Climate change will show no mercy to dithering Thailand

[Crushdepth]

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

Twit

[boomerangutang]

You will grow very old and pass away many years from now and nothing permanent related to Climate Change will have happened ... Naive alarmist like you should be ticketed and fined for falsely spreading rumors and attempting to instill panic among the populist ...

If by your first word, 'you' ...you mean one person, then yes, one person will not have much effect, unless it's someone like Saddam Hussein who ordered the torching of all Kuwaiti Oil rigs.

CO2 may or may not be as much a factor as Al Gore put forth in his late 20th Century documentary, but consider this: An average of 1 ton is emitted by each man, woman, katoy, and child -annually - and that amount is rising.

I am always amazed the the folks who mock the idea of a big green conspiracy are the first to claim a conspiracy of big oil or MNC's.

Of the three choices, only big green gets free money from national governments (1 billion $ a day) to run it's mouth. The other two have to do it out of pocket.

Are you kidding? Big Oil and MNC's get a whole lot of hand-out money, on average, each year. Federal, state, tax-breaks, tax shelters, bail-outs, ....the list is long.

I never heard of 'Big Green' but let's use your word. Big Green gets pennies compared to big corps which get dollars. Just one of thousands of examples: Jimmy Carter, while prez, gave hand out federal 'grants' to Big oil to develop tar sands (for oil), and did the same for the Big Three automakers to develop better batteries for autos. What came out of those tens of billions of $$'s of hand-outs? Nothing, except grinning corp execs bought bigger pleasure boats. And Carter was more conscientious (and a better manager) than most presidents which followed him.

[spidermike007]

You will grow very old and pass away many years from now and nothing permanent related to Climate Change will have happened ... Naive alarmist like you should be ticketed and fined for falsely spreading rumors and attempting to instill panic among the populist ...

If by your first word, 'you' ...you mean one person, then yes, one person will not have much effect, unless it's someone like Saddam Hussein who ordered the torching of all Kuwaiti Oil rigs.

CO2 may or may not be as much a factor as Al Gore put forth in his late 20th Century documentary, but consider this: An average of 1 ton is emitted by each man, woman, katoy, and child -annually - and that amount is rising.

I am always amazed the the folks who mock the idea of a big green conspiracy are the first to claim a conspiracy of big oil or MNC's.

Of the three choices, only big green gets free money from national governments (1 billion $ a day) to run it's mouth. The other two have to do it out of pocket.

Are you kidding? Big Oil and MNC's get a whole lot of hand-out money, on average, each year. Federal, state, tax-breaks, tax shelters, bail-outs, ....the list is long.

I never heard of 'Big Green' but let's use your word. Big Green gets pennies compared to big corps which get dollars. Just one of thousands of examples: Jimmy Carter, while prez, gave hand out federal 'grants' to Big oil to develop tar sands (for oil), and did the same for the Big Three automakers to develop better batteries for autos. What came out of those tens of billions of $$'s of hand-outs? Nothing, except grinning corp execs bought bigger pleasure boats. And Carter was more conscientious (and a better manager) than most presidents which followed him.

Carter was a giant of a man, far too noble and righteous for that office of president, which is currently occupied by a nincompoop, and was last occupied by a murderous, super corrupt thug. The legacy Carter has created is amazing. I do not believe we will ever see another noble American leader. The system is simply broken. Can it be fixed? Maybe. But it would require some real guts, and a leader willing to say to the lobbyists, get the <deleted>** out my office, and never come back. I am not looking to get reelected, so I care not one iota what you guys do, or do not do. You guys are all whores, and are not welcome in this office.

Spidermike

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[VincentRJ]

Even though I'm very skeptical of the alarmist narrative regarding human induced climate change, I recognise that renewable energy can be a sensible and economic alternative to fossil fuels.

Solar voltaic panels have a huge potential, in my view. There is such a huge area on the surface of our planet that is basically redundant and useless, such as house roofs, deserts and arid regions. We could make use of it to our advantage.

It is estimated that the Sahara desert alone, if covered with SVPs, could provide about 25 times the current world use of energy, of all types, converted to kilowatts.

It's not difficult to imagine a future world where all machines are elecrically operated. People could drive electric cars as a matter of course, and charge a spare battery during the day, from the solar panels on the roof of their house. It's already technologically feasible.

