The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[JimmyJ]

31 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

That was a cherry picked DATE, merely that sea ice extent was low on one particular date and, sea ice is not the topic of this editorial that we are talking about, but anyways Antarctic sea ice extent records were broke at least twice since 2013.

 

1. when taken as a whole, both Antarctica & Greenland are gaining ice and that trend is continuing.

2. Historic sea levels were considerably higher.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

2 of the 3 articles you cite are from notrickszone.com.

 

Here is the owner's statement:

 

" I received an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson. I live in Europe and help my wife, the owner of a small business that provides communication services for business and industry."

 

So he is not a scientist in any relevant field nor does he work in any.

It's safe to guess that he has never had a peer reviewed article in any scientific journal dealing in any way with the subjects being discussed in this thread.

 

Meanwhile, I did a search for "Antarctic and Greenland - ice" and find article after article about melting/decreasing size.

 

Here's an  article from a scientific site -

 

"Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles"

- March 22, 2017

 

"Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion."
 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

 

The 1.5 year old article you cite from the same nasa.gov site I link to also states " “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

 

However, from the newer article I cite it appears that melting ice from the poles is a factor.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by JimmyJ

[Ace of Pop]

Well it doesn't bother me.Let the next generation fix it.Entitled shower O <deleted> in the main.Just like the younger ones who post here with their Tree Huggin dreams.Rant Over.[emoji84][emoji83]


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[pkspeaker]

The editorial was not about Sea Ice!  Sea Ice does not effect sea levels, point made in the editorial, people on this thread are going all over the place off-topic like 'overpopulation'  but anyways the sea ice situation is inconsistent, the 'sea ice at record lows at both poles' may be true on a cherry picked date, but Antarctica has also broken sea ice extent records in the last few years:

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#sthash.DHZBYDgy.Afd7s9r7.dpbs

 

'NoTricksZone' is just a blog that links to peer reviewed scientific research, sure it has a bias toward stuff that refutes 'the establishment consensus regarding CO2' but on the other hand 'realclimate' does the opposite, they only link to the scientific research that they 'like'.. 

 

The greenland chart i keep posting comes from Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).

 

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

 

 

 

[JimmyJ]

I think one of the biggest takeaways from this thread is:

 

How foolish those scientists are!

 

Years and years of study and specialization in facts.

But it turns out that apparently everyone and anyone is a climate scientist - reading 1 or 2 articles from a junk science and/or right wing website, and their conclusion is as valid as the scientists reams of actual data.

 

Science denial as a populist movement I suppose follows the science denial of religious fundamentalists and has now become a vulgar exercise in alternate facts.

 

[pkspeaker]

I think the biggest take-away is that this thread is about an editorial that simply stated 2 facts:

 

1. Historic Sea levels were higher.

2. Antarctica & Greenland when taken as a whole, are gaining ice.

 

This was immediately called out as 'fake news' because with all the 'global warming' dogma in the news everyday, people just assume that those facts must be a lie.  It's not 'vulgar alternative fact'  IT IS the 'realms of actual data'.  There are enough newspapers like the bangkok post and new york times that only talk about actual data that support the AGW perspective, while omitting anything that casts doubt on it.

 

This editorial did not even attack the 'CO2 greenhouse gas warms the planet and is the dominant climate forcing', theory BTW!

'Years of study and specialization in facts'  means only talk about the facts that support your argument.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

 

 

[attrayant]

8 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

Sea Ice does not effect sea levels

 

The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level

 

Quote

...Ice floating on the ocean will introduce a volume of water about 2.6 per cent greater than that of the originally displaced sea water. The melting of floating ice in a global warming will cause the ocean to rise. If all the extant sea ice and floating shelf ice melted, the global sea level would rise about 4 cm.

 

It does have an impact.  When scientists say that sea ice doesn't matter, they're not saying it has zero impact, just that the impact isn't worth worrying about compared to what would happen if all the cap ice melted.

[rakman]

On 3/20/2017 at 11:35 PM, otherstuff1957 said:

"Romney was a port in the 700s. When the sea retreated and it could no longer be used for shipping, it died and was replaced by New Romney, which now lies 2 kilometres away from the sea."

