Impact of Climate Change Is Hitting Home, U.S. Report Finds

[tomarin]

The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years.

So that’s no warming in an absolute sense, not a warming trend that is diminishing?

 

[edwest2]

Climate confusion is just another way to make a buck. Back in 1968, a man named Paul Ehrlich wrote a book titled The Population Bomb. We were going to starve to death and run out of everything in a very short time period. He was WRONG.

George Will, who I mostly disagree with, had this to say about running out of oil.

springfieldnewssun.com/news/lifestyles/philosophy/george-will-claims-that-well-run-out-of-oil-just-1/nM6ph/

And thin film solar cells that can go on roofs, vehicles and buildings are increasing in efficiency.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118064733.htm

As far as wind, all that’s needed is an efficient storage system so that the generated output can be more continuous, as opposed to relying on changing weather and hoping that there will be more, as opposed to less windy days.

As far as food, farmers in the US are paid a lot of money to grow nothing.

blog.heritage.org/2012/07/09/usda-gives-millions-to-farmers-who-arent-actually-farming/

Peace,
Ed

 

[kimmielittle]

So that’s no warming in an absolute sense,

Yes!

not a warming trend that is diminishing?

Yes!

We don’t have enough data to support diminishing, yet.

But remember what the hypothesis of CO2-AGW claims. Temperatures have to rise as CO2 rises.

 

[kimmielittle]

Climate confusion is just another way to make a buck. Back in 1968, a man named Paul Ehrlich wrote a book titled The Population Bomb. We were going to starve to death and run out of everything in a very short time period. He was WRONG.

George Will, who I mostly disagree with, had this to say about running out of oil.

springfieldnewssun.com/news/lifestyles/philosophy/george-will-claims-that-well-run-out-of-oil-just-1/nM6ph/

And thin film solar cells that can go on roofs, vehicles and buildings are increasing in efficiency.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118064733.htm

As far as wind, all that’s needed is an efficient storage system so that the generated output can be more continuous, as opposed to relying on changing weather and hoping that there will be more, as opposed to less windy days.

As far as food, farmers in the US are paid a lot of money to grow nothing.

blog.heritage.org/2012/07/09/usda-gives-millions-to-farmers-who-arent-actually-farming/

Peace,
Ed

ALL valid points!

 

[lynnvinc]

i wonder if this is what is really at the root of the global-warming hysterics.
dwindling fossil fuels, petrocarbons and ultimately loss of business and for consumers, loss of consumables as everything becomes too expensive.

but so what, let the fossil fuels and petrochemicals run out, so what.
none of it was necessary for life in the medieval warm period. these resources are going to run out anyway and by dragging out the inevitable you will just guarantee a period of prolonged suffering as most products become expensive but the marketing will increase to convince us we need to buy them.
we should return to a simpler way of life, wood fires, no long commutes, living and working in hamlets of clochans…

the sooner we use up our fossil fuels and resources the better, then there will be no economic discrimination, no huge heavy industries polluting the air and water. all people will be equal and relatively happy. ploughing their fields, growing their own food, travelling by horse, sailing instead of flying.

ah… welcome the day…!

According to some scientists there is really not enough conventional oil/gasoline to worry much about – we’ve already reached peak and are on the decline, as evidence by the fact we have to drill 1000s of feet more and try and squeeze oil out of bitumen tar sands.

However there is enough coal and these unconventional sources of oil to pretty much tip the climate system into climate hysteresis, in which we along with the positive-feedbacks of the earth systems kill off a huge portion of life on earth, or even annihilate all life on earth.

Then the temps would go way higher than the Medieval Warm Period – which most scientists say was pretty much limited to the N. Atlantic and W. European area, and was not a global warming episode. However, even if it were global, we are poised now to heat up the earth a lot more than the MWP, and that will be devastating to most life on earth, include to humans.

It all depends on whether or not a person values life over clinging to fakescience and faulty logic ideas rejected by mainstream science.

