What if it isn't the CO2?

[vcoleiro1]

From Wiki re Arctic: "The Arctic consists of the Arctic Ocean, adjacent seas, and parts of Alaska (United States), Canada, Finland, Greenland (Denmark), Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden"

Most of Greenland is in the Arctic circle

That and all the ice on land in Antartica and all the ice that is melting on glaciers all over the world. All of this is contributing to rising sea levels

Plus a lot of Carbon dioxide and methane (billions of tons) is in the Arctic Russian tundra locked in permaforst that is melting. Which is set to accelerate global warming when it thaws and those gases are released

 

[FBnil]

For the melting icecaps, there are some glaciers that are on solid ground in Greenland. The ice in Antarctica also rests on ground.
However, the rising sea level is not just caused by the ice falling into it. It's also caused by thermal expansion.

Good points. We also have the fact it is sweet water and not salt water, that also might change conveyor belt currents...
as sweet water does not sink (lighter than salt water), thus preventing warm depleted salty water from submerging (like a sweet water cushion). If the Belt stops: bye bye earth.
[doublepost=1497393605,1497393437][/doublepost]And also more of the evidence the root cause is the sun, as other solar planets are heating up too: https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
[doublepost=1497393884][/doublepost]And more data, saying it is NOT the sun (nor the planets are heating up): https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

so... who to believe?

Did I mention there was an earthquake in Lesbos? (not too far away from Form-Action)

 

[klapse]

From Wiki re Arctic: "The Arctic consists of the Arctic Ocean, adjacent seas, and parts of Alaska (United States), Canada, Finland, Greenland (Denmark), Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden"

Most of Greenland is in the Arctic circle

That and all the ice on land in Antartica and all the ice that is melting on glaciers all over the world. All of this is contributing to rising sea levels

Plus a lot of Carbon dioxide and methane (billions of tons) is in the Arctic Russian tundra locked in permaforst that is melting. Which is set to accelerate global warming when it thaws and those gases are released

I guess this merits a response, if _jr_ thinks it was insightful.


1) [SEA ICE]

a. Al Gore's 'documentary' made the claim was that the arctic SEA ICE would melt, raising ocean levels more than 20 feet. This is the lie (which any teenager should have been able to detect) to which I referred in my most recent post.

b. Polar ice caps (on land) do not melt due to seawater convection but need temperatures above freezing to do-so. Projected global warming of a few degrees simply does not melt ice in polar regions averaging temperatures far below freezing.

c. Sept. 2016: An Inconvenient Truth - Record arctic Sea Ice Growth: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/27/inconvenient-record-arctic-sea-ice-growth-in-september/

d. April 2017: Thickest Sea Ice in Living Memory Defies Canadian Icebreakers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...battle-with-ice-passengers-fly-home-1.4077691

e. Overall declines in arctic sea ice (which, I will cautiously claim we do seem to observe as a trend over the past century) are more than compensated by increases in antarctic ice.



2) [PERMAFROST]

a. Regions of land that warm-up from permafrost have one feature warmists conveniently forget to mention: They become covered with green, CO2-eating plants.

b. The claim that warming will cause CO2+Methane release does not support the Thermageddonist's claim that warming is due to Man.

c. The 'permafrost bomb' scare has been debunked by several studies, including one in Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html

d. The theory of runaway global warming from permafrost thaw falls flat on its face because no runaway global warming occurred from CO2 levels 10 times higher than those we have today, and multiple times higher than those which would result if all the permafrost melted.


3) [GLOBAL TEMPERATURE GRAPH]

a. What temperature is your body? Do you measure in your mouth, under your arm, in your anus? Do you average the three readings? Remember we cannot put you into a liquid nitrogen bath and measure the net heat increase. The difficulties that go into making a simple graph of average global temperature are touched-on in this presentation:
b. The data are being systematically corrupted. We can spend a few weeks on this issue alone, but here is an overview: http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/...essly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/
also

c. If overall average temperatures are indeed rising, this is not proof of the claim that it is man-made.

d. If (returning out of the little ice age) average temperatures rise, this is not a-priori harmful to human life. There are more reasons than not to expect this will be good for human flourishing.

e. The temperature graph you showed only shows a century - an insignificant blip in geologic time. Perspective can be gained looking at proxy results from tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or hundreds of millions of years.