 

Meanwhile, Dunwich, in Suffolk has vanished beneath the waves along with several other medieval English ports.  Does this mean that the sea level is rising in Suffolk and falling in Kent?  No, it just means that if you cherry-pick your facts instead of weighing the overall evidence you can 'prove' whatever point you want to prove.

 

Earth's climate is complex and dynamic and is affected by many factors, including the impact of human activities.  The next decade or two should show us definitively how the climate and sea level is changing.

 

BTW, shipping companies are already planning for ice-free arctic summers after 2020.

 

But, this article disputes the models:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/09/arctic-shipping-passage-still-decades-away

and if we're heading for a 30-50 year solar minimum, you might want to buy some blankets for the coming cooling.

Sunspot activity is rapidly falling, so far this year, 27 sunspotless days compared to 32 for all of last year.

http://spaceweather.com/

[janhkt]

2 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

The editorial was not about Sea Ice!  Sea Ice does not effect sea levels, point made in the editorial, people on this thread are going all over the place off-topic like 'overpopulation'  but anyways the sea ice situation is inconsistent, the 'sea ice at record lows at both poles' may be true on a cherry picked date, but Antarctica has also broken sea ice extent records in the last few years:

 

Sea ice does not affect sea levels? Others do not agree on that. It's VERY hard to trust an author who is a marketer, and has NO affilation with the scientific community. 

 

 

2 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#sthash.DHZBYDgy.Afd7s9r7.dpbs

 

'NoTricksZone' is just a blog that links to peer reviewed scientific research, sure it has a bias toward stuff that refutes 'the establishment consensus regarding CO2' but on the other hand 'realclimate' does the opposite, they only link to the scientific research that they 'like'.. 

It does not link to peer reviewed scientific research. It cherry picks peer reviewed scientific research by authors who are CLEARLY biased. The two authors I mentioned in a previous post are both affilated with the energy industry. I hope I don't have to tell you that the energy industry will do anything to avoid getting a bad rep about what their businesses are doing to the environment.

 

Let's also for minute ponder about the term "the establishment consensus". Who is the "establishment" really? Billion dollar companies, or scientists and grass roots? Who has the most resources, you think? Who has the most to lose?

 

The explaination of the balance between antarctica and arctic ice is broken down in these two short videos - increasing antartic ice is no indication that there is NOT a global warming going on:

 

 

 

 

[pkspeaker]

Oh sure and scientists on the receiving end of government funding ARE NOT biased, .. yea and I guess the 'oil companies' supporting 'deniers' when their not giving money to orgs that support AGW:

 

http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/09/long-list-of-warmist-organizations-scientists-haul-in-huge-money-from-big-oil-and-heavy-industry/#sthash.0CZXBzQ6.UHpdJMBu.dpbs

 

if you wanna have a debate on 'Is Climate Change a Hoax'  then start a new Topic on that;  this is about an editorial that claims ice is growing in antarctica & greenland- and that's a 'net increase' in antarctica the nasa source clearly says that (this guy in that video is rambling and refering to non-definitive research);

The sources I have posted to show this is true are from NASA and the DMI, not 'notrickszone'  The notrickszone link has dozens of papers about higher historic sea levels but that is also supported historic evidence and the photos from the book referenced in the op-ed were posted earlier.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by pkspeaker

[JimmyJ]

35 minutes ago, janhkt said:

 

Sea ice does not affect sea levels? Others do not agree on that. It's VERY hard to trust an author who is a marketer, and has NO affilation with the scientific community. 

 

 

It does not link to peer reviewed scientific research. It cherry picks peer reviewed scientific research by authors who are CLEARLY biased. The two authors I mentioned in a previous post are both affilated with the energy industry. I hope I don't have to tell you that the energy industry will do anything to avoid getting a bad rep about what their businesses are doing to the environment.

 

Let's also for minute ponder about the term "the establishment consensus". Who is the "establishment" really? Billion dollar companies, or scientists and grass roots? Who has the most resources, you think? Who has the most to lose?

