.5C from today (1.5C since 1850, the basis of the OP report), or even 1.0C from today. That is, unless the solar scientists are right in thinking that a new mini ice age is just round the corner.

 

If you think current global warming constitutes disaster, now's the time to check out real estate in Oymyakon or Norilsk.

 

In a sense, we deserve this. If the Green/Left activists really cared about 'saving the planet' rather than bashing Western capitalism, they might have been able to craft a more palatable political message which would have had a chance of succeeding. But that kind of cooperation has been, and will always be, beyond them.

 

That's the ball game. We're in for warming of a moderate amount. Let's see what happens. Oh, and it would be worthwhile to dismantle all these expensive and unnecessary make-work climate bureaucracies, and use the money for something useful like providing clean water to the planet's needy people.

 

"The world will continue to run on fossil fuels for several decades to come." Actually no. 

This is from an article about how renewable energy's costs are dropping far more rapidly than expected and with it, the future of natural gas as a fuel is increasingly threatened:

" First, wind and solar costs fell so far, so fast that they are now undercutting the cost of new gas in a growing number of regions. And then batteries — which can “firm up” variable renewables, diminishing the need for natural gas’s flexibility — also started getting cheap faster than anyone expected. It happened so fast that, in certain limited circumstances, solar+storage or wind+storage is already cheaper than new natural gas plants and able to play all the same roles (and more)."

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/13/17551878/natural-gas-markets-renewable-energy

And this article was written before the announcement that durable rechargeable zinc air batteries that cost less to manufacture than $100 per kilowatt of capacity. That has long been considered the holy grail of viability to make solar and wind power cheaper than natural gas.

"On Wednesday, an energy company headed by the California billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong announced that it had developed a rechargeable battery operating on zinc and air that can store power at far less than the cost of lithium-ion batteries.

Tests of the zinc energy-storage systems have helped power villages in Africa and Asia as well as cellphone towers in the United States for the last six years, without any backup from utilities or the electric grid, Dr. Soon-Shiong said."

Read it and weep

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/business/energy-environment/zinc-battery-solar-power.html

 

[RickBradford]

It's not a question of which one is cheaper (even if we assume that Vox is anywhere near being a credible source).

 

It is a question of building new infrastructure and dismantling the old. Supporting the fossil fuel industry is literally trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure which has taken a century to build up.

 

It is going to take decades to phase out fossil fuels, even if all the economic and environmental markers were in favour of that. 

 

It's an infantile Green fantasy to think that solar and wind are going to magically replace fossil fuels. Even Greenpeace isn't that deluded, citing 2050 as the earliest possible date, and we know how optimistic they are.

[Catoni]

18 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

I see the same arguments here as have repeatedly been posted on prior threads. The sadness I experience is knowing the youngsters alive now will bear the burden of dying in the harsher dystopian world ahead... one that need not have been transformed except for the hubris of their elders. It is already a Herculean prospect in reforestation and carbon sequestration [Survivable IPCC projections based on science fiction - Reality is far worse] that might reverse and stabilize what insulation to the atmosphere humans have already caused. Politically the USA is still enough divided as to make dealing with those arguments impossible... especially in the time needed to cut population and consumption, change to local food sourcing and non-industrial farming. (none of which do I see happening.)

Human society has already raised CO2 levels by 46% since industrialization began AND that is already causing albedo loss, and a variety of planetary amplification effects ... from melting of reflective snow and ice, to northern soils warming enough to increasingly release CO2 and methane as the dead foliage of long ages thaws and decomposes That accelerates the greenhouse gas concentrations of the atmosphere causing even more ice to melt and tundra to thaw. Wait, there's more. The Amazon and Central African forests are being cut (often for agriculture to feed Europe and N. America) What wasn't cut directly is now dying as there is less and less forest to maintain the evapotranspiration that brings moisture across continents. [A deforestation-induced tipping point for the South American monsoon system] Meanwhile the phytoplankton that allow photosynthesis in the seas struggle with lower pH levels. Thus the mechanisms for nature to absorb the CO2  are weakening. When forests burn, they add to the CO2 problem... and the IEA still shows years ahead of more greenhouse gases (insulation) being released.

 
The specific end result/ last straw is still unknown. Mass migrations will grow as droughts, heatwaves, crop failures, and floods prove more areas to be undesirable. (Mammals need to be able to cool themselves to control metabolic function. For humans the limit is 35ºC during high humidity days... Sweat wont evaporate enough to help. Short cycles of this already killed thousands in India, Pakistan and Iran during the last El Nino.) Crops also pass their optimal growing temperatures , grain yields fall as temperatures rise. That also brings famine and disease. But my bet is on wars as the major cause of deaths ahead this century. Authoritarian style leaders and desperate times often rely on war as a way to maintain national focus.