4) [SEA LEVEL GRAPH]

a. Changes in sea level - higher or lower - can cause problems and expenses for human structures built on the shoreline. Everyone acknowledges this.

b. Sea levels have always changed and changing sea levels are not evidence or proof that human activity caused them.

c. Estimating sea level rise is also difficult. Land in various areas rises and sinks, and sea levels change locally.

d. Non-Thermageddonist analyses show no increase of average sea-level rises since manmade CO2 became significant. http://www.sealevel.info/resources.html#sealevel


Out of tme for today. I hope I could share some insight into why your post did not defend Al Gore's 20-foot claim, or provide evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Cheers

 

[benoitb]

To answer the thread's question: it must then be the CH4 coming out of all of our arses.

 

[tigerroast]

As mentioned previously, I don't really care whether or not man-made climate change is true or not, and I don't seek to disprove your side, but some parts of your stance against it are kind of...well...off the charts.

1) [SEA ICE]

a. Al Gore's 'documentary' [...]

He wasn't talking about Al Gore or SEA ice, but GLACIAL ice on land. Your whole deal about sea ice didn't address anything.

2) [PERMAFROST]
[...]
b. The claim that warming will cause CO2+Methane release does not support the Thermageddonist's claim that warming is due to Man.

Of course the aforementioned claim doesn't support the claim that warming is because of mankind. Of course not. You just presupposed that man-made climate change (or one of the mechanisms behind it) is false just to make this point. It's like if I burned your house down and said that there wasn't enough water present to dowse the flames, so it must not be humid outside. While the humidity (or lack thereof) could have an impact on the house burning, it clearly didn't matter since the house burned anyway.

3) [GLOBAL TEMPERATURE GRAPH]

b. The data are being systematically corrupted.

Lol...I know you were quoting the article, but knowing of how you post, I'm honestly surprised you didn't say "systemically."

The article using the word wrong and you quoting them anyway is a real possibility though.

c. If overall average temperatures are indeed rising, this is not proof of the claim that it is man-made.

Not by itself, anyway. It tells us nothing without context. A "why," if you will. As in, why are you so vehemently against the idea of man-made climate change if you never present an alternative to deal with the issues it stems from?

d. If (returning out of the little ice age) average temperatures rise, this is not a-priori harmful to human life. There are more reasons than not to expect this will be good for human flourishing.

What a great way to explain your position. Global warming might be good for the human population because reasons.

You are aware that the commonly-accepted reasons behind man-made climate change derive from a root issue that causes other problems, right? Heavy dependence on finite resources? Pollution? Geopolitics involving said finite resources? Human activity that's considered to contribute to global warming also potentially being a bee killer? How is any of that good for humanity?

Lemme guess. We'll just collectively "suck it up" and move on, right?

e. The temperature graph you showed only shows a century - an insignificant blip in geologic time. Perspective can be gained looking at proxy results from tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or hundreds of millions of years.

Non-sequitur. You're implying humans can't be behind climate change today because the climate changed before. And, hey, would you look at that...rapid fluctuations in CO2 levels appear to correspond with rapid fluctuations in global temps, and stable CO2 levels with stable temps.

See what I did there? I can interpret what I want from the graph, just like you did.

Speaking of, you've been making an awfully big fuss over CO2 itself. There are other gases that can exacerbate the "greenhouse effect," some of which are of great significance, if not equally so, despite being less common than CO2. Such as methane. Such as NOx gases. CFCs and HFCs. Why not go after them?

b. Sea levels have always changed and changing sea levels are not evidence or proof that human activity caused them.

Lol you just did it again. Of course the sea levels changing isn't proof in and of itself that humans did it, but just because it happened before humans doesn't mean it can't happen because of humans.

Also, I will bring this up again since you didn't address it the first time. There's ice on land, which has stayed on land since humans have been around, that is separate from the liquid water in the oceans, and is thus not displacing the ocean's waters. Reckon what happens if that land ice were to slip into the sea?

c. Estimating sea level rise is also difficult. Land in various areas rises and sinks, and sea levels change locally.

So are you saying that you can't understand how modern scientists can account for those variables to get an accurate measurement of the sea level? If you are, then that presents two issues:

-you're arguing from incredulity; and
-the webpage you cite to make this point relies on those same types of readings to come to the conclusion the author drew, so why isn't the same amount of skepticism thrown his way?

I hope I could share some insight into why your post did not defend Al Gore's 20-foot claim[...]