The problem is the disruption of traditional practices due to change. Buddhism teaches that change, or impermanence, is a fact of life. Climate change is a fact of life.No need to fight it. Accept it, and adjust.

Getting alarmed is not a solution. Get the facts and devise a sensible and efficient procedure to minimise the risk.

[RickBradford]

The headline in the OP is patently absurd.

To say that Thailand is 'dithering' on climate change is like saying Vladimir Putin is 'dithering' on Obama's imposition of sanctions on Russia. In both cases, it's a matter of ignoring a vague, poorly defined, and feeble threat.

Thailand has problems which will get worse whether the climate gets hotter or colder, wetter or dryer, simply because of its rising population, burgeoning consumer and energy demand, plus wanton destruction of natural resources. Water should be Thailand's great asset; yet it already seems that in every place, at every time, there is either too much or too little.

My guess is that a concerted effort on water management would be the single thing Thailand could do to improve its national resilience whether the climate changes significantly or not. A serious water grid doesn't come cheap, but since the former government was prepared to spend $60 billion on high-speed trains for about 0.01% of the population to enjoy, the money seems to be available.

Thailand should learn a lesson from Australia, which decided not to 'dither' about climate change, and took shallow advice that its eastern seaboard would henceforth suffer semi-permanent drought. It immediately invested billions of dollars in a string of desalination plants, which were completed just as the first of years of continuous flooding rains overflowed dams and rendered the plants useless.

As the philosopher said: "We need to have the courage to do nothing."

[VincentRJ]

As the philosopher said: "We need to have the courage to do nothing."

The courage to do nothing in relation to CO2 emissions, I agree. But we should have the courage to reduce harmful pollutants such sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate carbon etc, which contributes to smog, and general environmental degradation.

In Chiang Mai and other northern provinces in April, and other months prior to the monsoon, there is serious haze from forest burn-off. In major Chinese cities it's even worse, all year round, due to pollution from old-fashioned coal power plants and heavy traffic.

There are so many real and current problems to attend to before wasting money on specifically reducing CO2 emissions. For example, one can reduce real pollution and smog by replacing old-fashioned coal power plants with new Ultra Super-critical coal power plants, which are much cleaner and burn coal more efficiently.

However, they still emit that lovely, clean, odourless CO2 which is so beneficial for plant growth.

[rametindallas]

It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

[boomerangutang]

It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

Interesting changes are happening also in the Antarctica region. One phenomena of note: Some of the largest glaciers there are melting where ice meets rock. This quickens their movement toward the sea. Call it 'climate mania' if you want. You can keep calling it 'climate mania' if/when seas rise considerably, and hundreds of seaside cities are flooded, Bangkok included.

[VincentRJ]

It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

I agree. Perhaps more accurately, it's the politicization of science that is the problem. I think we've all heard of the euphemism for lying, being 'economical with the truth'. Those who report on the findings of climatologists in an alarmist manner, and climate scientists who are interviewed by the media on such matters, are in my view, literally being economical with the truth. That is, they present an argument which is purely one-sided. Perhaps they are advised by the media experts to do this. I don't know.

An example would be ocean acidification. Years ago, when I first heard scientists being interviewed on this specific consequence of rising CO2 levels, I could understand their concern, and the logic behind the argument of increased levels of CO2 dissolved in the sea water having an acidic effect. I understood that acidification meant a movement towards the acidic end of the pH spectrum.

However, I was completely puzzled by the fact that none of these scientists ever mentioned the current pH of the oceans, during their interview. I was left wondering whether the oceans are currently slightly acidic, or perhaps neutral instead of slightly alkaline.

Fortunately, we have the internet, so I was able to do some research of my own. What I discovered surprised me greatly, and also explained why these scientist had never mentioned the current pH of the oceans.

According to Wikipedia, between the years 1751 and 1994 the average surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14. Now, a pH of 7 is neutral, neither acidic not alkaline. The oceans are still firmly alkaline, and a long way from becoming even neutral, never mind acidic.

Any keen gardener will know that the pH of the soil can effect the growth of particular plants. Most plants prefer a slightly acidic soil, some a slightly alkaline soil. As the pH of the oceans gradually changes, some creatures will come into their own and proliferate. Other species will gradually decline. There are winners and losers.

Why do climate scientists not mention the winners in ocean acidification? Could it be they are biased?

