What Climate Wars Did To Science

[rkim291968]

What I'm saying is that the warming isn't on the catastrophic level because the dire predictions are based on large positive feedbacks that no one can find.

It will be on the catastrophic level over time.   The changes has been gradual - relatively speaking to human life span.   Politicians have no motivation to address the issue b/c they are more worried about their next election than what the climate or env. will be like in two decades.  Unfortunately for many communities in the world, the climate & env changes have caught up with them.   It's hitting their health, businesses, livelihood, ....  The alarmists have been saying it's almost too late and the time to act is now.   But I just don't see how acting now is possible given the human nature.   For vast majority, it's the next generation issue to deal with.   For some, they don't even agree there is an issue.

[jsgolfer]

It will be on the catastrophic level over time.   The changes has been gradual - relatively speaking to human life span.   Politicians have no motivation to address the issue b/c they are more worried about their next election than what the climate or env. will be like in two decades.  Unfortunately for many communities in the world, the climate & env changes have caught up with them.   It's hitting their health, businesses, livelihood, ....  The alarmists have been saying it's almost too late and the time to act is now.   But I just don't see how acting now is possible given the human nature.   For vast majority, it's the next generation issue to deal with.   For some, they don't even agree there is an issue.

How do you know?   The goal posts have been moved so many times it's unbelievable. Color me unimpressed by the dire nature of some minor warming of the planet.  Which I will say again is good for us.  I would be more worried if it was a mini-ice age, which we know is not good.

How about 25 years of dire predictions with nothing happening:

1. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming

World leaders meeting at the Vatican last week issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis will likely reiterate that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming…  since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

2. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

3. President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming

In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”

4. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

5. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth

2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported . According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

6. Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet

It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.

7. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world

Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

8. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green

Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

9. The “tipping point” warning first started in 1989

In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

[jsgolfer]

It will be on the catastrophic level over time.   The changes has been gradual - relatively speaking to human life span.   Politicians have no motivation to address the issue b/c they are more worried about their next election than what the climate or env. will be like in two decades.  Unfortunately for many communities in the world, the climate & env changes have caught up with them.   It's hitting their health, businesses, livelihood, ....  The alarmists have been saying it's almost too late and the time to act is now.   But I just don't see how acting now is possible given the human nature.   For vast majority, it's the next generation issue to deal with.   For some, they don't even agree there is an issue.

Here's why I find NOAA And NASA to be rather hypocritical.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-study-finds-indian-pacific-oceans-temporarily-hide-global-warming/

A new NASA study of ocean temperature measurements shows in recent years extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans. Researchers say this shifting pattern of ocean heat accounts for the slowdown in the global surface temperature trend observed during the past decade.

Researchers Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis and Bill Patzert of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, California, found a specific layer of the Indian and Pacific oceans between 300 and 1,000 feet (100 and 300 meters) below the surface has been accumulating more heat than previously recognized. They also found the movement of warm water has affected surface temperatures. The result was published Thursday in the journal Science.

During the 20th century, as greenhouse gas concentrations increased and trapped more heat energy on Earth, global surface temperatures also increased. However, in the 21st century, this pattern seemed to change temporarily.

“Greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, but for about 10 years starting in the early 2000s, global average surface temperature stopped climbing, and even cooled a bit,” said Willis.

So, nature can magically hide the heat, making it responsible for the Pause in warming that the models indicate. But, according to NASA and others, nature can’t be responsible at all for the warming.  It's all man's fault.

[tmac20]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163?via%3Dihub

[saevel25]

“Greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, but for about 10 years starting in the early 2000s, global average surface temperature stopped climbing, and even cooled a bit,” said Willis.

So, nature can magically hide the heat, making it responsible for the Pause in warming that the models indicate. But, according to NASA and others, nature can’t be responsible at all for the warming.  It's all man's fault.

Greenhouse gases can natural occur and be produced. Yet they have been pretty constant until the industrial revolution.