You did not share any such insight for the simple reason that his post wasn't defending Al Gore's claim to begin with.

 

[klapse]

He wasn't talking about Al Gore or SEA ice, but GLACIAL ice on land. Your whole deal about sea ice didn't address anything.

Thanks for the correction! I shouldn't have relied on what people say about the movie. I found the transcript: "If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted" was the key hypothetical.

Unfortunately this hypothetical if, which he bases his horror graphics on, ain't gonna happen. Greenland cannot "break up" from a few degrees of warming. Sure there is some glacial retreat in recent years, so what? Antarctica is another kettle of fish entirely.

"112 billion tons of ice were added each year between 1992 to 2001 to the Antarctic ice sheet. Even when the rate of increase slowed, between 2003-08, Antarctica still gained 82 billion tons of ice each year."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/837/antarctic-gaining-ice-al-gore-hardest-hit-hank-berrien

But if you're interested, you can review some more claims from "An Inconvenient Truth"


Don't fall for the man in the expensive suit saying "We measured something changed! Be very afraid!"

Of course the aforementioned claim doesn't support the claim that warming is because of mankind. Of course not. You just presupposed that man-made climate change (or one of the mechanisms behind it) is false just to make this point. It's like if I burned your house down and said that there wasn't enough water present to dowse the flames, so it must not be humid outside. While the humidity (or lack thereof) could have an impact on the house burning, it clearly didn't matter since the house burned anyway.

No, I just pointed out that the claim does not support the theory of AGW - Just like rainfall does not prove you watered my garden.

Not by itself, anyway. It tells us nothing without context. A "why," if you will. As in, why are you so vehemently against the idea of man-made climate change if you never present an alternative to deal with the issues it stems from?

This is unparseable. "Issues it (man made climate change) stems from"? Prove the AGW first.

What a great way to explain your position. Global warming might be good for the human population because reasons.

We are in a cold period. Warmer periods supported more life. Warmer means more agriculture. Warmer means less fossil fuels spent heating.

You are aware that the commonly-accepted reasons behind man-made climate change derive from a root issue that causes other problems, right? Heavy dependence on finite resources? Pollution? Geopolitics involving said finite resources? Human activity that's considered to contribute to global warming also potentially being a bee killer? How is any of that good for humanity?

Lemme guess. We'll just collectively "suck it up" and move on, right?

Whether the AGW is anthropogenic is what is being debated here. You begin the paragraph assuming the conclusion.

These finite resources can be used responsibily and cleanly, and letting people decide what is most cost-effective is the best thing we can do at this stage of our technological development. Unless the antiscience, antihuman zealots get their way, mankind will progress beyond this stage. I acknowledge that fossil fuels can be burned in ways which cause real pollution and harms - e.g. coal plants which lack scrubbers. Focusing attention on plant food instead of pollutants doesn't help fix these issues.

We should be developing efficient energy alternatives, not subsidizing implementation of bad technologies (fraudulently called 'green') which waste natural resources and harm the environment.

Non-sequitur. You're implying humans can't be behind climate change today because the climate changed before.

Read up on the null hypothesis. It is the warmists who claim a man-made harm requiring trillions of dollars of spending and supranational laws. If someone wants to sell me an expensive thing, they have to prove to my satisfaction that it's worth it; it is not I who have to prove to the huckster that it won't benefit me.

And, hey, would you look at that...rapid fluctuations in CO2 levels appear to correspond with rapid fluctuations in global temps, and stable CO2 levels with stable temps.

See what I did there? I can interpret what I want from the graph, just like you did.

Which graph? The ice-core graph presented by Gore shows a correlation between CO2 levels and temp over the last few hundred thousand years. What he doesn't tell you is that the warming preceded the rise in temperature by 800-2000 years, and you can't see that in the time scale of the zoomed-out graph he pesented on a 50-foot screen.

When we see a correlation between two things, but one happened first, then you cannot conclude that the second event caused the first. Causality does not go backwards in time.

Speaking of, you've been making an awfully big fuss over CO2 itself. There are other gases that can exacerbate the "greenhouse effect," some of which are of great significance, if not equally so, despite being less common than CO2. Such as methane. Such as NOx gases. CFCs and HFCs. Why not go after them?

The greenhouse effect is real and we would be dead without it.

Lol you just did it again. Of course the sea levels changing isn't proof in and of itself that humans did it, but just because it happened before humans doesn't mean it can't happen because of humans.