I repeat; Thailand is a Buddhist country. Buddhism teaches that change is an unavoidable fact of life. Let's observe the change and accurately predict the consequences without fear or favour. Spending trillions of dollars trying to prevent change is both silly and futile.

[boomerangutang]

The oceans are becoming more acidic. It adversely affects the bottom parts of the food chain and corals - thereby affecting all organisms including humans (directly or indirectly), which rely upon the oceans for nutrition. Excerpts below are from; http://www.wunderground.com/climate/acidoceans.asp

"It is well known that burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 in the atmosphere from about 275 ppm (.0275%) to 378 ppm (.0375%) since the Industrial Revolution began in the 1800s. This extra CO2 has contributed to the observed rise in global temperatures of 0.6° C via the greenhouse effect. What is less well known, and is discussed in a March 2006 article in Scientific American called "The Dangers of Ocean Acidification", is that a tremendous amount of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning winds up in the oceans."

"When CO2 dissolves into the ocean, it creates carbonic acid. The oceans have dissolved so much CO2 during the past 150 years that the acidity of the oceans' surface waters has substantially increased. Before the Industrial Revolution, pH of the ocean surface waters ranged from 8.0 to 8.3 (pH decreases as acidity increases). Ocean pH has dropped a full 0.1 units since then, to the 7.9 to 8.2 range."

"Higher acidity in the ocean creates problems for a number of organisms. Corals and other creatures that build shells out of calcium carbonate are particularly vulnerable, since they cannot form their shells if the acidity passes a critical level--their shells will dissolve. Several shell-building planktonic organisms, such as coccolithophorids, pteropods, and foraminifera, form an important basis of the food chain in the cold waters surrounding Antarctica."

[VincentRJ]

The oceans are becoming more acidic. It adversely affects the bottom parts of the food chain and corals - thereby affecting all organisms including humans (directly or indirectly), which rely upon the oceans for nutrition. Excerpts below are from; http://www.wunderground.com/climate/acidoceans.asp

"It is well known that burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 in the atmosphere from about 275 ppm (.0275%) to 378 ppm (.0375%) since the Industrial Revolution began in the 1800s. This extra CO2 has contributed to the observed rise in global temperatures of 0.6° C via the greenhouse effect. What is less well known, and is discussed in a March 2006 article in Scientific American called "The Dangers of Ocean Acidification", is that a tremendous amount of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning winds up in the oceans."

"When CO2 dissolves into the ocean, it creates carbonic acid. The oceans have dissolved so much CO2 during the past 150 years that the acidity of the oceans' surface waters has substantially increased. Before the Industrial Revolution, pH of the ocean surface waters ranged from 8.0 to 8.3 (pH decreases as acidity increases). Ocean pH has dropped a full 0.1 units since then, to the 7.9 to 8.2 range."

"Higher acidity in the ocean creates problems for a number of organisms. Corals and other creatures that build shells out of calcium carbonate are particularly vulnerable, since they cannot form their shells if the acidity passes a critical level--their shells will dissolve. Several shell-building planktonic organisms, such as coccolithophorids, pteropods, and foraminifera, form an important basis of the food chain in the cold waters surrounding Antarctica."

Of course! Understood! That's the negative aspect of acidification. If you mention just the negative aspects, or just the positives aspects of anything, then that's not impartial science. It's political.

Science is supposed to be impartial. I'm recommending a look at the facts on both sides. As I understand, from my research of scientific papers on the internet, the pH of the oceans varies considerably according to ocean depth, ocean locality, and season of the year. Most sea creatures are used to such variations and can adapt. However, I can understand that those who have been raised in the nanny state might be very concerned.

[rametindallas]

It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

Interesting changes are happening also in the Antarctica region. One phenomena of note: Some of the largest glaciers there are melting where ice meets rock. This quickens their movement toward the sea. Call it 'climate mania' if you want. You can keep calling it 'climate mania' if/when seas rise considerably, and hundreds of seaside cities are flooded, Bangkok included.

You really should keep up if your want to debate these things.

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/hidden-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-from-below-140609.htm

[VincentRJ]

It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

Interesting changes are happening also in the Antarctica region. One phenomena of note: Some of the largest glaciers there are melting where ice meets rock. This quickens their movement toward the sea. Call it 'climate mania' if you want. You can keep calling it 'climate mania' if/when seas rise considerably, and hundreds of seaside cities are flooded, Bangkok included.

