"Climate Change is Real !!"

[trysail]

Hollywood and the "We're All Gonna Die From Global Warming" crowd photoshopped images to show a flooded Manhattan.



Well, here's a little (non-photoshopped) reality:

http://binaryapi.ap.org/e80671ff124a4c78a0e141a70c7bf600/460x.jpg
Source: Associated Press 2/19/15





...and then, of course, there's Boston:

http://binaryapi.ap.org/7469702aae5c4aef83df64368f3cca38/460x.jpg
​

All ready to give up the reliable and affordable heat and light provided by fossil fuels and nuclear power?



"Climate change is real."




​

 

[MatthewVett]

Snow? In winter?! What sorcery is this? Surely 97% of climate scientists never expected such things. Of course, if the world consisted of more than the US, you might realize that a cold US doesn't equal a cold planet, but as we all know, the world ends at the horizon.

 

[TxRad]

Snow? In winter?! What sorcery is this? Surely 97% of climate scientists never expected such things. Of course, if the world consisted of more than the US, you might realize that a cold US doesn't equal a cold planet, but as we all know, the world ends at the horizon.

For Trysail, it ends far closer than that.

 

[trysail]

Snow? In winter?! What sorcery is this? Surely 97% of climate scientists never expected such things. Of course, if the world consisted of more than the US, you might realize that a cold US doesn't equal a cold planet, but as we all know, the world ends at the horizon.

The fact that you've swallowed that "97%" bullshit hook, line and sinker tells us that you don't have the foggiest fucking idea in hell what you're talking about.

If you bothered to look, you'd discover that is a complete fabrication. But you won't bother to look, you're too busy being a sheeple.



​

 

[49greg]

Look who's talking about not bothering to look.

 

[TxRad]

Look who's talking about not bothering to look.

If it ain't on a graph, he can't see it.

 

[49greg]

If it ain't on a graph, he can't see it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't on Fox News he wouldn't listen to it.

Should be plenty of graphs on climate data for the last few hundred years.

 

[TxRad]

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't on Fox News he wouldn't listen to it.

Should be plenty of graphs on climate data for the last few hundred years.

Oh yeah and he's posted most of them at one time or another.

 

[Handley_Page]

Of course 'Climate change' (as 'Global Warming' was once called) exists.
The fact that many who CAN do something to mitigate the crap spewed into the Air (or, for that matter) the Oceans, actually don't, often citing costs, or sometimes technology, seems immaterial.

 

[lovecraft68]

Snow? In winter?! What sorcery is this? Surely 97% of climate scientists never expected such things. Of course, if the world consisted of more than the US, you might realize that a cold US doesn't equal a cold planet, but as we all know, the world ends at the horizon.

Snow.... in the winter...in New England.....even more Devilry!

 

[trysail]

Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset (the CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world— 1772-2014 )

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif



​

 

[trysail]

After Fat Albert Gore's work of fiction, the sheeple were all ready to "SAVE THE PLANET" by abandoning fossil fuel and nuclear power.


If the dumbfucks had their way, half of New England would be dead.



​

 

[elfin_odalisque]

After Fat Albert Gore's work of fiction, the sheeple were all ready to "SAVE THE PLANET" by abandoning fossil fuel and nuclear power.


If the dumbfucks had their way, half of New England would be dead.



​

Look at the European union where fossil fuel is being replaced by environmentally unfriendly windmills.

 

[trysail]

Look at the European union where fossil fuel is being replaced by environmentally unfriendly windmills.

You're absolutely right.

This is what the dumbass CO2 Klimate Krazies have done in Europe.

They've raised everybody's energy prices, screwed their economies and haven't reduced greenhouse gas emissions by one iota. The whole thing has been a giant boondoggle.


http://www.eia.doe.gov/todayinenergy/images/2014.11.18/main.png


http://www.eia.doe.gov/todayinenergy/images/2014.11.18/main.png


ht tp://www.eia.doe.gov/todayinenergy/images/2014.11.18/main.png

​

 

[HandsInTheDark]

This is a subject I've checked research on. Climate change is very real. The data are not unclear and they haven't been unclear for 10 years.