I remind you of the null hypothesis again. It's their duty to prove that human contributions to CO2 levels causes rises with catastrophic harms.

So are you saying that you can't understand how modern scientists can account for those variables to get an accurate measurement of the sea level? If you are, then that presents two issues:

-you're arguing from incredulity; and
-the webpage you cite to make this point relies on those same types of readings to come to the conclusion the author drew, so why isn't the same amount of skepticism thrown his way?

The skepticism applies all around, meaning the issue is debatable - in stark contrast to the "Shut up! The science is settled!" intimidation campaign of the warmists.

Thanks for the reply! Cheers.

 

[WizardStan]

Greenland cannot "break up" from a few degrees of warming.

Why not?

 

[klapse]

Why not?

Because land-masses like Greenland do not break up due to temperature, unless you are talking about melting the rock by the planet falling into the sun.

Some glacial melting is currently happening in Greenland. It's not well understood and depends on many factors including local climate patterns, tectonic heating and albedo effects. After a degree of claimed global surface temperature warming and somewhat more evidence that the northern hemisphere is actually warming, the currently observed melt we see in Greenland adds 0.0271 inches to global sea levels every year.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/26/claim-greenland-ice-melt-worse-than-previously-thought/

Here's a presentation that really calls the warming claims into question.

 

[WizardStan]

Because land-masses like Greenland do not break up due to temperature, unless you are talking about melting the rock by the planet falling into the sun

We aren't talking about the land, we're talking about the ice sitting on top of the land.

 

[ible]

also perhaps relevant:

 

[_jr_]

Actually there has been no controversy about climate change for a couple of years, even ten years ago, alternative explanations required carefully cherry picked atmospheric temperature data (which has become even more difficult recently). But atmospheric temperature has too big variability to make it useful on the short time scales involved. There are other data sources like e.g. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ that make it easier to see what seems to be happening, namely that the earth is continually absorbing huge amounts of energy transitioning to a new 'thermodynamic equilibrium' (well, it's a dynamic process, so equilibrium is not the right word, but I hope my meaning is clear). There is no corresponding trend in cosmic rays (there does not seem to be a long term trend at all in cosmic rays), therefore Svensmark's research - while probably a valuable piece of the puzzle in explaining observed temperature - cannot explain observed temperature *trends*. CO2 released to the atmosphere by human activity has the correlation, the mechanism, and seems to fit quantitatively, therefore it is the best known explanation of atmospheric (and oceanic) temperature trends. It isn't as simple as this short summary by a non expert (physics was only a minor subject in my master), but there is very good reason to believe that the average climate scientist is not part of any evil conspiracy.

BTW antarctic sea ice has collapsed last southern summer and consequently global sea ice levels are very low right now (but due to different circumstances the arctic and antarctic processes have never been comparable anyway).

 

[FBnil]

To answer the thread's question: it must then be the CH4 coming out of all of our arses.

... in who's general direction should we fart?

also: Seed Vault is getting wet due to melted ice...

 

[thatgui]

@klapse
Don't have enough time to respond to your post in detail, just some random thoughts:

• You seem quite obsessed with the works of Al Gore, which - at least as it looks to me - no one else is. I don't know whether he is "a thing" where you live, but where I live no one cares or talks about him, neither in the media nor in real live. I personally have never seen his movie and have no incentive to do so - I rarely watch documentaries that involve complex mechanism, as they often tend to get one sided and in trying to simplify things for a broader audience important parts/pieces/connections/dependencies are often get lost.
• As often in such discussions people try to "mend" topics together, which should - in my opinion - be kept seperated, as arguments usually tend to be used for/against boith topics - which is clearly the case here. So maybe you could seperate what you want to discuss: climate change itself and whether climate change is man made or not ?
• I am not quite sure you know the difference between weather and climate - as at least you are (as it happens quite often in such muddled discussion regarding that topic) trying to cite local weather phenomenons to strengthen your position without taking into account that a weather "incident" is just that and in itself alone does not necessarily say anything about the climate
• Maybe you could try to dig a little deeper regarding your arguments ? Like that the thickening of the Antartic ice is an argument against global warming - it is not. Long story short (and cut down): due to the warmer water ice is melting, but as it has a low percentage of salt in it than the seawater you get a second layer of water atop of the seawater which has rather different thermal properties/behaviour > it freezes more quickly which leeds to more ice
• I am happy to dicuss the topics of global warming and wether it is man made or not all day long as (as _jr_ already pointed out, nothing is really "settled" in that matter as climate is one hell of complex beast). But could the whole world just stop with the stupidity that global warming could actually be a good thing ?(!) This is the second most stupid thing in this context after the idea that "C02 is good for plants, so more C02 more plants" .Of course it is, but as almost anytime in life when something like that comes up, I like to dig up paracelsus corps: "Sola dosis facit venenum". As to that "absence of logic": Climate change in every shape or form is always a bad thing (at least for most existing life forms) as the climate usually isn't somethings thats just doing its thing while we don't care. It affects us, and this change is already and will even more in the future affect us - weather phenomenons are already increasing in number and strength. And while Europe will come out relativly "unharmed", we may loose the Netherlands (but there are worse things in live) and we probably get a lot more floodings (but nothing a lot of sandbags can "fix") but there are other regions in the world where the weather conditions are already harsher then in the "western" countries, which will get a lot harsher - and a lot of people may think they are better of in more stable regions (mass migration anyone?) But this is not resitricted to humans we will also see fauna and flora migration (diseases) and maybe even lose some "ecosystem" as this may help some animals to become dominant thus bringing the system out of balance - and affecting other ecosystems too.

unfortunatley I have to work now

 

[ElPoco]

- The greenhouse effect is real and causes temperature to rise
- CO2 is a known "greenhouse gas"
- CO2 emissions have been very high for the last decades due to man-made emissions

Add these together, and you'd expect the temperature to rise. So we make measurements, and we see that they do.
So we have a sound theory that goes together with the data.
Sure there can be other factors but it seems quite sensible to consider this as true until we can fully disprove it or until we can find a better explanation.

Unless you don't trust the measurements. It's known that the scientific community isn't always as trustworthy as expected. But when scientist lie, there's often a reason. And that reason is more often than not money (it can be misplaced pride or some other personal reason, but these will affect one or two teams, not the majority of teams working on a subject). Who would benefit from spreading such a hoax? "Green" energy companies, or green political movements. Do they have the means? Clearly not. Especially when they're up against oil companies. Besides on such a large scale you'd expect at least some of the corruption to show. And so far, it has shown mostly to be on the side on climate change deniers (with the aforementioned big oil companies on the payer's side).

 

[Eight Bit]

we may loose the Netherlands (but there are worse things in live)

OI?!

 

[DrHAX]

I love how we care about the environment oh so bloody much in a society where everything is designed to be thrown out and unrepairable.

Parts of machines can no longer be serviced due to "tolerences". Parts that used to be rebuildable are not. You have items where the whole part is tossed into a landfill due to a small part like a bushing or a bearing going bad which should be replaced.

A planned absolence society will never be green. There's no way in hell.

Even those big wind turbines have a relatively short life expectancy. I honestly wonder what a generator hooked up to an old farm turbine used to pump well water would generate if hooked up to a battery grid.

Not enough to set you free but probably enough to subsidize general usage.

 

[klapse]

Actually there has been no controversy about climate change for a couple of years, even ten years ago, alternative explanations required carefully cherry picked atmospheric temperature data (which has become even more difficult recently). But atmospheric temperature has too big variability to make it useful on the short time scales involved. There are other data sources like e.g. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ that make it easier to see what seems to be happening, namely that the earth is continually absorbing huge amounts of energy transitioning to a new 'thermodynamic equilibrium' (well, it's a dynamic process, so equilibrium is not the right word, but I hope my meaning is clear). There is no corresponding trend in cosmic rays (there does not seem to be a long term trend at all in cosmic rays), therefore Svensmark's research - while probably a valuable piece of the puzzle in explaining observed temperature - cannot explain observed temperature *trends*. CO2 released to the atmosphere by human activity has the correlation, the mechanism, and seems to fit quantitatively, therefore it is the best known explanation of atmospheric (and oceanic) temperature trends. It isn't as simple as this short summary by a non expert (physics was only a minor subject in my master), but there is very good reason to believe that the average climate scientist is not part of any evil conspiracy.

BTW antarctic sea ice has collapsed last southern summer and consequently global sea ice levels are very low right now (but due to different circumstances the arctic and antarctic processes have never been comparable anyway).