CO2: Ocean to Atmosphere exchange, plant and anime respiration, volcanic reaction (very small amounts)

Methane: primarily a human made greenhouse gas

N2O: Plant and soil interaction

Fluorinated Gases: All human made

Nature can react to what human's are doing. Nature wants a balance. It will find a way to maintain a balance even if it is to find a way to maintain a less extreme change in heat.

All the evidence point that humans are a cause for temperature increase due to our industrious ways. I do believe some of this temperature increase could be natural because we were coming out of the little ice age. Still, a good part of it is human caused.

[jsgolfer]

Greenhouse gases can natural occur and be produced. Yet they have been pretty constant until the industrial revolution.

CO2: Ocean to Atmosphere exchange, plant and anime respiration, volcanic reaction (very small amounts)

Methane: primarily a human made greenhouse gas

N2O: Plant and soil interaction

Fluorinated Gases: All human made

Nature can react to what human's are doing. Nature wants a balance. It will find a way to maintain a balance even if it is to find a way to maintain a less extreme change in heat.

All the evidence point that humans are a cause for temperature increase due to our industrious ways. I do believe some of this temperature increase could be natural because we were coming out of the little ice age. Still, a good part of it is human caused.

I never said humans weren't part of the cause (where did I ever say that?), I'm saying that we aren't the total cause, which is what the governmernt and the NGO's drone on about.  There is never any indication that natural variability can play a part,  It's all us.  And I think that is the problem.

[saevel25]

I never said humans weren't part of the cause (where did I ever say that?), I'm saying that we aren't the total cause, which is what the governmernt and the NGO's drone on about.  There is never any indication that natural variability can play a part,  It's all us.  And I think that is the problem.

underlined for your reference ;)

So, nature can magically hide the heat, making it responsible for the Pause in warming that the models indicate. But, according to NASA and others, nature can’t be responsible at all for the warming.  It's all man's fault.

[jsgolfer]

Why don't people who complain about the use of fossil fuels, stop using them.

Zero Carbon Emissions: The New Language Of Climate Change

If nothing else, the G7 countries’ recent agreement to end fossil fuel use for energy by 2100 signals a shift in the way we talk and think about global warming. Previous agreements were about reducing carbon emissions from burning coal, oil and gas. This takes matters a step further by envisioning a fossil fuel–free future.

There are reasons for cynicism: the long time frame means none of the politicians involved in the commitment will even be alive, let alone held accountable, for meeting the target in 2100; Canada and Japan watered down Germany’s proposal to end fossil fuel energy by 2050; and many governments, including Canada’s, haven’t met even their current weak commitments . But in calling for deep emissions cuts by 2050 and an end to fossil fuel energy by 2100 — “decarbonization” — the non-binding pledge at least shows governments recognize the need to confront climate change. (snip to the end)

Moving toward zero carbon emissions — in a much shorter timeline than agreed upon by Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States — is absolutely necessary, and not just for the climate. Eliminating fossil fuel energy will cut dangerous pollution, create new economic opportunities and ensure resources are available for wiser applications.

The words of scientists, government leaders and other experts — and now Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama — make it clear that it’s time to turn the page on this destructive and relatively recent chapter in our history. Now we must ensure our leaders strengthen and act on their commitments. - David Suzuki

( Wall Street Journal ) New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio will go to Rome on Monday, where he will meet with Pope Francis and give a speech on climate change at the Vatican, the mayor’s aides said Wednesday.

The mayor will join 65 other mayors from around the U.S. and the world at the Vatican-sponsored conference Modern Slavery and Climate Change: the Commitment of the Cities. The mayors of Boston, Seattle, New Orleans, San Francisco and Portland, Ore., are expected to attend.

This is the second trip to Italy for Mr. de Blasio since he took office 18 months ago. The mayor, who is partially of Italian descent, went there with his family last summer for a vacation.

[saevel25]

Why don't people who complain about the use of fossil fuels, stop using them.

Go Amish?

[jsgolfer]

underlined for your reference ;)

My point was that others say it's all man's fault, not that it can't be partly our fault.  Sorry please play again.

[saevel25]

My point was that others say it's all man's fault, not that it can't be partly our fault.  Sorry please play again.

Play what? Is there a game being played?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

underlined for your reference ;)

My point was that others say it's all man's fault, not that it can't be partly our fault.  Sorry please play again.

