Climate continues to change.

[SgtSpiderMan]

No. We are continually making more of all things. There is plenty of water although clean, salt free water is going to get pricey ESPECIALLY when you anti-environmental wackos go on your silly anti-nuke tirades.

the reason groceries are high (although all you administration apologists deny that when it comes up in economic discussions because the CPI is a bullshit number) is because the administration will not kill ethanol subsidies that the last administration should have known better than to continue.

At this point even the anti-nuke type environmental wackos agree that ethanol is bad for the environment bad for the food supply and bad for the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/opinion/mcdonald-corn-ethanol/

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41173

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_effect

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/423385/ethanol-blamed-for-record-food-prices/


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/01/28/study-ethanol-mandates-causing-spiraling-us-food-prices

http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodprices/foodforfuel/

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/27/want-cheaper-food-end-the-ethanol-mandat

This is what happens when government sticks its nose into markets... NO amount of $22 a gallon aviation fuel from corn distilled in the heartland and shipped to the coast is going to have ANY impact on global warming, although it WILL raise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As a point of fact there isn't enough water. The west coast is in a severe drought. That means, by definition, there isn't enough water. That's causing the price of food to rise. This is impacting everyone. I'm not talking about what the government has or hasn't done.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/cali...ct-on-food-prices-4bvGJrzuS9a8Px_QCICp6g.html

 

[RobDownSouth]

It isn't in ANY quantifiable ratio. In fact the current "evidence" such as it is suggests there is an upper limit beyond which even more CO2 will cause no additional warming. Too bad...cause apparently it will not prevent the next ice age.

No one suggests it should be one to one...stupid statement on its face...one to one what? Degrees Kelvin? Celsius? Fahrenheit.

Correlation (or lack of) is correlation (or not), whatever the numbers are. No correlation is just that. CO2 rising a lot, temperature rising not at all, to barely perceptibly. Most of the last hundred years rise in temperature is in years before CO2 rose substantially.

Instead of telling the skeptics what they they think it ought to be, why don't you work on the faithful's hymnal, because so far- it is a cacophony of individual, alarmist notes with no unified theory to predict anything other than that the sky is falling.

Oh look, the Schmott Guy is trying to bluster it out. No correlation, he sez. None at all. Nope. Can't be.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality, science and statistics intrude rudely on the Schmott Guy's carefully constructed fantasy:
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/Soonyigump/schmottguy_zps63ac59ec.gif

(from the article I linked to, which the Schmott Guy obviously didn't click. Schmott Guys don't need to click links, they know stuff. And one of the things they know is to avoid inconvenient facts like the plague)

Remember folks: No Correlation. No Correlation At All, DAMMIT!

 

[tactful]

Damn seasons, always changing.

 

[trysail]

Michael "Piltdown" Mann's handiwork:





http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/mwp-lia/hiding-the-decline-hockeystick-mann.jpg


​

 

[about_average]

Michael "Piltdown" Mann's handiwork:





http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/mwp-lia/hiding-the-decline-hockeystick-mann.jpg


​

I'm always skeptical of something created with Photoshop.

 

[phrodeau]

I'm always skeptical of something created with Photoshop.

I'm astonished that trysail has become a tree ring expert. That's got to be only in the last month or so.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I'm astonished that trysail has become a tree ring expert. That's got to be only in the last month or so.

Denialist Hall of Fame #108: "but...but...tree rings"

 

[pete]

I'm astonished that trysail has become a tree ring expert. That's got to be only in the last month or so.

… says the king of cut and paste.

bottom line, there's no climate scientists or even any high-level scientists of any discipline on this board, so the fact that anyone acts like an authority in ANY kind of way is pretty hilarious.

simply having a modicum of intelligence doesn't mean one can interpret scientific data in a meaningful way.

i read the first 3 IPCC reports and that shit was way over my head, i admit it. but what was clear to me was their out and out admission that there were *large* margins of error, and much speculation and assumption. that, and the fact that the executive summaries (which were all the politicians read, if anything) had clear contradictions to the body work led me to be pretty skeptical of the whole operation.

 

[Amberchgo]

Sunny and 70 yesterday.
60 and rain today.



Climate change.

 

[DooleyDarter]

Yesterday was warm, today is cooler

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sunny and 70 yesterday.
60 and rain today.



Climate change.

That is not climate change!

 

[RobDownSouth]

That is not climate change!

AmberWavesOfDerp uses "climate" and "weather" interchangeably, just like the pretty blonde ladies do on Fox.