 

The explaination of the balance between antarctica and arctic ice is broken down in these two short videos - increasing antartic ice is no indication that there is NOT a global warming going on:

 

 

 

 

 

"Let's also for minute ponder about the term "the establishment consensus". Who is the "establishment" really? Billion dollar companies, or scientists and grass roots? Who has the most resources, you think? Who has the most to lose?"

 

Exactly. This is really the Occam's Razor answer to the issue being discussed.

 

Let's look at the decades of denial of "Cigarettes cause lung cancer".

All the money is on the side of the pro-tobacco people.

There was no alternate product being sold by the anti people.

 

So - Follow the money.

 

There is money to be made on the tobacco side - including by scientists who can get research funded by the tobacco companies in search of denial/obfuscating theories.

 

Yet like climate change, the massive concensus of the scientific community was that tobacco causes cancer.

There was no money to be made by anyone by taking this side.

And the tobacco industry used its deep pockets to try to claw back at every point made by the scientific community, going so far as to ruin people's lives who stood against them in some cases, as the film "The Insider" shows (true story).

 

Likewise with climate change.

Billions  of dollars made from fossil fuel burning, deforestation, etc.. All the money is on this side.

 

Yet again, the entire scientific community has proven and stands by the fact that global warming/climate change is man made.

 

So - use Occam's razor - is 97% of the scientific community wrong? Being bought off? In a situation with nothing to gain and for which they will be denounced by these industries and the politicians they own?

 

The answer is obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by JimmyJ

[pkspeaker]

Oh great we're back to the 'lung cancer' bullshit again..

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

[janhkt]

46 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

Oh sure and scientists on the receiving end of government funding ARE NOT biased, .. yea and I guess the 'oil companies' supporting 'deniers' when their not giving money to orgs that support AGW:

 

http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/09/long-list-of-warmist-organizations-scientists-haul-in-huge-money-from-big-oil-and-heavy-industry/#sthash.0CZXBzQ6.UHpdJMBu.dpbs

 

if you wanna have a debate on 'Is Climate Change a Hoax'  then start a new Topic on that;  this is about an editorial that claims ice is growing in antarctica & greenland- and that's a 'net increase' in antarctica the nasa source clearly says that (this guy in that video is rambling and refering to non-definitive research);

The sources I have posted to show this is true are from NASA and the DMI, not 'notrickszone'  The notrickszone link has dozens of papers about higher historic sea levels but that is also supported historic evidence and the photos from the book referenced in the op-ed were posted earlier.

 

 

Goodwill is good for business. You know that. Consider the combined revenue of businesses contributing to pollution. Car industry. Chemical industry. Oil industry. The list goes on. Billions and billions, compared to millions in donations. It doesn't even compare.  

 

See JimmyJ's answer above. 

 

You're living in an information bubble. I suggest you look outside a bit.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-psychology_us_56438664e4b045bf3ded5ca5

Edited March 26, 2017 by janhkt

[canuckamuck]

47 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

 

"Let's also for minute ponder about the term "the establishment consensus". Who is the "establishment" really? Billion dollar companies, or scientists and grass roots? Who has the most resources, you think? Who has the most to lose?"

 

Exactly. This is really the Occam's Razor answer to the issue being discussed.

 

Let's look at the decades of denial of "Cigarettes cause lung cancer".

All the money is on the side of the pro-tobacco people.

There was no alternate product being sold by the anti people.

 

So - Follow the money.

 

There is money to be made on the tobacco side - including by scientists who can get research funded by the tobacco companies in search of denial/obfuscating theories.

 

Yet like climate change, the massive concensus of the scientific community was that tobacco causes cancer.

There was no money to be made by anyone by taking this side.

And the tobacco industry used its deep pockets to try to claw back at every point made by the scientific community, going so far as to ruin people's lives who stood against them in some cases, as the film "The Insider" shows (true story).

 

Likewise with climate change.

Billions  of dollars made from fossil fuel burning, deforestation, etc.. All the money is on this side.

 

Yet again, the entire scientific community has proven and stands by the fact that global warming/climate change is man made.

 

So - use Occam's razor - is 97% of the scientific community wrong? Being bought off? In a situation with nothing to gain and for which they will be denounced by these industries and the politicians they own?