1) You ignored 95% of the contoversy I posted, then claimed "there has been no controversy about climate change for a couple of years". Certainly you will find no record of controversy from the IPCC, whose institutional mandate is to prove AGW, nor from the monopoly media which are singing the same old WMD chorus again. It is absolutely mendacious to participate in a global campaign to silence opposition, then claim "see, no opposition!"

2) "Cherry picking" and data-splicing is actually how the warmists got their "Hockey Stick" horror-scenario results, which were the rocket-fuel for the warmist propaganda for years, until being quietly shelved in more recent UN reports. In addition, as I've pointed out before, any serious discussion of global temperature needs to reflect the truth that we cannot put the planet into a bomb-calorimeter and measure the total energy content. Any estimate of global temperature requires a synthesis of various data sources. Reducing all of them to one number requires assigning weights to the various measurements. By what factor do you multiply average ocean readings versus atmosphere and land? Do you include deep-ocean values or throw them out? Any discussion of harms or benefits of climate change needs to be based on a subjective assessment of what temperatures matter to your civilization the most..

3) The warmist models made predictions about atmospheric temps which are false. This is a matter of historical record.

4) The warmist models made predictions about land temps which are false. This is a matter of historical record.

5) The upper-ocean data source you linked does not "make it easier to see what is happening" at all. It showes a rise in joule energy after 1960. How does 5x10^23 joules translate to temperature? Why do you "cherry pick" this dataset? Why show a dataset that does not include values prior to 1960 if your aim is to show an increase due to man-made CO2 which began long before 1960? Isn't the whole warmist point to show a post-industrial increase in the rate of sea-level and temperature rise due to manmade CO2? Lastly, is NOAA still a trusted source to 'correct' the raw data when they have been repeatedly caught manipulating to show increased warming?

6) You do not refute Svensmark in the slighest. You claim no 'long-term' increase in cosmic rays but then try to argue the past 70-100 years of anthropogenic CO2 are the problem. Is a century of Earth's climate 'long-term' to you? That would be a unique viewpoint, to put it charitably.. I would be very interested to find a refutation of Svensmark; The results are simply being ignored and stonewalled. Global temperature is a multi-factor phenomenon, so different drivers get revealed at different timescales. You are right to put "trends" in quotes, since a trend on the century timescale can be opposite of the trend at a 10,000 year or 100 million-year timescale.

7) Contrary to your claim, CO2 released to the atmosphere by humans does not have the correlation, the mechanism, and does not fit quantitatively. This is obvious to anyone who has reviewed the non-thermageddonist analyses of models, the theories and the empirical data. But let's quiz you on just one piece of basic climate science:

• By how much does net downward radiation by atmospheric CO2 increase (in percent change) if you double CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels? (ca. 280-335 ppmv - also a disputed estimate) And how many watts per square meter is the increase? (The total solar radiation when the sun is at zenith is about 1050 watts/square-meter)

8) Few of the real forces driving policy decisions do not fit the broad definition of "evil conspiracy". The political theatre we are presented with uses lies for a script. But you will never come to that realization if you live ensconced in the MSM coccoon, sipping through their straw of fake news.


To @thatgui - I'll be brief:

• I'm not obsessed, I'm discussing a major pillar of a propaganda campaign. The Al Gore movie was shown in schools and presented as 'truth' when it was not. This is government indoctrination of children and highly problematic. It took a lawsuit to stop this in the UK.
  
• The topic of the thread is global warming due to man-made CO2.. The warmist PR-wing tries to obscure the fact that the climate has always changed and tries to present any measurements of changes - and any incidence of severe weather - as 'manmade and threatening'.
• You can be sure I know the difference between weather and climate.
• Maybe you would like to point out where I have not dug deep enough? You're saying the warmer water melts more ice which then freezes to create more ice which is then not melted by the warmer water? What sorcery is this? Why doesn't the warmer water melt the refrozen ice too? Are you saying the original ice was from salt water and that the melted refrozen ice is not? If that's what you believe (and I'll let other readers think about the plausibility of it) where is the problem? Is it evidence for manmade CO2 driving global warming or is it totally offtopic?
  
• I won't expand this reply any more by dissecting all of the claims you make in the last bullet-point - please tell us: What leads you to believe that the temperature in 1890 was the perfect temperature for the planet and that humanity must do everything imaginable to lock-into this temperature until the sun runs out of fuel?

Cheers!