 

[DooleyDarter]

its warming a bit here now today

 

[phrodeau]

… says the king of cut and paste.

bottom line, there's no climate scientists or even any high-level scientists of any discipline on this board, so the fact that anyone acts like an authority in ANY kind of way is pretty hilarious.

simply having a modicum of intelligence doesn't mean one can interpret scientific data in a meaningful way.

i read the first 3 IPCC reports and that shit was way over my head, i admit it. but what was clear to me was their out and out admission that there were *large* margins of error, and much speculation and assumption. that, and the fact that the executive summaries (which were all the politicians read, if anything) had clear contradictions to the body work led me to be pretty skeptical of the whole operation.

We're all frogs in a pot that is slowly coming to a boil. We won't know our dilemma unless somebody with a thermometer tells us. We'll boil to death unless we actually listen and do something about it.

Be skeptical all you want, but there is evidence you can see for yourself if you choose to look at it. Go explore what remains of the Great Barrier Reef, or visit Norfolk Virginia at high tide.

I have often asked for the evidence that climate change isn't happening. All I get are replies that the evidence for climate change doesn't meet somebody's standards. They point fingers at "hide the decline" as if that meant anything, when what would really make a point would be to show the damned decline.

 

[Que]

"Asked for evidence that climate change isn't happening"

So you want to have someone prove to you a negative on something that hasn't happened and cannot be measured over short periods of time.

Prove to me that Santa Claus is not real.

 

[toubab]

The climate of the planet, and any particular area of the planet, is always changing. Always. Change is the only constant.

 

[toubab]

Looks like the American West is in for another long dry spell:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/california_drought_timeline.png

 

[phrodeau]

"Asked for evidence that climate change isn't happening"

So you want to have someone prove to you a negative on something that hasn't happened and cannot be measured over short periods of time.

Prove to me that Santa Claus is not real.

I'll make it easy for you. Show me the data that proves this graph is wrong. Should be easy, it was government-funded, so it can't be right.

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png

 

[Que]

You sre a fucwit. No "date," singular has anything to do with climate change. Random bits of information on a very short interval of time with as I keep repeating a minuscule change in temperature.

Possible temperatures range from - 273 degrees Kelvin all the way up to boiling. You focus on a tiny little variance In temperature ignoring the fact that is co2 more than doubled.

Go find your 7th grade science teacher you have him explain once again how to read a graph how to make a graph and what makes significant figures.

 

[phrodeau]

Maybe you'll read this; it's from Holland.

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm

Even if greenhouse emissions stopped overnight the concentrations already in the atmosphere would still mean a global rise of between 0.5 and 1C. A shift of a single degree is barely perceptible to human skin, but it’s not human skin we’re talking about. It’s the planet; and an average increase of one degree across its entire surface means huge changes in climatic extremes.

Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now, the American agricultural heartland around Nebraska was desert. It suffered a short reprise during the dust-bowl years of the 1930s, when the topsoil blew away and hundreds of thousands of refugees trailed through the dust to an uncertain welcome further west. The effect of one-degree warming, therefore, requires no great feat of imagination.

Chance of avoiding one degree of global warming: zero.

BETWEEN ONE AND TWO DEGREES OF WARMING

In the two-degree world, nobody will think of taking Mediterranean holidays. The movement of people from northern Europe to the Mediterranean is likely to reverse, switching eventually into a mass scramble as Saharan heatwaves sweep across the Med. People everywhere will think twice about moving to the coast. When temperatures were last between 1 and 2C higher than they are now, 125,000 years ago, sea levels were five or six metres higher too. All this “lost” water is in the polar ice that is now melting. Forecasters predict that the “tipping point” for Greenland won’t arrive until average temperatures have risen by 2.7C. The snag is that Greenland is warming much faster than the rest of the world – 2.2 times the global average. Greenland will tip into irreversible melt once global temperatures rise past a mere 1.2C. At this rate the whole Greenland ice sheet would vanish within 140 years. Miami would disappear, as would most of Manhattan. Central London would be flooded. Bangkok, Bombay and Shanghai would lose most of their area. In all, half of humanity would have to move to higher ground.

Everywhere, ecosystems will unravel as species either migrate or fall out of synch with each other. By the time global temperatures reach two degrees of warming in 2050, more than a third of all living species will face extinction.

Chance of avoiding two degrees of global warming: 93%, but only if emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced by 60% over the next 10 years.

BETWEEN TWO AND THREE DEGREES OF WARMING

To find anything comparable we have to go back to the Pliocene – last epoch of the Tertiary period, 3m years ago. There were no continental glaciers in the northern hemisphere (trees grew in the Arctic), and sea levels were 25 metres higher than today’s. In this kind of heat, the death of the Amazon is as inevitable as the melting of Greenland. The paper spelling it out is the very one whose apocalyptic message so shocked in 2000. Scientists at the Hadley centre feared that earlier climate models, which showed global warming as a straightforward linear progression, were too simplistic in their assumption that land and the oceans would remain inert as their temperatures rose. Correctly as it would turn out, they predicted positive feedback.