How about we work on solutions instead of doing the status quo?  We can spend all day debating the models, or, just maybe, work on improving.

http://www.sciencealert.com/denmark-just-generated-140-of-its-electricity-demand-from-wind-power

[jsgolfer]

How about we work on solutions instead of doing the status quo?  We can spend all day debating the models, or, just maybe, work on improving.

http://www.sciencealert.com/denmark-just-generated-140-of-its-electricity-demand-from-wind-power

Until someone figures out how to make a battery large enough to store wind power when it's needed, these are a waste of time and cannot compete with fossil fuels without rent seeking from the government.  otherwise, if they were such a fantastic power option, people would be falling all over themselves to do it without subsidies.

" Last week, it made an even greater achievement: a high of 140 percent of its national electricity needs, helped along by some unexpectedly severe weather. "

W hile the country can’t rely on wild and woolly weather to sustain it all the time (I’d imagine if it was hit with winds travelling at 93 km/h on a regular basis, it’d soon have no energy requirements at all on account of everyone jumping ship), it's been steadily increasing its wind farm output by 18 percent each year to take advantage the what wind it does get on a regular basis."

[jsgolfer]

Play what? Is there a game being played?

Word Seek.

[mmoan2]

This is one of those topics to me where everyone wants to be an intellectual, but the vast majority of people just don't have the time to make the informed decisions they would like to so they are far more emotional than they pretend to be. It boils down to those who refuse to adjust their lifestyle because they think "science" hasn't proven that man-made climate change is a catastrophe on one end of the spectrum vs. those who see it as the most important topic on the table today so they literally refuse to use fossil fuels, eat meat, etc. because of the fear we will ruin the planet.

I just try my best to do what I can and let the staunch supporters on both sides cherry-pick their scientific soup d'jour to back their emotional inclination. I never drink bottled water, I carpool or ride the bus when I can, I don't have a huge, green lawn in Phoenix, AZ like many people, I recycle as much as possible, etc. It doesn't hurt me to do so.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

It will be on the catastrophic level over time.   The changes has been gradual - relatively speaking to human life span.   Politicians have no motivation to address the issue b/c they are more worried about their next election than what the climate or env. will be like in two decades.  Unfortunately for many communities in the world, the climate & env changes have caught up with them.   It's hitting their health, businesses, livelihood, ....  The alarmists have been saying it's almost too late and the time to act is now.   But I just don't see how acting now is possible given the human nature.   For vast majority, it's the next generation issue to deal with.   For some, they don't even agree there is an issue.

How do you know?   The goal posts have been moved so many times it's unbelievable. Color me unimpressed by the dire nature of some minor warming of the planet.  Which I will say again is good for us.  I would be more worried if it was a mini-ice age, which we know is not good.

How do you not know?   World population has been increasing at unsustainable level.  People are going to need more cars, more factories, more "stuff" that will spew out pollutants.    Vs the population increase, what are we doing to effectively reduce pollutants?   Not much I am afraid.   So, over time (50 years, 100 years, who really knows), we will eventually get to catastrophic level.  Another point I was making is that many don't care what happens 50, 100, 200 years later.   The current politicians will be all dead by then.   Hence, it's only a minority that's sounding the alarm.   Most others are content to recycle papers, aluminum, buy hybrid but that won't stop the flow or turn the tide.   On this, I am a pessimist.   I give 200 years tops for human race to destroy the env. completely that we won't recognize it if we live that long.   Others may argue for less.

[ryan772]

Always found it funny when people say the population is growing too fast. How many cars in are in(junkyards or car dealerships sitting unused. Americans throw away over 50% of their food on a annual basis. Population IS NOT growing to fast greed is whats growing too fast.

[rkim291968]

Always found it funny when people say the population is growing too fast. How many cars in are in(junkyards or car dealerships sitting unused. Americans throw away over 50% of their food on a annual basis. Population IS NOT growing to fast greed is whats growing too fast.

Look beyond US.   The fastest population growth is in Asia, Africa, and middle east.  Not so much in developed nations.   Google population growth and you will find more about it.