You really should keep up if your want to debate these things.

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/hidden-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-from-below-140609.htm

Hey! Maybe we should spend some money trying to prevent volcanoes erupting.

[Jim walker]

Royal Irrigation Department, Interior Ministry and Defence Ministry to local administrative bodies, with all these departments running about like headless chickens Thailand will always be a follower on any global maters and never a leader because Thais always know best, and never need advice from anyone because there is always someone to pass the buck on to here.

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The oceans are becoming more acidic. It adversely affects the bottom parts of the food chain and corals - thereby affecting all organisms including humans (directly or indirectly), which rely upon the oceans for nutrition. Excerpts below are from; http://www.wunderground.com/climate/acidoceans.asp

"It is well known that burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 in the atmosphere from about 275 ppm (.0275%) to 378 ppm (.0375%) since the Industrial Revolution began in the 1800s. This extra CO2 has contributed to the observed rise in global temperatures of 0.6° C via the greenhouse effect. What is less well known, and is discussed in a March 2006 article in Scientific American called "The Dangers of Ocean Acidification", is that a tremendous amount of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning winds up in the oceans."

"When CO2 dissolves into the ocean, it creates carbonic acid. The oceans have dissolved so much CO2 during the past 150 years that the acidity of the oceans' surface waters has substantially increased. Before the Industrial Revolution, pH of the ocean surface waters ranged from 8.0 to 8.3 (pH decreases as acidity increases). Ocean pH has dropped a full 0.1 units since then, to the 7.9 to 8.2 range."

"Higher acidity in the ocean creates problems for a number of organisms. Corals and other creatures that build shells out of calcium carbonate are particularly vulnerable, since they cannot form their shells if the acidity passes a critical level--their shells will dissolve. Several shell-building planktonic organisms, such as coccolithophorids, pteropods, and foraminifera, form an important basis of the food chain in the cold waters surrounding Antarctica."

Of course! Understood! That's the negative aspect of acidification. If you mention just the negative aspects, or just the positives aspects of anything, then that's not impartial science. It's political.

Science is supposed to be impartial. I'm recommending a look at the facts on both sides. As I understand, from my research of scientific papers on the internet, the pH of the oceans varies considerably according to ocean depth, ocean locality, and season of the year. Most sea creatures are used to such variations and can adapt. However, I can understand that those who have been raised in the nanny state might be very concerned.

This is a blog where contributors add a bit here and a bit there. Neither I nor you nor anyone else is expected to articulate on a whole host of possibilities or scenarios. If you ask me the weather, and say it's sunny, do I need to also go on for 18 paragraphs on all the variations of 'sunny' in 29 different climate zones?

I write what I choose to write. You do the same, if you so choose. Neither of us can cover all the bases in all scenarios. Even scientific papers don't attempt to do that.

[boomerangutang]

It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

Interesting changes are happening also in the Antarctica region. One phenomena of note: Some of the largest glaciers there are melting where ice meets rock. This quickens their movement toward the sea. Call it 'climate mania' if you want. You can keep calling it 'climate mania' if/when seas rise considerably, and hundreds of seaside cities are flooded, Bangkok included.

You really should keep up if your want to debate these things.

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/hidden-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-from-below-140609.htm

a quote from the 2nd link (above): "West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers."

[boomerangutang]

The headline in the OP is patently absurd.

I agree the headline is alarmist.

[rametindallas]

It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

Interesting changes are happening also in the Antarctica region. One phenomena of note: Some of the largest glaciers there are melting where ice meets rock. This quickens their movement toward the sea. Call it 'climate mania' if you want. You can keep calling it 'climate mania' if/when seas rise considerably, and hundreds of seaside cities are flooded, Bangkok included.

You really should keep up if your want to debate these things.

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/hidden-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-from-below-140609.htm

a quote from the 2nd link (above): "West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers."

No changing the mind of a religious zealot and AGW has become a religion to many, otherwise non-religious, people. Since I believe in religious freedom, I won't challenge your religion any more.