If I am wrong (and I sorely hope I am), I have not lost anything, but gained/saved a lot of $$ in mitigating a false problems and perhaps drawn down extreme ridicule from denialists upon myself. If the denialists are wrong, it means death to life on earth.

I can take the ridicule (luckily my mom taught me to be a nonconformist). I cannot take being a contributor to death to life on earth. We all have to make our own decisions. I know some people have an extremely low tolerance to ridicule, so I can understand that they’d seek to avoid that, even if it meant them contributing to annihilation of most perhaps all of life on earth…mainly in the future after they have passed on. I guess some people would even risk an eternity in hell to escape ridicule in this life.

 

[lynnvinc]

Would someone who “loves” someone make unsupported claims / accusations against them?

Of course, if they are wrong. I tell my husband when he is wrong, and he tells me when I am wrong. Truly loving others means to be truthful with them. We only tell pleasant white lies to people we don’t really care about.

I know that you have some article from an obscure Hungarian journal that supposedly disproves the greenhouse effect, but I’ve run that by top climate scientists and they say it is bunk. I guess it boils down to me believing them (some of whom I know personally) more than me believing you. Which does not mean I don’t love you. If I didn’t love all of you on CAF and our Holy Catholic Church, I would not be wasting my time here (my climate scientists friends have asked me why I’m wasting my time here).

 

[LisaA]

According to some scientists there is really not enough conventional oil/gasoline to worry much about – we’ve already reached peak and are on the decline, as evidence by the fact we have to drill 1000s of feet more and try and squeeze oil out of bitumen tar sands.

.

The problem with the GW hysteria is that I recall similar hysteria called “The Coming Ice Age” which a Time cover that looked much like recent dire warnings on “Global Warming.” Apparently my friends in the Midwest are shoveling yards of “Global Warming” off their sidewalks this morning.

Like most crepe hangers, the predictions of running out of oil are like the death of Mark Twain “greatly exaggerated.” A friend sent this column which speaks to the peak oil issue. I particularly like the final sentence:

“We can recall a time when we were in undergraduate school and the nihilist, global-cooling, left-of-center environmentalist “Malthusians” were telling us that the world would be out of crude oil by 1984. This was of course sheer lunacy, but many fell for the thesis… the same people who argue for peak-oil production. We find Peak Oil comical for if we’ve learned anything in the past forty years it is that more and more and yet more crude oil and nat-gas are discovered every day using new technologies at each step.

“To this end, we note that ExxonMobil reported that after having used a considerable sum of crude and other “liquids” last year it added another 1.8 billion barrels of “proven” reserves to its balance sheet. Simply put, XOM found 115% of the crude and other liquids that it used last year. This is impressive and it is all the more so in that this is the 19th consecutive year in which XOM found more “energy” than it used. More than half of those new proven reserves were found in the Woodford and Bakken shale regions* of North Dakota. Thus, to the eco-radicals and to the Peak Oil enthusiasts we say: Sit down and shut up; you’ve been wrong long enough.”**
~Dennis Gartman writing in today’s “The Gartman Letter*”

 

[kimmielittle]

Of course, if they are wrong. I tell my husband when he is wrong, and he tells me when I am wrong. Truly loving others means to be truthful with them. We only tell pleasant white lies to people we don’t really care about.

I know that you have some article from an obscure Hungarian journal that supposedly disproves the greenhouse effect, but I’ve run that by top climate scientists and they say it is bunk. I guess it boils down to me believing them (some of whom I know personally) more than me believing you. Which does not mean I don’t love you. If I didn’t love all of you on CAF and our Holy Catholic Church, I would not be wasting my time here (my climate scientists friends have asked me why I’m wasting my time here).

Once again, your selective reading comprehension fails you.

Originally Posted by kimmielittle
Would someone who “loves” someone make unsupported claims / accusations against them?