 

The answer is obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You Occam's razor is pretty dull. The climate industry rakes in about a billion dollars a day in government and corporate handouts.  And that is money directly paid for producing alarmist talk points and data spin.

[janhkt]

23 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You Occam's razor is pretty dull. The climate industry rakes in about a billion dollars a day in government and corporate handouts.  And that is money directly paid for producing alarmist talk points and data spin.

The "climate industry" covers (misleading term IMO), as far as I am concerned, organisations AND businesses dealing with renewable energy, hybrid vehicles, sustainable housing and so on. I have a hard time believing that those amounts of money (source?) goes directly to spin (source?).

 

Cutting to the chase: Are you seriously suggesting that pumping out billions of tons of shit every year does not affect our planet, and that investing in alternative/cleaner energy is a waste of time? 

Edited March 26, 2017 by janhkt

[canuckamuck]

34 minutes ago, janhkt said:

The "climate industry" covers (misleading term IMO), as far as I am concerned, organisations AND businesses dealing with renewable energy, hybrid vehicles, sustainable housing and so on. I have a hard time believing that those amounts of money (source?) goes directly to spin (source?).

 

Cutting to the chase: Are you seriously suggesting that pumping out billions of tons of shit every year does not affect our planet, and that investing in alternative/cleaner energy is a waste of time? 

I suggested nothing like that at all. It must very tiring jumping to conclusions so far away.

[janhkt]

11 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I suggested nothing like that at all. It must very tiring jumping to conclusions so far away.

But you are talking about alarmists and data spin. Surely your stance must be that there is no problem, then? 

[the guest]

Humanity has only been on this planet for a short period, and will of course become extinct at this rate even shorter than our existence. So why people are worried about climate change is beyond me.

[Felt 35]

Why the climate sceptics are in the wrong

Tired of people who say that the climate crisis is not real? Here you have ten of the climate scientists ' evidence that the Earth is getting warmer by man-made CO2 emissions:

 Assertion: there is increased solar activity that has gotten the temperature to rise:

No. The Sun has had high but steady activity in 30 years, while the temperature on Earth has increased sharply over the same period the fluctuations that have been measured with satellites. and according to calculations from the Max Planck Institute have not increased activity as much as the temperature changes on Earth.

It may even be that the Sun has had a weak cooling effect over the last 35 years.

 Claim: the climate has changed before, and fluctuations that what we see now is normal. Svalbard has for example been tropical.

No climate change at a pace that we see now has never happened before. This we know from the drill cores taken from ice that is up to 800 000 years old. The tests gives us very accurate overview of historical temperature variations and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere actually through many thousands of years, because we can analyze what air bubbles in the ice. The pattern is clear: When the CO2 level increases, so does the temperature.

It's true that for example Svalbard was tropical for fifty million years ago, the island has been much further south because of record offsets but it also means that the environment has had millions of years to adjust. Today display satellite images from multiple sources that the Pole-ice disappears and lakes dry up so quickly that nature does not have time to adapt to the changes.

 Claim: it has been more ice in the Antarctic. It means that it has been colder, not warmer.

No, the claim is incorrect. Here it must be distinguished between land ice and sea ice. Warmer air makes land ice in Antarctica melting more than normal.  The water ends up in the sea, and the sea is less salt. When the winter comes the water freezes more easily, and sea ice is increasing in scope. It is also worth noting that there are big differences between what's going on the East (more sea ice) and going on the West (less sea ice) in Antarctica.

The area is twice the size of Australia. According to NASA which follows the changes in Antarctica very carefully through satellite imagery, it melts gradually-in total.

 Assertion: there is no evidence that the Earth actually has been warmer because of the CO2 emissions.

We know that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is at the highest level of the four million years.

Besides, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it gives increased temperature on Earth. The last was discovered already in the 1820 's  by the French physicist and mathematician Joseph Fourier.

In addition, we have references from thousand year old ice samples that give us accurate, historical figures where both the co2 levels and temperature coincides. In other words: we know that there have been a lot of CO2 during periods of hot weather and vice versa. Typically, it has been so that when the temperature increases it emits more CO2 to the oceans, which in turn results in higher temperature.

 Claim: the more CO2 we have the better it is for all that grows and grows.