[VincentRJ]

This is a blog where contributors add a bit here and a bit there. Neither I nor you nor anyone else is expected to articulate on a whole host of possibilities or scenarios. If you ask me the weather, and say it's sunny, do I need to also go on for 18 paragraphs on all the variations of 'sunny' in 29 different climate zones?

Boomerangutang,

No. Of course not. And why not? Because we all know already how variable the weather can be. Any weather forecast report on the TV will likely mention what the weather was, and what the weather is predicted to be, in about 20 different locations in your home country, and/or about 20 different locations world-wide.

Likewise, if everyone (the general viewer or audience) was already aware of the pH levels of the oceans, and its great variability according to depth, location and season of the year, and if everyone was aware of the benefits of increased acidity, which include the proliferation of algae and sea grass, and the creatures that feed on such algae and sea grass, and the creatures that eat the creatures that feed on algae and sea grass, and so on, then mentioning only the negative effects of increased acidification would serve a useful purpose.

The viewer or listener might think, "Hey! I've learned something. All along I thought ocean acidification was a good thing, but this climate scientist/oceanographer has now informed me that there actually are some negative effects."

I write what I choose to write. You do the same, if you so choose. Neither of us can cover all the bases in all scenarios. Even scientific papers don't attempt to do that.

The people reporting on the science have created the false impression that the climate scientist have covered all the bases that are significant. That's the problem.

The following research paper explains in great detail this variability in the pH of the oceans, that I've previously mentioned, and its likely beneficial effect on the resilience of current organisms in the ocean, and their ability to adapt to increasing acidity.

Basically, the research paper is claiming that natural variations in current pH levels frequently range from 0.024 to 1.430 pH units and that presently, sea creatures are already experiencing and coping with pH levels that are not predicted until 2100.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028983

Another report suggests that even certain shell-producing creatures might benefit from increased ocean acidification. ".. some species — including blue crabs, lobsters, and shrimp — grew thicker shells that could make them more resistant to predators." Wow! Crabs, lobsters and shrimps. Yummy!

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/ocean-acidification-benefits-some-marine-organisms-study-says/2169/

[johnmcc6]

Is there anyone out there who still thinks the science is settled

[VincentRJ]

Is there anyone out there who still thinks the science is settled

Maybe Buddhist meditation practices have been introduced in the Climate Research Centres, so it's the scientists' minds that are settled (ie. peaceful), not the science.

[Choctastic]

The oceans are becoming more acidic. It adversely affects the bottom parts of the food chain and corals - thereby affecting all organisms including humans (directly or indirectly), which rely upon the oceans for nutrition. Excerpts below are from; http://www.wunderground.com/climate/acidoceans.asp

In amongst the alarmism, the article says knowledge about this topic is still in its infancy and poorly understood.

I watched the videos about CO2. It is easy to understand why some are convinced. A few glossed-over doubts until we reach... 'CO2 is the only thing that fits'. The presenter is a more animated version of Stephen Schneider, a 'star' of the climate movement, who in the 70s, was telling us a new Ice Age was coming, until 'warming' took off and he rode the wave, apparently without blushing. No worries, though. Today, re-branding warming to 'Climate Change' let's you work both ends of the thermometer.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to my back teeth of all the fearmongering. Whether flu scares, Ozone, Hitlers, Mooslims,Climate alarmism, global financial collapse.. etc.. etc..

Bill Hicks had it right. Anyone who works in Marketing should 'kill themselves'. Likewise PR. The politicians can lead off.

[canuckamuck]

To be fair the only thing that sells news is fear, sex, sports, and weather.

Climate change is 2 out of 4

[RPCVguy]

Go away for a few days and the climate denialists come back out to scoff. There are a few posts that point to information to consider...

(volcanoes under the Antarctic got me to look at the studies, summarized in this article: "

According to Schroeder, Rignot’s paper, and another that came out in May, show that warm oceans are currently the main cause of glacier loss at the edge of the ice. “The fastest glacial changes are happening where the ocean is warmer,” Schroeder said. “Geothermal heating is not enough by itself to have caused the observed changes.” In response to those who are using his study to deny climate change, Schroeder confirmed that volcanic activity is not the dominant force of ice loss and rising sea levels." https://news.vice.com/article/no-volcanoes-are-not-the-primary-cause-for-the-melting-ice-caps)

Most of the comments are opinions without supporting data. Those of the denialist opinion are thus encouraging everyone else in a global game of Russian Roulette. I appreciate that the climate denialists are also facing fear. They fear facing the necessity to either partake in a needed shift of energy underpinnings of a global society OR admit that they are willing to end human life (at a minimum end the balances of life cycles that we and our crops and domestic animals evolved to life within. Requiring a global culture to shift is unlikely to be successful, definitely difficult. But ignoring factual evidence because it is inconvenient - that will indeed be an epoch error. Trying to communicate the multiple facets of life in serious ways is the message of Showtime's series "Years of Living Dangerously." The series premiere and many of the segments were made available for viewing on You-Tube. Here is the full series premiere.

