A dire climate warning for the Arctic

[dhream]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No objection here, but I dream of a world without mass jet air travel or private cars in cities, free public transport, and sane work/ accommodation policies. What chance that dream becoming reality when every man, woman and child wants their own personal conveyance and no one wants to pay more tax for public transport?

It could well be that the driverless vehicle will bring your vision to fruition. 

If nobody can use their vehicle as an extension of their dick (my car is faster and bigger and I CONTROL its behaviour).

The only other options then are likely to be shape (largely mandated by future congestion and traffic technology) colour, and interior luxury.

Consider how a billionaire and I can both afford the same choice of excellent smartphones right now, that's where I see vehicle technology and affordability going. Public transport could be individual Spartan vehicles that you can literally hose out. CCTV and or 'black boxes' could resolve vandalism or littering by charging the offender at the end of the ride. A little off topic, but uplifting. Let's hope we get there soon!

Edited November 30, 2016 by dhream

[Squeegee]

On 11/29/2016 at 10:44 AM, Pimay1 said:

Just as I expected. Anyone who does not agree with you is automatically wrong. No facts needed.

 

Don't be stupid... or disingenuous.

 

He told you your ranting, biased political propaganda mouthpiece, intended to influence minds at the lowest common denominator - a sensationalist newspaper - is not going to have anyone take you seriously.

 

When you post a source - and he attacks it - you can say it was so.

 

 

Posting links to the Daily Mail, as if it proves something in a debate... are you nine years old?

[kevkev1888]

53 minutes ago, jrward42 said:

Yeah thanks for that. I guess you are right and that is why you keep hearing about all those billionaire Climate Scientists making money pulling the wool over peoples' eyes. Devious swine that they are. Or are they just after the fame and glory?

 

If you were a climate scientist though, who knows what side of the debate you would fall on? They are split down the middle 97% to 3% after all. I guess they need to read more from the highly respected 'wattsupwiththat' website.

 

Let's just beg to differ and hope you are right. Especially if you have kids or grandkids. 

 

(Altering what someone else writes and ending with a self-satisfied emoji doesn't actually make you right though.)

 

Where exactly are you getting this 97% vs 3%?

 

Billions and billions of $ funding pouring into the field. It's a multi billion $ industry.

 

I know altering posts is a bit of a no no, but would not really make sense presented another way :)

 

 

[JKfarang]

On 11/29/2016 at 11:10 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Did you actually read the bit of the OP that says:

Unless the world stops burning fossil fuels ?

Does anyone on the side of the "we must do something about global warming" mob actually comprehend the result of that?

It would result in mass starvation as enough food could no longer be grown or transported to feed the billions on planet earth.

Soooooo, the choice is clear- stop using fossil fuel NOW ( later will be too late to make a difference ) and see millions or even billions starve to death, or keep using fossil fuels and ( if the models are correct ) see the Arctic ice melt and the polar bears die off.

 

Up to you.

 

I agree that to stop using fossil fuels NOW is not possible for a variety of reasons.  However reducing emissions is (though the industries that extract them for human consumption are too powerful to allow that to happen anytime soon).  Concerning the issue of feeding the masses, there are currently 7 billion+ people on the planet now and, by some estimates, that number is likely to grow to 9 billion by the year 2050 (34 years from now).  Based on an article in National Geographic magazine that I read a few years ago, that would require the planet to produce as much food in the next 34 years as it has produced in the last 2,000 years.  If true, I suspect that to be highly unlikely.  In which case, there will be massive starvation, disease epidemics, etc. regardless of whether or not fossil fuel consumption is reduced significantly.

 

Bottom line: the status quo is not a solution but had become a large part of the problem.  And arctic ice melt/polar bear extinction is merely the "tip of the iceberg" of what will inevitably occur.  At this point, I believe it's really too late to reverse the trend anyway but I still don't agree with the status quo or the climate change related to fossil fuels deniers.

[JKfarang]

On 11/29/2016 at 11:22 AM, Ahab said:

The man in the video (if you had cared to watch it) does have a PhD and he teaches chemistry at Stanford University. He is an expert at analyzing errors in models and determining exactly what are causing the bias.  I stand by my claim that the global warming models are crap, as is any model that tries to replicate a complex system with many variables that are known (with large errors) or unknown. I will continue to listen to the science but if your theory is that as manmade CO2 increases in the atmosphere the temperature will increase but then it does not rise in a statistically significant way for the last 20 years while at the same time CO2 levels are continuing to increase the theory needs a tweak (or two).