It is right that we need CO2 for plants to grow. But the plants on Earth have no capacity to take up the large amounts of carbon dioxide that we emit. In other words: we have now released a lot more CO2 than nature can manage to take up in their own circulation, as a result of burning oil, coal and gas. The extra CO2 is so huge that the human emissions need to be reduced by as much as 80-90 percent to reach nature's balance point.

 Claim: Warmer climate is a benefit:

That's not true. Northern Europe probably get more summer, more rain and milder winters. But in the second and larger parts of the world, we've seen heat records up to 50 degrees, including in India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The rainy season is also shifted in large parts of the African and Asian continent. The result is the drought that has taken the lives of both people and grazing animals.

These consequences are in line with what climate scientists foreseeing already 20 years ago.

Temperature changes make among other things that we need to account for a new refugee flow, when drought and heat will lead to food shortages in many parts of the world. A basic problem is that we have populated the world as if it is constant and not changing. Quick changes provide very unfortunate and unsociable result: it is often the poorest that are living in unstable and vulnerable areas as river deltas, flood-prone and arid areas, which will be affected first.

In addition the sea will be affected to be more acidic and warmer. When the sea gets warmer, it expands and takes more space. Therefore, we see the rising sea level. More acidic ocean causes the species that use the lime to form the shell to get big problems-with ripple effects for the animals which feed on these. Another example is that coral reefs fade and die-something the researchers believe is happening already on the barrier reef off Australia.

 Claim: "many scholars" say that the climate crisis is a hoax.

Yes. But 97 percent of the world's climate scientists agree that we face man-made temperature rise. There are also differences between researchers who use statistical analyses of the temperature of the Earth and those who use climate models.

Climate scientists in the IPPC and the United Nations, however, use climate models. A climate model is based on statistical methods and mathematical equations that describe both the physical and chemical laws on Earth. They are thus much more comprehensive than pure statistical analysis.

 Claim: temperature increase in the atmosphere has stagnated in recent years:

Correctly the satellite measured temperature up in the atmosphere have not risen much since 1998. But the atmospheric temperature does not affect the climate in the same degree as the temperatures measured on the Earth's surface.

The temperature down on Earth has, however, increased steadily: this is confirmed by measurements from the NASA, the American Meteorological Institute and the British Meteorological Institute. Since 1998, we have provided several heat records, first in 2005, so in 2010, 2014 and finally in 2015 and measurements show no signs of that warming slows.

Claim: scientists who claim that climate change is real, is cheating.

The claim made huge media coverage but several investigation commissions have however concluded that the IPCC does not cheated. But two errors are revealed: it is known that the IPCC wrote that 80 percent of the glaciers in the Himalayas will melt by 2035-the so called Climate-gate. The estimate is completely wrong, and the IPCC has pulled it back and regretted it. The second mistake that the IPCC has acknowledged is the info about that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level. The correct is 24 percent. To the IPCC's defense it can be said that they had received the incorrect figures from the Dutch environmental authorities.

 Claim: If we stop ALL CO2 emissions tomorrow we will avoid climate change.

No. The climate will stabilize, but not at the current level. Measurements show that we will have increased CO2 levels in several hundred years, even if we stop all CO2 emissions. This makes it important to find technologies that can provide for the capture and storage of CO2-also after we have managed to curb emissions to a sustainable level. Without such solutions will climate change escalate, something that will cost society far more than capture and storage, such as increased sea level, safeguarding of climate refugees, loss of biodiversity, and more storms.

 

Academic sources in this article have been: Cicero, Skeptical Science, NASA, the United Nations climate panel, and the Scandinavian climate Foundation.

 

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, janhkt said:

But you are talking about alarmists and data spin. Surely your stance must be that there is no problem, then? 

There is no end to problems friend. Pollution is a terrible thing. But CO2 is essential to life and earth has not yet risen to its optimal temperature yet, so the alarmism is quite chicken little.  

[janhkt]

14 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

There is no end to problems friend. Pollution is a terrible thing. But CO2 is essential to life and earth has not yet risen to its optimal temperature yet, so the alarmism is quite chicken little.  