I've already provided posts supplying data, measurements and methodologies. Maybe the details of CO2's energy absorption frequencies OR of looking through ice core layers the way people commonly can consider the record of tree rings is beyond what people want to delve into. Most people don't want to know everything about how GPS devices work either, but you trust the results generated by the scientists who have made that field their central focus. Is it only because they find it convenient? The science of climate is just as rigorously being explored. It is past time to begin arguing over ways to mitigate the effects, and not remain stuck on the reality of what is happening.
Every conservative faith I know of teaches that life is of value. Life should not be wasted. How then can so many people be encouraged to play Russian Roulette with it all?
Tipping points are approaching. CO2 is just the trigger mechanism. Methane could be the blast ... and this describes the scenario that has happened in past geological times. If people want an example of attention grabbing warnings, this next, short video is it. We need avoid being the cause for repeating the devastation.

Last Hours
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGVTK-AAvw#t=572

[VincentRJ]

To be fair the only thing that sells news is fear, sex, sports, and weather.

Climate change is 2 out of 4

Do you mean climate change is sexy?

I think the future will be solar power. It makes the most sense. Consider how much spare space we have on the planet in terms of house roofs, car roofs, deserts and arid regions in many countries, which are not inhabited, or sparsely inhabited.

New technology is usually very expensive. I remember how ridiculously expensive the first digital cameras were. They are now about 1/10th of the price they were about 10 years ago and 4x as good, if not even better.

One doesn't have to believe in the alarmist views on rising CO2 levels in order to appreciate the potential of solar power. In countries that have lots of sunshine, such as Thailand, and Australia, it could eventually price coal out of the market, which is good, and sensible.

Some folks claim there is a problem when the sun don't shine. However, that problem can be overcome with a network of Ultra HVDC transmission lines which have a transmission loss of less than 3% for every 1,000km of transmission.

For example, if it's sunny in Chiang Rai, but cloudy in Bangkok, there would be only about 2% loss in electricity when transmitting the power from Chiang Rai to Bangkok along a 6-700km U-HVDC grid system.

[VincentRJ]

Most people don't want to know everything about how GPS devices work either, but you trust the results generated by the scientists who have made that field their central focus. Is it only because they find it convenient?

No. It's because GPS systems are found to work and be very reliable. That's the only reason why any intelligent person would trust anything (or anyone).

Climate is always changing, as everything else is in this world. The Buddha realized that about 2,500 years ago. There is a general insecurity about any change, in the minds of many members of the public, and Climate Change Alarmists try to take advantage of this fear, claiming that everything will be worse if the climate warms a couple of degrees. Believe it if you want. If that's what it takes to motivate you to show an interest in new and better methods of generating power, then I admit there could be an advantage to such alarmism, in view of the fact that solar panels are not as sexy as digital cameras.

[boomerangutang]

.....if the climate warms a couple of degrees

Last time a checked, 'a couple' = 2

Two degrees is significant. Call me alarmist if you want, but 2 degrees would have a dramatic effect on sea levels, crops, human migrations, desertification, spread of diseases, ....among other things.

Those of us on this thread are either too old and/or too well shielded (with pensions, etc) to worry about such effects of a warmer planet. But there are vast numbers of people who will be affected, in the near future and beyond. I care about people somewhat, but I care more for other species. Already many species have gone extinct, and many others are now on the brink. GW affects more than this one species with the big complicated brains.

[VincentRJ]

.....if the climate warms a couple of degrees

Last time a checked, 'a couple' = 2

Two degrees is significant. Call me alarmist if you want, but 2 degrees would have a dramatic effect on sea levels, crops, human migrations, desertification, spread of diseases, ....among other things.