 

Who the heck decided that the 1850 was the year when the average temperature of the world was just right anyway? Goldie locks?

 

The word "source" from my initial post was in reference to the link you provided in your initial post, not to the OP.  If you choose to believe that all the crap our cars, factories, etc. spew into the Earth's atmosphere 24/7 is not having a significantly negative impact then that is your choice.  Personally, I believe that it is regardless of what some PHD, Goldie locks or anyone else has to say about it.

[Jdiddy]

Sounds good to me, the Arctic was always a little cold for me 

[jrward42]

1 hour ago, kevkev1888 said:

 

Where exactly are you getting this 97% vs 3%?

 

Billions and billions of $ funding pouring into the field. It's a multi billion $ industry.

 

I know altering posts is a bit of a no no, but would not really make sense presented another way :)

 

 

97/3 was a figure that has been mentioned in a variety of places. I read it in New Scientist but couldn't remember the exact numbers so googled 'What percentage of climate scientists believe global warming is man made' and a ton of sources quote the same figure.

 

It doesn't really matter as people will never agree and no matter how many sources or figures are bandied about there will always be those who refuse to change their mind. Discussions on forums and social media do little to alter opinion in either direction, so let's beg to differ. If the climate goes tits up, it won't be us who will suffer right now, it will be millions in the future. To me it seems quite a large and selfish gamble to think it is all <deleted> but each to their own.

 

But most here seem to at least agree that pollution is bad and recycling is good. I guess quite a lot live in Thailand, where the problems are apparent. I think that governments and individuals could all try to do their best in their own small way to limit their footprints. Although  it seems minor, even things like bringing your own bag to the supermarket can make a massive difference. Since bringing in the 5p plastic bag in the UK litter on beaches has been reduced by 80%, for example. In Thailand you get a bag and a straw for a bottle of water.

 

The only real way we are going to avoid any future problems and global pollution issues, I think, is through innovation. As others have said, getting industry to cut back on emissions or people to drive less isn't going to happen as it hits people in the pocket. Increasing the efficacy of electric cars, solar power and so on (such as individual solar tiles that were shown recently by Tesla), will make it more cost effective to not rely on fossil fuels. Basically, if it is cheaper to be environmentally friendly then that is what will solve it. Ask people to spend money to avoid some threat that may or may not happen to future generations and a lot won't give a shit.

 

Billions are being spent on ways to help the environment and work on ways we can generally stop chucking so much <deleted> into the air. I don't think that the majority of the cash is going into the pockets of wily climate change scientists milking it. Whether you believe in global warming or not, less pollution is a good thing, surely? Go to Delhi or Beijing and it's hard not to argue that investment in clean fuels is probably of benefit and thanks to the money, big advances are being made. 

 

I have had too much coffee and will shut up now and go back to work. Kevkev - I'm a writer by trade and it's irksome when my editor makes major changes to stuff but I should chill on a forum - so no worries!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JetsetBkk]

1 hour ago, kevkev1888 said:

Billions and billions of $ funding pouring into the field. It's a multi billion $ industry.

 

Not many jobs for climate scientists who are sceptics.

 

No, that couldn't possibly be the reason.

 

 

[seedy]

Derogatory post removed

[onthesoi]

On 29/11/2016 at 8:54 AM, Ahab said:

You do not have to have a PhD in climate science to be able to spot a scam as big as the AGW lie. The fear mongering is based on model predictions that do not adequately account for a number of complex factors. The amount of warming that could be caused by CO2 emissions (all manmade CO2 emissions) is tiny compared to other factors such as cloud cover.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/the-needle-in-the-haystack-pat-franks-devastating-expose-of-climate-model-error/

 

....and your source to debunk the world's scientists is a blogging website called wattsupwiththat which is run by a retired tv presenter(Antony Watts). 555

 

Antony Watts is funded by 'Heartland Institute', an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank. 

 

For eg:

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans. In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial. It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming, and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the econom.

 

...you said you could spot a scam right?

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by onthesoi

[onthesoi]

2 hours ago, kevkev1888 said:

 

Where exactly are you getting this 97% vs 3%

 

From the same organisation that put a man on the moon and a robot on mars:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Make sure you read through the list of studies and which organisation made them.

Edited November 30, 2016 by onthesoi

[Xircal]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not ignoring anything. Unfortunately, other than being Chicken Little, they aren't telling us as to HOW to reverse it.

However, pronouncing doom if we don't "do something", without giving any solutions that are politically acceptable, is only a good thing if one wants to be on the gravy train indefinitely and jet around the world to conferences in exotic places.