What's still unclear is how the long term effects will manifest, so take it with a grain of salt when people say NYC will be unlivable in 500 years. Yes, the raw data does suggest it, but there's at lot we don't know about what happens with this much additional energy being trapped by the oceans. We know it amps up storms, and anyone in the NE US this winter can look out their window and see a sample of things to come. We know it enlarges oceans, in part due to meltoff but mostly because water expands when it gets warmer and it doesn't take a lot of percent expansion to cause a problem when the average ocean depth is over 2 miles. We already have evidence that it changes water distribution patterns, shifts habitats of some plants and animals, and releases trapped methane from formerly frozen soil. All that stuff is trivial to measure and it's all tracking to predictions. That doesn't mean we can confidently predict long term effects on humanity.

In the short term, the effects are not very noticeable and they are very gradual. A 1 foot rise in average sea level at NYC goes uncommented on because it took 100 years to happen. What we see now is little increases in storm intensity and duration. But if you want to look for evidence that Money has looked into this and they know it's real, you have to look at how insurance companies, shipping companies and military organizations are starting to bet. And they are betting on iceless arctic seas and continuing and increasing unrest over water distribution and arable land. The organizations that take long term bets and are affected by weather, are betting the science is right. These are not fluffy headed liberals I'm talking about, they are people with financial skin in the game and legacies to protect. If you don't want to wade through the science, wade through financial statements. They tell you a lot about what the smart people believe.

 

[DreamCloud]

Does it really matter if global warming exists or not? The idea of spewing our energy exhaust into the atmosphere, then breathing it in, should be reason enough to find alternatives.

 

[trysail]

Does it really matter if global warming exists or not? The idea of spewing our energy exhaust into the atmosphere, then breathing it in, should be reason enough to find alternatives.

Are you writing of particulates and nitrous oxides?

Or are you writing about CO2 (which is, of course, what you exhale)?



​

 

[Handley_Page]

Look at the European union where fossil fuel is being replaced by environmentally unfriendly windmills.

There are those of a certain age who consider the EU's ideas on environmentally-friendly ideas to be plain daft, if not actually preposterous. I didn't mention the costs.
To this citizen, the answer lies in Nuclear Energy and tidal generation.

You're absolutely right.
This is what the dumbass CO2 Klimate Krazies have done in Europe.
They've raised everybody's energy prices, screwed their economies and haven't reduced greenhouse gas emissions by one iota. The whole thing has been a giant boondoggle.

​

I'm not actually sure about what can be done, you understand, but I personally do not believe that Solar Power is sufficiently effective this far north (51-53 degrees?).
Absolutely Barking Mad, the lot of 'em.

 

[JackLuis]

Temperature variations are really not a problem, compared to oceanic acidification. This and the water temp effects on algae, coral, and reefs in general spell the doom of our food chain.

Cheer up, things could be worse.

 

[Hypoxia]

Temperature variations are really not a problem, compared to oceanic acidification. This and the water temp effects on algae, coral, and reefs in general spell the doom of our food chain.

Cheer up, things could be worse.

And they will be.

If this were the Political Board I might posit that climate-change deniers are genocidal terrorists seeking the extinction of humanity, not too different from "mad scientists", nihilists, and political-religious hacks working for "the end of the world". But I've given up on political debate; nothing is accomplished. So I'll just ignore the suicidal bubbleheads and other enemies of humankind. I'll be dead soon enough, and so will they. Ta-ta.

 

[trysail]

And they will be.

If this were the Political Board I might posit that climate-change deniers are genocidal terrorists seeking the extinction of humanity, not too different from "mad scientists", nihilists, and political-religious hacks working for "the end of the world". But I've given up on political debate; nothing is accomplished. So I'll just ignore the suicidal bubbleheads and other enemies of humankind. I'll be dead soon enough, and so will they. Ta-ta.

You’re a climate denier if:

• You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 18+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.
  
  
• If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history.
  
  
• If you believe that the observed West Antarctica warming is caused by warming of the atmosphere. Recent studies show that the heat is coming from volcanoes below the glacier. Besides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.
  
  
• If you believe that 97% of climate scientists support the claim that global warming is driven directly by man-made CO2. It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning. Far fewer agreed with the man-made warming question and few of them agree on the details.
  
  
• You believe that climate models accurately represent the climate of the earth. They don’t. Even the scientists who run them and the IPCC agree that they cannot predict the future of the climate. This is now obvious to everyone since they totally failed to predict the leveling off of atmospheric temperatures since 2000.
  