Most of that 2 degrees of warming has already taken place since the beginning of the industrial revolution. We are now at a temperature which is shown to be similar to that of the Roman Warm Period, around the time of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, some studies indicate that the Roman Warm Period was actually warmer than today.

http://www.thegwpf.org/new-technique-shows-roman-warm-period-warmer-than-present-day/

Warm periods tend to be generally beneficial for our well-being.

I care about people somewhat, but I care more for other species. Already many species have gone extinct, and many others are now on the brink. GW affects more than this one species with the big complicated brains.

What disturbs me about the alarmists' views is their tendency to confuse issues. Extinction of species is driven mainly by land-clearing, hunting, protection of crops, and the introduction of unnatural predators, such as domesticated cats let loose in the Australian bush.

If the polar bears of the Arctic are found to be in decline, you'll find that increased hunting is the culprit, not global warming.

In Australia we have a concern about the Great Barrier Reef. Warming Alarmists claim that ocean acidification is destroying the reef. The truth seems to be that the Crown of Thorns Starfish is mostly to blame, and that the proliferation of this Starfish is due to excessive agricultural fertilizer running into the rivers and estuaries and encouraging the growth of starfish larvae.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2561462/Invasion-carnivorous-starfish-greater-threat-Great-Barrier-Reef-global-warming-experts-claim.html

A similar situation occurs in relation to extreme weather events. Every time there's a serious flood, alarmists blame CO2 emissions. The cause is probably within natural variability. There's no clear evidence that such weather events are getting more extreme. The confusion is partly due to an awareness of increased destruction resulting from extreme weather events, as a result of increased population, inadequate building regulations and incompetent government administrations.

For example, the last major flood in Brisbane, Australia (2011) was initially thought to have been the worst on record, and a greater number of houses were flooded than in the previous major flood in 1974. However, it was later revealed that the flood levels were not as high as in the 1974 flood. It seems the local council had permitted the construction of houses in areas that had previously been flooded, on the basis that a new flood mitigation dam that was built after the 1974 flood, would prevent such flooding occurring again.

Unfortunately, because of a few years of water shortages prior to the flooding, the flood mitigation dam was used to store water for consumption. It was therefore no longer able to function as a flood mitigation dam.

Do you see the problem? If we want to protect ourselves from extreme weather events, protect wildlife from extinction, keep our air and environment clean, then we need to precisely identify the problems and take effective remedial action. Blaming such events and situations on rising CO2 levels is ridiculous.

[boomerangutang]

responses in red font...

.....if the climate warms a couple of degrees

Last time I checked, 'a couple' = 2

Two degrees is significant. Call me alarmist if you want, but 2 degrees would have a dramatic effect on sea levels, crops, human migrations, desertification, spread of diseases, ....among other things.

Most of that 2 degrees of warming has already taken place since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
It sounded like, earlier, you were referring to an additional 2 degrees

Warm periods tend to be generally beneficial for our well-being.
It's a mixed bag. Warming can be a drag if you reside in or near a desert.

I care about people somewhat, but I care more for other species. Already many species have gone extinct, and many others are now on the brink. GW affects more than this one species with the big complicated brains.

What disturbs me about the alarmists' views is their tendency to confuse issues. Extinction of species is driven mainly by land-clearing, hunting, protection of crops, and the introduction of unnatural predators, such as domesticated cats let loose in the Australian bush.
If the polar bears of the Arctic are found to be in decline, you'll find that increased hunting is the culprit, not global warming.
it's a combination of things, not least; when polar bears don't have the ice cover they're adapted to, they're forced to swim great distances. Very tiring, and not conducive to survival of their species.

In Australia we have a concern about the Great Barrier Reef. Warming Alarmists claim that ocean acidification is destroying the reef. The truth seems to be that the Crown of Thorns Starfish is mostly to blame, and that the proliferation of this Starfish is due to excessive agricultural fertilizer running into the rivers and estuaries and encouraging the growth of starfish larvae.
yes, several contributing factors.

A similar situation occurs in relation to extreme weather events. Every time there's a serious flood, alarmists blame CO2 emissions. The cause is probably within natural variability. There's no clear evidence that such weather events are getting more extreme. The confusion is partly due to an awareness of increased destruction resulting from extreme weather events, as a result of increased population, inadequate building regulations and incompetent government administrations.
Several factors, including increased warming. Hurricanes/cyclones/tornadoes feed on warm ground levels, among other things. Warmer = bigger.