 

[kimmielittle]

The problem with the GW hysteria is that I recall similar hysteria called “The Coming Ice Age” which a Time cover that looked much like recent dire warnings on “Global Warming.” Apparently my friends in the Midwest are shoveling yards of “Global Warming” off their sidewalks this morning.

Like most crepe hangers, the predictions of running out of oil are like the death of Mark Twain “greatly exaggerated.” A friend sent this column which speaks to the peak oil issue. I particularly like the final sentence:

“We can recall a time when we were in undergraduate school and the nihilist, global-cooling, left-of-center environmentalist “Malthusians” were telling us that the world would be out of crude oil by 1984. This was of course sheer lunacy, but many fell for the thesis… the same people who argue for peak-oil production. We find Peak Oil comical for if we’ve learned anything in the past forty years it is that more and more and yet more crude oil and nat-gas are discovered every day using new technologies at each step.

“To this end, we note that ExxonMobil reported that after having used a considerable sum of crude and other “liquids” last year it added another 1.8 billion barrels of “proven” reserves to its balance sheet. Simply put, XOM found 115% of the crude and other liquids that it used last year. This is impressive and it is all the more so in that this is the 19th consecutive year in which XOM found more “energy” than it used. More than half of those new proven reserves were found in the Woodford and Bakken shale regions* of North Dakota. Thus, to the eco-radicals and to the Peak Oil enthusiasts we say: Sit down and shut up; you’ve been wrong long enough.”***
~Dennis Gartman writing in today’s “The Gartman Letter”

Peak oil was another “Green” fable.

 

[kimmielittle]

I know that you have some article from an obscure Hungarian journal that supposedly disproves the greenhouse effect,

Where have I ever said the green house effect is disproved?
Support your claim,please.

I have pointed out that… a green house model - is much different than our real environment.

So AGAIN I must ask.
Originally Posted by kimmielittle
Would someone who “loves” someone make unsupported claims / accusations against them?

 

[edwest2]

According to some scientists there is really not enough conventional oil/gasoline to worry much about – we’ve already reached peak and are on the decline, as evidence by the fact we have to drill 1000s of feet more and try and squeeze oil out of bitumen tar sands.

However there is enough coal and these unconventional sources of oil to pretty much tip the climate system into climate hysteresis, in which we along with the positive-feedbacks of the earth systems kill off a huge portion of life on earth, or even annihilate all life on earth.

Then the temps would go way higher than the Medieval Warm Period – which most scientists say was pretty much limited to the N. Atlantic and W. European area, and was not a global warming episode. However, even if it were global, we are poised now to heat up the earth a lot more than the MWP, and that will be devastating to most life on earth, include to humans.

It all depends on whether or not a person values life over clinging to fakescience and faulty logic ideas rejected by mainstream science.

If I am wrong (and I sorely hope I am), I have not lost anything, but gained/saved a lot of $$ in mitigating a false problems and perhaps drawn down extreme ridicule from denialists upon myself. If the denialists are wrong, it means death to life on earth.

I can take the ridicule (luckily my mom taught me to be a nonconformist). I cannot take being a contributor to death to life on earth. We all have to make our own decisions. I know some people have an extremely low tolerance to ridicule, so I can understand that they’d seek to avoid that, even if it meant them contributing to annihilation of most perhaps all of life on earth…mainly in the future after they have passed on. I guess some people would even risk an eternity in hell to escape ridicule in this life.

Well, here are the sure signs the earth is really warming.

1. The rich start selling their beachfront property around the world.
2. They start buying land in Arizona.
3. They start building huge estates further north.

The last thing the rich are going to do is become victims. If none of that is happening, it’s a safe bet “the problem” is not as big or important as advertised.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kimmielittle]

I can take the ridicule (luckily my mom taught me to be a nonconformist).

Like most of the Alarmist.I’ve encountered - you seem to think asking for empirical evidence for Alarmist Apocalyptic Prophecies = ridicule.

IMO Alarmist seem to relish a martyr complex?