Warmer seas absorb less carbon dioxide, leaving more to accumulate in the atmosphere and intensify global warming. On land, matters would be even worse. Huge amounts of carbon are stored in the soil, the half-rotted remains of dead vegetation. The generally accepted estimate is that the soil carbon reservoir contains some 1600 gigatonnes, more than double the entire carbon content of the atmosphere. As soil warms, bacteria accelerate the breakdown of this stored carbon, releasing it into the atmosphere.

A three-degree increase in global temperature – possible as early as 2050 – would throw the carbon cycle into reverse. Instead of absorbing carbon dioxide, vegetation and soils start to release it. So much carbon pours into the atmosphere that it pumps up atmospheric concentrations by 250 parts per million by 2100, boosting global warming by another 1.5C. In other words, the Hadley team had discovered that carbon-cycle feedbacks could tip the planet into runaway global warming by the middle of this century – much earlier than anyone had expected.

Confirmation came from the land itself. Climate models are routinely tested against historical data. In this case, scientists checked 25 years’ worth of soil samples from 6,000 sites across the UK. The result was another black joke. As temperatures gradually rose the scientists found that huge amounts of carbon had been released naturally from the soils. They totted it all up and discovered – irony of ironies – that the 13m tonnes of carbon British soils were emitting annually was enough to wipe out all the country’s efforts to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.” All soils will be affected by the rising heat, but none as badly as the Amazon’s. “Catastrophe” is almost too small a word for the loss of the rainforest. Its 7m square kilometres produce 10% of the world’s entire photosynthetic output from plants. Drought and heat will cripple it; fire will finish it off. In human terms, the effect on the planet will be like cutting off oxygen during an asthma attack.

As the land burns, so the sea will go on rising. Even by the most optimistic calculation, 80% of Arctic sea ice by now will be gone, and the rest will soon follow. New York will flood; the catastrophe that struck eastern England in 1953 will become an unremarkable regular event; and the map of the Netherlands will be torn up by the North Sea.

Chance of avoiding three degrees of global warming: poor if the rise reaches two degrees and triggers carbon-cycle feedbacks from soils and plants.

BETWEEN THREE AND FOUR DEGREES OF WARMING

The stream of refugees will now include those fleeing from coasts to safer interiors – millions at a time when storms hit. Where they persist, coastal cities will become fortified islands. The world economy, too, will be threadbare. As direct losses, social instability and insurance payouts cascade through the system, the funds to support displaced people will be increasingly scarce. Sea levels will be rampaging upwards – in this temperature range, both poles are certain to melt, causing an eventual rise of 50 metres.

One of the most dangerous of all feedbacks will now be kicking in – the runaway thaw of permafrost. Scientists believe at least 500 billion tonnes of carbon are waiting to be released from the Arctic ice, though none yet has put a figure on what it will add to global warming. One degree? Two? Three? The pointers are ominous.

As with Amazon collapse and the carbon-cycle feedback in the three-degree world stabilising global temperatures at four degrees above current levels may not be possible. If we reach three degrees, therefore, that leads inexorably to four degrees, which leads inexorably to five

Chance of avoiding four degrees of global warming: poor if the rise reaches three degrees and triggers a runaway thaw of permafrost.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You sre a fucwit. No "date," singular has anything to do with climate change. Random bits of information on a very short interval of time with as I keep repeating a minuscule change in temperature.

Possible temperatures range from - 273 degrees Kelvin all the way up to boiling. You focus on a tiny little variance In temperature ignoring the fact that is co2 more than doubled.

Go find your 7th grade science teacher you have him explain once again how to read a graph how to make a graph and what makes significant figures.

It's not a minuscule change. It's a sizable change.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Prove to me that Santa Claus is not real.

Well, last year did he leave you even the lump of coal you deserve, and would have burned in a coal-fired power plant? No? Q.E.D.!

 

[trysail]

Since we've now had eighteen (18) years of no significant warming, extreme weather events are now attributable to the global warming (that we haven't had).

Got that?

It's a new and very special branch of logic.


​

 

[RobDownSouth]

Since we've now had eighteen (18) years of no significant warming, extreme weather events are now attributable to the global warming (that we haven't had).

Got that?

It's a new and very special branch of logic.


​

When Denialists splutter "but..but...16 (or 18) years!"

 

[phrodeau]

Since we've now had eighteen (18) years of no significant warming, extreme weather events are now attributable to the global warming (that we haven't had).

Got that?

It's a new and very special branch of logic.


​

Your logic is to state a lie, then claim that others are ignoring that lie.