CO2 is just a part of the problem. Surely CO2 is essential to life, but it's about disturbing a delicate balance. Not sure what the earth's optimal temperature would be, since we would be talking about an average. 

 

You're writing: "The climate industry rakes in about a billion dollars a day in government and corporate handouts.  And that is money directly paid for producing alarmist talk points and data spin."

 

First off, I'm very curious of the source of that claim.

 

Secondly: According to one of the few definitions of the strange and very wide term "climate industry",  auto makers seem to be covered, as companies dealing with alternative energy, sustained housing projects etc.. Would you not agree that most of these do not fit the bill for "producing alarmist talk points and data spin"? And possibly that the term "climate industry" is way too broad to be meaningful, and only exists to produce a very big number? 

 

[canuckamuck]

OK look at this link which only includes American spending on the fight against climate change. And then imagine all the other countries doing their bit.

As far as my usage of the term climate industry goes, I think most people would imagine that includes all of the people whose paychecks are directly related to climate science, climate spin, climate networking, or climate profiteering (carbon credits and the like).

 

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by canuckamuck

[RickBradford]

Quote

First off, I'm very curious of the source of that claim.

 

If you were to avail yourself of the excellent search features of a program called "Google", you will quickly find numerous sources which back up that claim.

 

One of the most-quoted comes from the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), a non-profit organisation advising on strategies for mitigating the effects of climate change.

 

In 2013, they wrote: "Global investment in climate change plateaued at USD $359 billion in 2012, roughly the same as the previous year, according to a new Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) study."

 

You might think that's an awful lot of money to p**s away on such a poorly defined problem, but CPI wants more. A lot more.

 

"Once again the figure falls far short of what’s needed. The International Energy Agency projects that an additional investment of USD 5 trillion is required by 2020 for clean energy alone, to limit warming to two degrees Celsius."

 

A mere $5 trillion, then. Over a 7-year period, that's $700 billion a year or $2 billion a day thrown away, which could be used for clean water in the Third World, combatting malaria, providing proper nutrition, vaccination, other basic health care services and education to the billions of people in dire need.

 

And they call us "evil deniers" ......

 

EDIT: Link added - https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/press-release/climate-change-investment-totals-usd-359-billion-worldwide/

Edited March 26, 2017 by RickBradford

[janhkt]

53 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

OK look at this link which only includes American spending on the fight against climate change. And then imagine all the other countries doing their bit.

As far as my usage of the term climate industry goes, I think most people would imagine that includes all of the people whose paychecks are directly related to climate science, climate spin, climate networking, or climate profiteering (carbon credits and the like).

 

 

Thank you. Looking at those numbers, I have a hard time making that "about a billion dollars a day", though. Carbon trading is and should not be a part of that equation, for example. The majority of that amount goes to technological research  and advancements, as far as I can read.

 

[janhkt]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

 

If you were to avail yourself of the excellent search features of a program called "Google", you will quickly find numerous sources which back up that claim.

 

One of the most-quoted comes from the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), a non-profit organisation advising on strategies for mitigating the effects of climate change.

 

In 2013, they wrote: "Global investment in climate change plateaued at USD $359 billion in 2012, roughly the same as the previous year, according to a new Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) study."

 

You might think that's an awful lot of money to p**s away on such a poorly defined problem, but CPI wants more. A lot more.

 

"Once again the figure falls far short of what’s needed. The International Energy Agency projects that an additional investment of USD 5 trillion is required by 2020 for clean energy alone, to limit warming to two degrees Celsius."

 

A mere $5 trillion, then. Over a 7-year period, that's $700 billion a year or $2 billion a day thrown away, which could be used for clean water in the Third World, combatting malaria, providing proper nutrition, vaccination, other basic health care services and education to the billions of people in dire need.

 

And they call us "evil deniers" ......

 

EDIT: Link added - https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/press-release/climate-change-investment-totals-usd-359-billion-worldwide/

Thanks for that.

 

It is an amazing sh*tload of money, admitted, and it sounds bat crazy. On the other hand, we have been f*cking with the environment for more than a century. It's a bit naive thinking that it can be undone for a few pennies. Just looking at things on a microscale here in Bangkok - for example trucks removing their particle filters for a few extra HP, leaving a thick trail of smoke behind. Nobody cares. Extrapolate that to chinese industry, who cares even less. We put ourselves in this situation.

