S
stevegravy
Guest
We’re doomed!!! :extrahappy: Great no need to debate anymore its over!!! 
Lets party like its 1999!!!:dancing:
Lets party like its 1999!!!:dancing:
Pope Francis' upcoming climate change encyclical 'Laudato Sii' (Praised Be)
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
NASA was, earlier in the year, 38% certain that 2014 was the warmest year. So, I’m 52% doubtful of the above report.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
When one uses the deliberately insulting term “denialists”, one is inclined to think those who use it would prefer to shoot those who oppose his/her views. When even taxing those one wishes to crush for having opposing opinions isn’t enough, there’s really not much left but shooting.I think they should only impose those taxes on the climate change denialists
Of course that won’t do a bit of good, since the denialists will just pay the higher taxes and continue to pollute as much as they possibly can, without a thought to reducing their pollution and harms (and saving money in the process). Some will even increase their pollution out of spite.
Such taxes would only serve to slightly satisfy the need for a sense of justice, but without the beneficial results intended or hoped for.
So basically we’re still doomed, even with the taxes.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Sorry, Bob, but you already do fund their fantasies. Think of all the “MMGW mitigation toys” the government subsidizes. You’re paying for them.
E
estesbob
Guest
Yes I know . Wish someone would give me some tax credits for my Dodge Ram 3500 diesel truck.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
So you can harm life on earth thru local, regional, and global env harms? No way. I want my taxes to go for good causes, not harms.
E
estesbob
Guest
And I don’t want my taxes funding other People’s delusions. So if we are going to throw money away on helping people b uy solar panels and electric cars it’s only fair that I get some money to help me pay for my butt kicking diesel truck
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Incorrigible
ralfyman
New member
Pope Francis has spoken on the matter, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences backs his views.
The NAS conducted a review of multiple studies and data sets and confirms AGW.
An independent study supported by skeptics also confirms the consensus.
NASA refers to three other studies plus multiple science organizations that confirm AGW.
The U.S. military, the Pentagon, various multinational banks, insurers, and private corporations, organizations like the IEA, and even former officials of previous Republican administrations also support the scientific consensus concerning AGW.
The NAS conducted a review of multiple studies and data sets and confirms AGW.
An independent study supported by skeptics also confirms the consensus.
NASA refers to three other studies plus multiple science organizations that confirm AGW.
The U.S. military, the Pentagon, various multinational banks, insurers, and private corporations, organizations like the IEA, and even former officials of previous Republican administrations also support the scientific consensus concerning AGW.
T
Theo520
Guest
Belief in AGW simply requires belief in radiative forcing, something shared by all climate science skeptics.
The issue in question is the degree of warming to expect, and on this point there is a significant difference of opinion in the published research.
The issue in question is the degree of warming to expect, and on this point there is a significant difference of opinion in the published research.
E
Ender
Guest
Given all this it seems almost reasonable to ignore the actual behavior of the climate itself, which steadfastly refuses to act as the theory says it must. What do facts matter when opposed by consensus?
Ender
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Facts?
The planet’s oceans and glaciers have experienced changes: oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising.
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Good post. Climate change involves many aspects of the earth systems…
T
Theo520
Guest
You’ve really studied the talking points, but you have some errors in your ‘facts’
The other climate changes we are measuring do not signify catastrophe, except in the fabricated models.
The ocean’s are BASIC so ‘becoming more acidic’ is impossible. While there is a slight shift towards a neutral PH, the oceans are a buffered system. Oddly, rainwater is slightly acidic yet we don’t say it’s ‘acidifying’ the ocean.
The other climate changes we are measuring do not signify catastrophe, except in the fabricated models.
Our data is pretty sketchy prior to launching satellites. Sat measurement shows the rise is not accelerating
Here again the actual data shows the temp is not accelerating. Prior data is also very sketchy.
Nobody is disputing we have been in a warming trend, and it’s just basic math that when you have an upward trend and start your measurements in a recent low, you are gonna keep breaking records given your very limited dataset.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
So, what you, are saying that you and weatherman hacks like Anthony Watts (of Wattsupwiththat infamy) know more and better than all the NOAA and NASA scientists combined.
Good for you!
See the low down on Anthony Watts at desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
and youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk#t=38
T
Theo520
Guest
NASA isn’t disputing the data I shared.
So you are resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of responding to the points I made.
Not very Christian of you.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I really didn’t understand that you accept all the following (sorry):
Highlights from the NOAA report for 2014 (note also that 2015 is on track to be even warmer):
• Greenhouse gases continued to climb: Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, continued to rise during 2014, once again reaching historic high values. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.9 ppm in 2014, reaching a global average of 397.2 ppm for the year. This compares with a global average of 354.0 in 1990 when this report was first published 25 years ago.
• Record temperatures observed near the Earth’s surface: Four independent global datasets showed that 2014 was the warmest year on record. The warmth was widespread across land areas. Europe experienced its warmest year on record, with more than 20 countries exceeding their previous records. Africa had above-average temperatures across most of the continent throughout 2014, Australia saw its third warmest year on record, Mexico had its warmest year on record, and Argentina and Uruguay each had their second warmest year on record. Eastern North America was the only major region to experience below-average annual temperatures.