Do you see the problem? If we want to protect ourselves from extreme weather events, protect wildlife from extinction, keep our air and environment clean, then we need to precisely identify the problems and take effective remedial action. Blaming such events and situations on rising CO2 levels is ridiculous.

CO2 is plausibly one factor. Methane another, all related to fossil fuel emissions, averaging over 1 ton per man woman child / annually. Many factors. If the deniers are wrong about CO2 and methane being contributing factors, then doing nothing to reduce CO2 and methane (which deniers recommend) could exacerbate problems mentioned above in near and extended future.

Let's say you buy a new house, and you mention a concern about termites. The community elders say "oh, some people have had their homes burned down or destroyed by wind, but no one has had a house destroyed by termites in this neighborhood. So don't worry about termites." .....does that mean you take precautions for some issues, and disregard other precautions?

[RPCVguy]

The oceans are becoming more acidic. It adversely affects the bottom parts of the food chain and corals - thereby affecting all organisms including humans (directly or indirectly), which rely upon the oceans for nutrition. Excerpts below are from; http://www.wunderground.com/climate/acidoceans.asp

In amongst the alarmism, the article says knowledge about this topic is still in its infancy and poorly understood.

I watched the videos about CO2. It is easy to understand why some are convinced. A few glossed-over doubts until we reach... 'CO2 is the only thing that fits'. The presenter is a more animated version of Stephen Schneider, a 'star' of the climate movement, who in the 70s, was telling us a new Ice Age was coming, until 'warming' took off and he rode the wave, apparently without blushing. No worries, though. Today, re-branding warming to 'Climate Change' let's you work both ends of the thermometer.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to my back teeth of all the fearmongering. Whether flu scares, Ozone, Hitlers, Mooslims,Climate alarmism, global financial collapse.. etc.. etc..

Bill Hicks had it right. Anyone who works in Marketing should 'kill themselves'. Likewise PR. The politicians can lead off.

Disparage a messenger while denying the message. Why? Because accepting what is known as to the insulation effect of CO2 condemns this generation to cutting drastically back on our consumption of the fossil fuel energy we consume to the detriment of future generations.

Steven Schneider wrote a quite balanced letter to the editor in 1971 demonstrated the lack of information then as to scale of various forces. He stated that there were conflicting forces in evidence and

"we do not yet know the magnitude of these influences well enough to be certain which, if either, of these effects might predominate."

http://www.realclimate.org/images/schneider_letter_1971.jpg

Young highly intelligent and brash, his interests got him side-tracked in an early assessment of particulate dangers... so did warn that the cooling trend could dominate. To his credit, he reversed himself soon after.

"Steve read through everyone else’s research on climate sensitivity. By 1975, he brought them together in a paper of his own, putting the ‘best guess’ figure as 1.5-3.5°C, and went from projecting cooling to warming. Though he was later attacked for this, Steve stood by his actions. “Imagine the doctor who makes a preliminary diagnosis before the blood test and X-rays are in, and then they are different from the preliminary diagnosis, but the doctor sticks with it to be politically consistent,” he wrote. “This is not what we do in science – and we’re not ever ashamed of getting the wrong answer for the right reason.”

Over the following 35 years of Steve’s career, the evidence for human-driven warming would pile up ever higher. But the arguments over model credibility, climate scientists’ involvement in political processes, and when action is taken, continue even today." the-ice-age-u-turn-that-set-the-stage-for-the-climate-debate/

Like Professor Alley, Steven Schneider went on to devote decades more effort into determining the relative size of the effects. This is an excellent summation he made towards the end of his career. How many homes experience fires? How many people assess the risk and carry fire insurance? Do the risk assessment.

Climate Scientist Stephen Schneider (1945-2010)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdCciThqnc

Oh, and as for Prof. Alley - I've taken one of his classes. He claims to be a Republican, and his optimism on what business can accomplish attests to that claim. When asked some tough questions in class as to how and why the IPCC came up with some of its evaluations, he did not duck them - displaying well a similar integrity as to challenging assumptions and following where the newest data will lead. CO2 is the flywheel, and this time it is not the lag indicator, but the lead indicator. Absent its consideration, all the other factors known about climate change DO NOT FIT the observed reality.