  
• You think that climate models accurately model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. They don’t. They are completely unable to model the behavior of 97% of the greenhouse gas, water vapor and clouds. The dire predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 were based on the conjecture that water vapor would amplify the effects of CO2. The lack of recent warming while CO2 continues to increase shows clearly that water vapor is either neutral or in fact suppresses the warming from CO2.
  
  
• If you believe that around 2000, CO2 magically changed its mind and decided to warm the oceans instead of the air. Some scientists speculate that this is the case but there is little or no hard science to support the notion. Some even speculate that the heat is going into the deep oceans, even though there is no way to measure it or find it.
  
  
• You believe that man-made global warming is causing climate disasters. The International Red Cross reports that natural disasters are at a ten year low. Tornado and hurricane activity have also been at near record lows.
  
  

​

 

[DreamCloud]

Are you writing of particulates and nitrous oxides?

Or are you writing about CO2 (which is, of course, what you exhale)?

​

Both of which should be limited if feasible. CO2 in large quantities is as detrimental as to much water. Why would you insist that coal be used if alternatives exist that work? I would assume that you adhere to capitalism. A better product should win over inferior ones. Cheap energy is not necessarily the best product. Consumers will decide in the end - no matter the governmental influence.

If you think the consumer is misinformed and the government is skewed to that view - well, welcome to democracy. You have your vote, use it.

 

[Hypoxia]

I look forward to massive environmental degradation and catastrophic climate change. Why? Because it won't be as bad as the next planet-smashing meteorite strike. Earth gets hit by extinction-level space debris every now and then. If we wreck the planet enough ourselves, humanity just might be motivated to start colonizing the universe before that next extinction strike. If you're concerned with long-term human survival, get off the planet.

 

[DreamCloud]

I look forward to massive environmental degradation and catastrophic climate change. Why? Because it won't be as bad as the next planet-smashing meteorite strike. Earth gets hit by extinction-level space debris every now and then. If we wreck the planet enough ourselves, humanity just might be motivated to start colonizing the universe before that next extinction strike. If you're concerned with long-term human survival, get off the planet.

With Leonard Nimoy gone, that day seems farther away.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Serious question, trysail: suppose that ten or twenty years from now, the evidence for anthropogenic climate change becomes so strong that even you can't keep on pretending it's all a big conspiracy theory. If at some point it becomes clear to you that this is a real thing, likely to kill millions of people, and that folk like yourself got in the way of doing anything about it when there was still time to avoid the worst of the impact... what would you do?

[*] You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 18+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...cillations-and-the-global-warming-faux-pause/

"No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming. Despite widespread such claims in contrarian circles, human-caused warming of the globe proceeds unabated. Indeed, the most recent year (2014) was likely the warmest year on record."

Atmospheric warming has been slower than expected, for a bunch of reasons, but it's still happening.

[*] If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history.

If you don't know that most of the Antarctic ice mass is land ice, then you're curiously uninformed for somebody whose main interest on these forums seems to be climate change. If you don't know that melting of land ice is what affects sea levels, ditto. If you don't know that Antarctic land ice mass is steadily dropping, ditto. If you know all those things and still attempted to mislead your audience by talking only about sea ice extent, then you're a crook.

In the short run, warming actually causes an increase in snowfall in some places, including Antarctica: higher air temperatures over oceans mean more moisture in the atmosphere, which means more snow available to fall when the air does get cold (which still happens due to a phenomenon known as "winter"). Combined with increased melting, that is indeed causing an increase in sea ice. But the mass on land is steadily decreasing.

[quoteBesides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.[/quote]

Fun science fact: even below freezing, glaciers flow. The warmer they are, the faster they flow. Flow eventually gets them to the sea, where they do melt. Again, I'm surprised that anybody with such an interest in climate change would be unaware of this, or that any honest person would obfuscate that point.

If you believe that 97% of climate scientists support the claim that global warming is driven directly by man-made CO2. It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning. Far fewer agreed with the man-made warming question and few of them agree on the details.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

As that article discusses, those tenets include the idea that the main driver of climate change is anthropogenic GHGs.

OK, that's all the bullshit I have time for this morning, some of us have work to do.