 

Things can be put in perspective, though. 

 

US military spending is 500-600 billion per year.

The 2008 US gov. bailout was "$16.8 trillion dollars with the $4.6 trillion already paid out." (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/#1a4c0ce2d83f)

 

Oh, and from the article as well: ."...While public support for climate activities was significant, it was still dwarfed by current government support to fossil fuel energy consumption and production, estimated at $523 billion each year for developing and emerging economies alone, according to a recent report from the OECD." 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by janhkt

[jcsmith]

It's tough to deny climate change is happening unless you are looking for a reason and reading web sites sponsored by the energy industry. Keep in mind that prior to Pruitt taking control of the EPA Exxon was being sued for their role in trying to cover it up, very similar to what happened with the tobacco industry. With regards to the 97% consensus, that hasn't just been reached in one study, it's been reached in at least 5 separate studies. And a higher (90%+) has been reached in numerous more.

 

The money that goes into creating doubt is from the energy industries that directly benefit from it. The reality is that clean energy is viable. It's viable to invest in it now. And this will create jobs. But you can expect those profiting from oil and coal to fight this for as long as they can. And they have the perfect people in the white house to ensure they milk some profits (at the expense of the environment) over the next few years.

Edited March 26, 2017 by jcsmith

[Dumbastheycome]

6 hours ago, the guest said:

Humanity has only been on this planet for a short period, and will of course become extinct at this rate even shorter than our existence. So why people are worried about climate change is beyond me.

Do you mean we arrived  recently  and  when we  have  finished  raping this planet we  will move  on ?

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

6 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Do you mean we arrived  recently  and  when we  have  finished  raping this planet we  will move  on ?

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by George FmplesdaCosteedback
not a reply

[pkspeaker]

On 3/26/2017 at 3:43 PM, Felt 35 said:

I will address some of these points.

 

Why the climate sceptics are in the wrong

Tired of people who say that the climate crisis is not real? Here you have ten of the climate scientists ' evidence that the Earth is getting warmer by man-made CO2 emissions:

 Assertion: there is increased solar activity that has gotten the temperature to rise:

No. The Sun has had high but steady activity in 30 years, while the temperature on Earth has increased sharply over the same period the fluctuations that have been measured with satellites. and according to calculations from the Max Planck Institute have not increased activity as much as the temperature changes on Earth.It may even be that the Sun has had a weak cooling effect over the last 35 years.

 

This is disputed, especially the notion that 'temperature on earth has increased sharply in the last 30 years'

http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/17/18-new-papers-link-high-solar-activity-to-medieval-and-modern-warmth-low-solar-activity-to-little-ice-age-cooling/#sthash.pLiP4uxs.8jhmPlTT.dpbs

 

actually solar activity lines up with the global warming of the 1840-2000 period.

 

 

Claim: the climate has changed before, and fluctuations that what we see now is normal. Svalbard has for example been tropical.

No climate change at a pace that we see now has never happened before. This we know from the drill cores taken from ice that is up to 800 000 years old. The tests gives us very accurate overview of historical temperature variations and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere actually through many thousands of years, because we can analyze what air bubbles in the ice. The pattern is clear: When the CO2 level increases, so does the temperature.

It's true that for example Svalbard was tropical for fifty million years ago, the island has been much further south because of record offsets but it also means that the environment has had millions of years to adjust. Today display satellite images from multiple sources that the Pole-ice disappears and lakes dry up so quickly that nature does not have time to adapt to the changes.

 

This is disputed, the notion that the 1840-2000 warming was so incredibly fast:

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/22/the-hockey-stick-collapses-50-new-2016-scientific-papers-affirm-todays-warming-isnt-global-unprecedented-or-remarkable/#sthash.DSRUPpkX.f1gPcQTe.dpbs

 

 Claim: it has been more ice in the Antarctic. It means that it has been colder, not warmer.