 

[edwest2]

Time magazine 1974

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts

Peace,
Ed

 

[LisaA]

Time magazine 1974

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts

Peace,
Ed

Yep the very one I mentioned in my post. Apparently you can find a copy of the cover and it’s almost the same as the Global Warming 'sky is falling" design.

I think a lot of us are getting immune to these dire tales of the crisis brewing. From the alar apple scare to mold to nuclear power plant meltdowns, we seem so ready to accept really bad news at face value but want proof beyond measure for anything positive.

Lisa

 

[kimmielittle]

SOURCE: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

[wittgenstein]

“The Vatican and, significantly, U.S. bishops clearly say they support the scientific consensus on climate change,”
FROM
yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/02/the-catholic-church-and-climate-change/
huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/12/pope-expresses-worry-abou_n_112300.html
“Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development **and particular attention to climate change **are matters of grave concern for the entire human family. “
Pope Benedict SVI, Letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on the Occasion of the Seventh Symposium of the Religion, Science and the Environment Movement, September 1, 2007

 

[wittgenstein]

True, there is always a tiny minority of scientists that disagree with orthodox science time machine). However 98% of climate scientists agree with AGW. Note that I said EVERY scientific organization of national and/or international reputation does not disagree with AGW. I did not say every scientist.
skepticalscience.com/How-many-climate-scientists-are-climate-skeptics.html

 

[wittgenstein]

Stupid big fat fingers! This is the last post as I wanted it.
True, there is always a tiny minority of scientists that disagree with orthodox science . However 98% of climate scientists agree with AGW. Note that I said EVERY scientific organization of national and/or international reputation does not disagree with AGW. I did not say every scientist.
That stuff about a time machine was that a tiny tiny minority of scientists actually believe a time machine is possible! Even Stephen Hawking! * However, that is absurd. Suppose I went back and killed my great grandfather years before I was born. That would mean that I do not exist, which means I could not have killed my great grandfather, which means that I do exist, which means I do not. Which means I do… ad infinitum.
In other words a tiny minority of scientists can diverge from respected science. That does not mean that their beliefs are more valid then the science taken as a whole.

• Stephen Hawking is a logical positivist.( see post 78 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10397339#post10397339 ) Great physicist but not very good at philosophy!

 

[LisaA]

“The Vatican and, significantly, U.S. bishops clearly say they support the scientific consensus on climate change,”
FROM
yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/02/the-catholic-church-and-climate-change/
huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/12/pope-expresses-worry-abou_n_112300.html
“Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development **and particular attention to climate change **are matters of grave concern for the entire human family. “
Pope Benedict SVI, Letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on the Occasion of the Seventh Symposium of the Religion, Science and the Environment Movement, September 1, 2007

Check the overly hysterical headline with the actual sentence. Does anyone DISAGREE with “protection of the environment?” Or “promotion of sustainable development?” Saying pay attention to climate change is not the same as don’t use fracking, place a carbon tax on all Americans who can’t buy their way out like Gore the Great and Terrible, or just freeze in the dark.

The Global Warming cadre shot their last round long ago and by calling it “climate change” suddenly were able to include record snowfall in Europe of all places, hurricanes and other storms in their dire warnings.

BTW just received a report from another group of scientists who now claim the ice on Antarctica is EXPANDING rapidly and will cover the earth within a thousand years.

On balance global warming sounds pretty good to me.
Lisa

 

[kimmielittle]

“The Vatican and, significantly, U.S. bishops clearly say they support the scientific consensus on climate change,”

Which Scientific consensus?

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming.

A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that** the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable.** It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A June 22, 2009 editorial published in the American Chemical Society journal, Chemical and Engineering News, stated that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change”. That article prompted dozens of letters from angry members who rebuked it as “disgusting”, a “disgrace”, “filled with misinformation”, and “unworthy of a scientific periodical”. Many called for the replacement of its Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum, who admitted to being “startled” and “surprised” by the negative reaction. As Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut wrote: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul.”

Continued