It is literally too late. Unlike dinosaurs, we humans are the species that will not go extinct from asteroids or massive lava flows. Humans will have done it to ourselves, and we'll take most of the biosphere to extinction with us. Anyone arguing that humans have not caused this is part of the societal inertia that prevents what might yet be done... Though I hold no hope on the subject, a slower collapse keeps open the possibility of a solution being found. Continuing the marketed binge party of consumption assures a steeper collapse sooner.
I think this is one of the cleaner statements ever to make it to TV:
▶ The Newsroom S03E03 climate change interview - YouTube

      You should write a Hollywood disaster apocolypse movie.  Sad that you have:

      1.   Fallen for the socialist Gore Bull Warming Alarmism..

      2.  Apparently suffer from Thermophobia...

      3.  Know nothing about Paleoclimatology

      4.  Think that a couple degrees warming is the end of the world.

      5.  Fail to understand that right now... we are still in an Ice Age that began 2.6 million years ago.  The Quaternary/Pleistocene Glaciation.   Ice Ages dont last forever.

      6.  Fail to understand that life prefers warmth..  (compare biodiversity between Arctic regions and Tropical regions.)

      7.  Fail to understand that historically in Earths history.... we are still very low in atmoshperic CO2 right now. 

      8.  Fail to understand that climate ALWAYS changes..  Sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes a little...  sometimes a lot. 

 

      You like the U.N. I.P.C.C.    Okay.... here you go:

 

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,"

- Ottmaar Edenhofer:    co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.  Ottmar Georg Edenhofer is one of the world's leading experts on climate change policy, environmental and energy policy, and energy economics. Edenhofer currently holds the professorship of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin.

 

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

 

 Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said: 

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.  This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."   She made this statement in anticipation of the Paris climate summit.

 

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of undermining and destroying western industrialized capitalism and establishing a global socialist/communist welfare state.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Catoni
Correction

[727Sky]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So much tripe here. No reason to address it all so I'll just deal with one: The forecast that the ice would be gone in the summer by 2013. It wasn't the forecast. It was a forecast by someone named Malinowski. And it was very much an outlier.

NASA 2013

Just Google or do a search for BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'But there are other articles and model forecast available which were also wrong. So you were inaccurate in your prior statement..which like many was a statement without facts.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&es&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjD-P7KnKjeAhVYb30KHVrPDrgQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc

Quote

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Remember the 1970s and all the experts predicting another ice age was coming ? Probably not.. but they were wrong then .. As far as the ice content I will not argue the point as I looked up the content numbers as of October 18. Actual available ground temps and satellite data. By November 9th the antarctic in one location is suppose to reach a balmy -25C.. Until then normal temps are prevailing and running -37 to -40 C .. Freely available for anyone who actually wants to see instead of listen to the alarmist.

It is kinda stupid to deny anything that can be honestly physically measured...with a big bold on Honestly.. It is also stupid to believe in computer models which have not been right in their forecasting for at least 30 years yet policy is being made and using them as voice of doom gospel.

After the last big ice age thaw all the prehistoric coastal cities are now under 400 to 600 feet of ocean..stuff happens so you move or fight the sea.. My money is on the sea, every time..

I do not deny climate is changing simply because that is what it does.. I do have big big doubts about warming is being caused by man and his output of CO2 as there are many other contributors of CO2.. 410ppm ain't that big of a deal and neither is 1500ppm as it has happened before.

I do figure that by 2025 or at the very latest 2030 we will have enough unfiddled data to know if the climate is going hotter or colder as both events can cause extremes in the weather... This winter by the global cooling guys is going to be another record breaker for many parts of the world.. They are also saying global food supplies are down due to droughts and late or early rains and freezes.. Wheat in many of the wheat growing areas is forecast to be down again after the 77 million metric ton world decrease since 2016/17 as reported this October by the USDA... again heat a drought can do the same thing to crops..

So I am not ready to hang my hat on either hot or cold at this stage ... If I had a wishing tree I would wish for warmer and all the benefits warmer would mean for everyone and everything...while colder means death and starvation to millions and possibly a few billion peeps around the world..
 

 

 

[727Sky]

Sea level rise has been 2mm per year since the 1920s But...in the last 20,000 years sea level has risen around 130 meters or close to 400 ft.. now that would be something to get everyone in a tizzy if it was happening today.

Tide gauges are not showing the astounding sea level predicted rise (up to 17 inches in the USA N.E.) however the satellite data is where they are getting their numbers from which is not working and is in direct conflict with the actual measurements from the tide gauges.... But hey those darn satellites cost a lot of money so we need to use their data even if wrong or there goes our future funding for more satellites !

It is always good to listen and look at both sides of a situation and their data. Personally I would not bet the farm on any of the IPCC statements.

 

Even NASA has been caught fiddling the date to a wanted global warming  outcome.