No, the claim is incorrect. Here it must be distinguished between land ice and sea ice. Warmer air makes land ice in Antarctica melting more than normal.  The water ends up in the sea, and the sea is less salt. When the winter comes the water freezes more easily, and sea ice is increasing in scope. It is also worth noting that there are big differences between what's going on the East (more sea ice) and going on the West (less sea ice) in Antarctica.

The area is twice the size of Australia. According to NASA which follows the changes in Antarctica very carefully through satellite imagery, it melts gradually-in total.

 

This is non-definitive, this theory in which ice 'rolls off antarctica into the sea and so there is more sea ice and that's why antarctic sea ice set new records recently'.  There is a net gain of ice in antarctica since the early 1990's Also British Antarctic Survey recorded a cooling trend from 2000-.

 

 Assertion: there is no evidence that the Earth actually has been warmer because of the CO2 emissions.

We know that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is at the highest level of the four million years.

Besides, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it gives increased temperature on Earth. The last was discovered already in the 1820 's  by the French physicist and mathematician Joseph Fourier.

In addition, we have references from thousand year old ice samples that give us accurate, historical figures where both the co2 levels and temperature coincides. In other words: we know that there have been a lot of CO2 during periods of hot weather and vice versa. Typically, it has been so that when the temperature increases it emits more CO2 to the oceans, which in turn results in higher temperature.

 

This is disputed, there is a video on youtube 'The church of global warming': actually dozens of high quality CO2 measurements done in the 1800's and early 1900's using chemical analyses showed CO2 levels at an average of over 320.  Some of the people who took these measurements were Nobel Laureates.  There is a list of these measurements in the video.  The 280ppm figure comes from low quality ice core samples, in addition there are other low quality samples such as fossilized leaves also show CO2 at levels over 310 that is in Tim Balls book. 

Also according to NASA research CO2 can also have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. [ http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html ]

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

 

On 3/26/2017 at 3:43 PM, Felt 35 said:

 

 

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

 

 

Your first reference provides evidence that there were 35 places around the world that once were higher, not that global sea levels are falling.  The number of underwater cities from the Mediterranean to Samoa indicate otherwise:  http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015/01/10-lost-underwater-cities-ancient-world-sunken-civilisations/4/  

 

Increased snow over Antarctica described in your second reference is evidence of warmer weather, which allows for more precipitation.  If the weather keeps getting warmer it will eventually lead to the amount of ice melting exceeding the amount accumulating.  Also, from you source:

 

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

 

Your Greenland reference is hardly reassuring.  Basically it says that since Greenland has more ice now than it did thousands of years ago, we shouldn't worry about increased melting over the last hundred years.   I'd like to get a qualified second opinion on that.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/25/2017 at 4:27 PM, Shawn0000 said:

 

People can be encouraged to invest in growing trees as there is a return from the management, what return is there from algae?  In Brazil, which was one of the fasted rates of derforestation, they have been reforesting at a rate of 25,000 square miles per year while also deforesting at a rate of 2000 square miles per year, down from 10,000 per year just a decade ago, and this is happening despite their population continuing to grow.  Globally deforestation has decreased by 20% in the past decade, largely due to the efforts of the WWF and their program aimed to reduce deforestation by 5% every year.  Of 50 countries they studied, 22 have seen more reforestation that deforestation, while 27 have seen a rate of deforestation exceeding the replanting.  The key being education into the economics of sustainable forest management, with many farmers seeing a ten fold increase in income when switching to growing trees.  With your acceptance of deforestation as a natural conclusion to population expansion, choosing to farm algae in the sea instead, we would quickly find ourselves living on a barren rock, trees do not only provide gas exchange they also hold the entire ecosystem together, right down to the soil that we stand on, they are fundamental to our survival and people and treees can actually share the same space, trees being taller than us.

The algae is harvested to make fuel for IC engines. As it binds atmospheric CO2 it does not contribute to rising CO2 levels when used as a fuel.

With your acceptance of deforestation as a natural conclusion to population expansion,

Not just deforestation; other species are being eliminated, the seas are being overfished, the plastic waste in the ocean is dooming aquatic species, wild animals are being killed off for food in Africa, large areas of Africa are becoming desert, the whales are under threat, etc etc. Mankind needs to learn how to live without destroying every other species that is unfortunate enough to be in it's way.