 

[Caine]

we may loose the Netherlands (but there are worse things in live)

What? Whatever did we do wrong to you?

We will probably manage, we have had some experience with floods.
If we do get more floods, then the government officials will be among the first to get wet feet.
That ensures they have the proper motivation to avoid it from happening

 

[ible]

even if all those 97% of climate scientists are bad/evil/misleading (which i doubt), we lose absolutely nothing by transitioning to clean and renewable energy sources.

if instead the climate scientists are right, then we could potentially lose everything by not acting on their advice.

consider the outcomes in both cases; it's like pascal's wager, but applied to stuff within our children's lifetime. i don't try to be an alarmist, but a realist.

health organizations also do this (oh no, ebola is about to destroy everybody!), but the increased awareness helps limit the spread and devotes more resources to the eradication of the diseases. one day, if we heed the scientists in time, things will be better, pollution levels and everything. and i don't think we'll complain about it then. ("oh darn, if only we had more polluting cars on the road, i'd be so much happier!", or, "dang, i wish we still had ebola to worry about, we really cracked down too hard on it.") boggles my mind why people complain about the renewable energy movement now, though growing pains are to be expected with any change. of course, there are other elements in the green movement to be make fun of, i.e. scientifically unfounded distrust of GMOs, etc. but you don't have to be a hippy to see the benefits of clean energy.

also, the paranoia levels you have to cope with, to have such distrust in scientists. i'm not sure this forum is the best place to discuss the very detailed specifics (we're not all scientists), but if you've got a bright mind you should get into the field and try to change it, if you think it's going the wrong direction.

 

[klapse]

Thanks for the comments, ible!

even if all those 97% of climate scientists are bad/evil/misleading (which i doubt), we lose absolutely nothing by transitioning to clean and renewable energy sources.

• This is a wonderful example of just how badly you are being lied-to.
  1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html
  
• The claim that you lose nothing is completely wrong. Germany's electricity prices are elevated threefold due to green hysteria, impoverishing the citizens and helping to drive-out energy intensive industry. The political biofuel mandate in USA and Europe has raised food prices worldwide, causing hunger, exacerbating poverty and social unrest. And bio-ethanol wastes energy. England is suffering an epidemic of people dying because they can't afford to properly heat their homes. Energy drives modern civilization, and you want to make energy more expensive based on a fairy-tale?

if instead the climate scientists are right, then we could potentially lose everything by not acting on their advice.

consider the outcomes in both cases; it's like pascal's wager, but applied to stuff within our children's lifetime. i don't try to be an alarmist, but a realist.

Yes it is like Pascal's wager, because it is about religion. If a bunch of dudes wearing funny hats claim eternal hell is the fate of those who do not obey them, do you obey them based on the precautionary principle? What if someone else, like me, shows they have been lying to you?

health organizations also do this (oh no, ebola is about to destroy everybody!), but the increased awareness helps limit the spread and devotes more resources to the eradication of the diseases. one day, if we heed the scientists in time, things will be better, pollution levels and everything. and i don't think we'll complain about it then. ("oh darn, if only we had more polluting cars on the road, i'd be so much happier!", or, "dang, i wish we still had ebola to worry about, we really cracked down too hard on it.") boggles my mind why people complain about the renewable energy movement now, though growing pains are to be expected with any change. of course, there are other elements in the green movement to be make fun of, i.e. scientifically unfounded distrust of GMOs, etc. but you don't have to be a hippy to see the benefits of clean energy.

This 'clean energy movement' is promoting anti-energy to the rubes who do not understand science. Is a windmill that requires 250 tons of steel and a backup natural gas plant that must be run up and down (inefficiently) a net savings of CO2? Might want to look-into that. How about government taxing me to pay companies to sell photovoltaic panels which cannot produce more energy value in northern Europe than their production costs?

also, the paranoia levels you have to cope with, to have such distrust in scientists. i'm not sure this forum is the best place to discuss the very detailed specifics (we're not all scientists), but if you've got a bright mind you should get into the field and try to change it, if you think it's going the wrong direction.

I have a science backgound and am published in peer-reviewed journals. I do not distrust scientists, I discriminate between good and bad ones.

[doublepost=1497569859,1497558961][/doublepost]wow, post blocked in 5 minutes on Disqus by "illuminati master"
[doublepost=1497587610][/doublepost]edit: i just emailed a couple of the best scientists I know - lets see what they have to say