• Tropical Pacific Ocean moves towards El Niño–Southern Oscillation conditions: The El Niño–Southern Oscillation was in a neutral state during 2014, although it was on the cool side of neutral at the beginning of the year and approached warm El Niño conditions by the end of the year. This pattern played a major role in several regional climate outcomes.
• Sea surface temperatures were record high: The globally averaged sea surface temperature was the highest on record. The warmth was particularly notable in the North Pacific Ocean, where temperatures are in part likely driven by a transition of the Pacific decadal oscillation – a recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centered in the region.
• Global upper ocean heat content was record high: Globally, upper ocean heat content reached a record high for the year, reflecting the continuing accumulation of thermal energy in the upper layer of the oceans. Oceans absorb over 90 percent of Earth’s excess heat from greenhouse gas forcing.
• Global sea level was record high: Global average sea level rose to a record high in 2014. This keeps pace with the 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year trend in sea level growth observed over the past two decades.
• The Arctic continued to warm; sea ice extent remained low: The Arctic experienced its fourth warmest year since records began in the early 20th century. Arctic snow melt occurred 20–30 days earlier than the 1998–2010 average. On the North Slope of Alaska, record high temperatures at 20-meter depth were measured at four of five permafrost observatories. The Arctic minimum sea ice extent reached 1.94 million square miles on September 17, the sixth lowest since satellite observations began in 1979. The eight lowest minimum sea ice extents during this period have occurred in the last eight years.
• The Antarctic showed highly variable temperature patterns; sea ice extent reached record high: Temperature patterns across the Antarctic showed strong seasonal and regional patterns of warmer-than-normal and cooler-than-normal conditions, resulting in near-average conditions for the year for the continent as a whole. The Antarctic maximum sea ice extent reached a record high of 7.78 million square miles on September 20. This is 220,000 square miles more than the previous record of 7.56 million square miles that occurred in 2013. This was the third consecutive year of record maximum sea ice extent.
• Tropical cyclones above average overall: There were 91 tropical cyclones in 2014, well above the 1981–2010 average of 82 storms. The 22 named storms in the Eastern/Central Pacific were the most to occur in the basin since 1992. Similar to 2013, the North Atlantic season was quieter than most years of the last two decades with respect to the number of storms.
So, let’s start mitigating AGW already, for Heaven’s sake (if not for our own personal stake).
T
Theo520
Guest
Pay attention lynn, I said NASA data didn’t conflict with my datapoints, not that Hansen would agreed with what I said. Your below bullets don’t prove what you think they do.
“Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence. This is due to insufficient observational evidence, lack of physical understanding of the links between anthropogenic drivers of climate and tropical cyclone activity, and the low level of agreement between studies as to the relative importance of internal variability, and anthropogenic and natural forcings.”
What’s your point here? Skeptics are not disputing CO2 measurements as recorded in recent history. I fully acknowledge man is driving an increasing PPM.
We only started this dataset with the industrial age and as coming out of a mini iceage. Nobody disputes we have been in a warming trend (with or without man’s contribution) Basic math will tell you that you will keep breaking records as a warming trend continues. Not covered in this dataset are previous warm periods: **Medieval Warming Period **and the Roman Warming Period.
You failed to prove anything about climate change with this bullet.
Hard to draw conclusions since our temp dataset for ocean temps has only become accurate in the past 10 years, as the ARGO floats have been in place. The further back you go, the sketcher the data. Most definitely research has shown that the oceans are not hiding the missing heat.
The sea level has been rising for hundreds of years at a steady pace. Nothing yet that justifies your alarmism.
In a warming phase we expect the ice to retreat. The unanswered question is man’s contribution. Our measurement of ice is only accurate with the launch of satellites.
Why are you cherry picking a single year of data and pretending it proves climate change? The IPCC doesn’t agree with your position and said so in the Technical Summary of AR5:
“Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence. This is due to insufficient observational evidence, lack of physical understanding of the links between anthropogenic drivers of climate and tropical cyclone activity, and the low level of agreement between studies as to the relative importance of internal variability, and anthropogenic and natural forcings.”
NOTHING you posted in any way proved a serious risk from man’s contribution to global warming.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
The Pope’s encyclical is on the dot re climate change.
See noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/071615-international-report-confirms-2014-was-earths-warmest-year-on-record.html
And for the pdf report: www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/state-of-climate-in-2014/
Pope Francis is so smart and knowledgeable, and compassionate. One of the few true Christians of our time.
See noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/071615-international-report-confirms-2014-was-earths-warmest-year-on-record.html
And for the pdf report: www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/state-of-climate-in-2014/
Pope Francis is so smart and knowledgeable, and compassionate. One of the few true Christians of our time.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have paid close attention to El Nino/La Nina cycles for years, because they very significantly affect weather and rainfall where I live. I have studied the data on them back to 1948, because I wanted to know the concurrence of El Nino/La Nina cycles with rainfall in my part of the country. There is nothing in the cycles that points to global warming; only the relative temperatures in the eastern and western Pacific. When the warm water moves east to the coast of South America, it’s an El Nino. When it doesn’t, it’s a La Nina. The effect in the eastern Pacific is the opposite of that in the western Pacific.
What’s troubling in your citation is the suggestion, or perhaps outright statement, that the occurrence of near-El Nino conditions (though mostly neutral) in 2014 and the fairly patent El Nino conditions in 2015 somehow reflect MMGW. They don’t.
If NOAA says that, they’re not telling the truth, and they know they’re not.
- Status