 

I don't think global warming can be reversed, just reduced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

 

[boomerangutang]

      Every time these sorts of warnings and stats come forth to start a thread on T.Visa, the same polarity (pun intended) takes place.  There are the deniers who spout bunches of questionable stats, and the believers who trust in the data and findings of nearly 100% of climate scientists.

 

           The average T.Visa member is middle aged farang male with a comfortable money situation.  They're a far cry from the average type of person who is going to be affected by rising seas and/or increased desertification.  With few exceptions, T.Visa members can maintain comfortable lifestyles regardless of whether Bangladesh or Florida or Shanghai or Bangkok are under year 'round standing water of a meter or more.   T.Visaites are also comfortably removed from the Sahara, Middle East, and other sand-choked regions, which are growing in area, year by year.

 

               That, coupled with human selfishness, are large reasons why most T.Visa members don't care to believe climate scientists' finding and predictions.  T.Visaites have more important issues to deal with, like whether there's enough cold beer in the fridge.

 

And gimmeabrake.....  deniers are still trotting out that tired old horse about, "there have been heatwaves and glacial periods in Earth's history, so what's the big deal?"      I've explained why it's a big deal, but I'm tired of trying educate those with vericose veins in their brains.  Go get another cold beer, and don't worry about the 1/5th of humanity who will be adversely affected by human-caused GW.

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, dhream said:

Computer models 'build' modern aircraft.

 

That would suggest they have a reasonable grasp of the 'science' of flight, and precision engineering.

 

No doubt you travel by balloon, you have an inexhaustible supply of hot air AND methane by the look of it.

A good point, but the variables involved in aerodynamics are well known and just a bit less than the entire climate of a planet. Coefficient of drag, and lift are a bit easier to calculate than something with dozens of variables(probably more) that are unknown or ill understood.

 

If a model for building an aircraft had as many poorly understood variables as all of the climate models, a balloon would be the prudent way to travel by air.

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, jrward42 said:

Yeah thanks for that. I guess you are right and that is why you keep hearing about all those billionaire Climate Scientists making money pulling the wool over peoples' eyes. Devious swine that they are. Or are they just after the fame and glory?

 

If you were a climate scientist though, who knows what side of the debate you would fall on? They are split down the middle 97% to 3% after all. I guess they need to read more from the highly respected 'wattsupwiththat' website.

 

Let's just beg to differ and hope you are right. Especially if you have kids or grandkids. 

 

(Altering what someone else writes and ending with a self-satisfied emoji doesn't actually make you right though.)

The 97% to 3% claim is just that only a claim. There is absolutely nothing to back it up.

 

[onthesoi]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

The 97% to 3% claim is just that only a claim. There is absolutely nothing to back it up.

 

 

Once again Ahab, your completely wrong.

 

If only you had bothered to follow the provided link to the NASA website and read the first paragraph:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Lets think about those words again slowly this time:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that....

 

That is not the same thing as "only a claim" and "There is absolutely nothing to back it up."

 

 

[onthesoi]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

A good point, but the variables involved in aerodynamics are well known and just a bit less than the entire climate of a planet. Coefficient of drag, and lift are a bit easier to calculate than something with dozens of variables(probably more) that are unknown or ill understood.

 

If a model for building an aircraft had as many poorly understood variables as all of the climate models.

 

Specifically which variables regarding climate are "poorly understood" ?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by onthesoi

[Ahab]

 

44 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

Specifically which variables regarding climate are "poorly understood" ?

 

 

 

 

Are you insinuating that every variable that could possibly affect the climate of something as large as an entire planet if fully known and understood by the scientific community?  They have a hard time determining the best way to measure and adjust the average temperature of the planet. I guess we could start there. How much effect water vapor has on the temperature would be another. Why CO2 continues to increase but the temperature is not increasing in relation to the increase.

 

Anyone, that thinks the climate models are spot on and accurately reflect what is going on in the world is foolish (in my opinion).

 

The other side of the coin is what are you going to do about it? At this point (based on the alarmists) we are already screwed so small half measures and anything less than a total ban on fossil fuels is going to have little to no effect (based on the alarmists).  Even if Europe and the USA did agree to the ban, would India and China also agree to a ban. I do not see that as happening in my lifetime, so as a realist, I will adjust my life to the changing temperature as humans and every other species have done since the beginning of time.  Those species that cannot adapt will go the way of every other species that has become extinct. Since humans have adapted to live in environments from the Arctic to the Kalahari Desert we will adapt again.

[fasteddie]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

 

Once again Ahab, your completely wrong.

 

If only you had bothered to follow the provided link to the NASA website and read the first paragraph:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Lets think about those words again slowly this time:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that....

 

That is not the same thing as "only a claim" and "There is absolutely nothing to back it up."

 

 

NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have been cooking the books for years......

 

http://yournewswire.com/climate-change-hoax-exposed-scientists-admit-no-warming-for-58-years/

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

 

Once again Ahab, your completely wrong.

 

If only you had bothered to follow the provided link to the NASA website and read the first paragraph:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Lets think about those words again slowly this time:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that....

 

That is not the same thing as "only a claim" and "There is absolutely nothing to back it up."

 

 

What do you think the chance of getting published in a peer reviewed scientific journal is if your view is contrary to the herd?

 

Probably right around 3%?

Edited November 30, 2016 by Ahab
To make a more defined point

[fasteddie]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

 

Once again Ahab, your completely wrong.

 

If only you had bothered to follow the provided link to the NASA website and read the first paragraph:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Lets think about those words again slowly this time:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that....

 

That is not the same thing as "only a claim" and "There is absolutely nothing to back it up."

 

 

And this is some more truth from someone who's pay cheque/ego hasn't corrupted him.

 

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax | Somewhat Reasonable

[fasteddie]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

 

Specifically which variables regarding climate are "poorly understood" ?

 

 

 

 

Just about all of them.

[tuktuktuk]

It's not unlike cancer research. Curing it or dispelling the notion of impending catastrophe won't put money in anyone's pockets. 

[tuktuktuk]

On 11/29/2016 at 11:07 AM, Xircal said:

I think we should look at what will happen to the planet if scientific predictions are correct and runaway global warming once set in motion cannot be reversed.

 

That can be done by looking at Mars and Venus. Both have an atmosphere composed of certain levels of CO2. In the case of Mars, there's too little of it resulting in a frozen planet devoid of life. Venus on the other hand has 300 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth does which has led to a runaway greenhouse effect. The surface temperature on Venus is hot enough to melt lead. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

It's unlikely that the Earth could become like Mars, but Venus is a different matter. The more CO2 that gets trapped in the upper atmosphere the warmer the planet will get. The oceans absorb CO2, but will be unable to retain it as the seas get warmer.

 

Warmer oceans in turn can also lead to more methane being released from the ocean floor: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10307/full

 

So the question is, is it worth the risk of ignoring the freely available scientific evidence from reputable sources without knowing what the effect is going to be?

Can we just ignore it for 22 more years?  Statistically I'll be dead around that time and it won't cost me any money. 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

What do you think the chance of getting published in a peer reviewed scientific journal is if your view is contrary to the herd?

 

Probably right around 3%?

So you're not the party who just wrote this?

"The 97% to 3% claim is just that only a claim. There is absolutely nothing to back it up. "

[maewang99]

my favorite was in April 2016..... Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics...  all it will take is 1 Hansen event headed for Poughkeepsie.... up the Hudson..... or a Larsen B at Larsen C.....

and all the knuckleheads who believe Co2 is plant food get to find out ****why***** Einstein couldn't get anywhere near finishing his life's work... that and.....

why intuition as well as bullshit doesn't get you anywhere in quantum physics.
 

Edited November 30, 2016 by maewang99

[Ahab]

48 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So you're not the party who just wrote this?

"The 97% to 3% claim is just that only a claim. There is absolutely nothing to back it up. "

Look I don't want to go back and forth on this too much but during the hey day of Al Gore the phrase was 97% of all scientists support AGW. Now that that is no longer the case (in my opinion) they narrow the definition to become "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

 

It is the same as the term "global warming", when the observed data showed not as much warming as predicted the term was changed to "climate change".  Because now the theory (I guess) is that as more CO2 enters the atmosphere the climate might get warmer, but it might get colder. So no matter what happens it is still because of the increasing man made CO2 entering the atmosphere. That is the basis of a crap theory, in my opinion.

 

When trying to explain why the temperatures are not rising as much as predicted the hair brained excuse that there is possible (with absolutely zero observed evidence) warming in the deep ocean basins. I have a news flash for everyone..... heat rises, even the ocean. If the surface is not getting noticeably warmer neither is the deep (and very cold) water of the ocean basins.

[Ahab]

CO2 is plant food. It is required for plants to grow. Greenhouses often increase CO2 inside so that the plants grow faster.

[Ahab]

A good lively (and mostly civil) topic.

[maewang99]

it's not a coincidence that humans ****and**** plants don't get along well without water...
 

no matter how much plant food they have!