The Truth, Still Inconvenient

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
You do realize that ice floating in water when it melts that sea level won't rise? If Greenland and Antarctica melts it will add to sea level rise because it moves from land to sea.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true, because ice that's somewhat elevated may hold more water than an area of just liquid water, but the real issue with his statement is that he ignores the negative effects of Greenland and Antarctica having their ice sheets melt (as well as Canadian Arctic islands).
 
purpleoscar said:
You do realize that ice floating in water when it melts that sea level won't rise?
Well no shit, but it's simpleton science. If the entire North Pole melted there wouldn't be a problem. Except this statement ignores the underlying problem, what's causing the melting, and can this cause effect land caps?

Don't fall for the simpleton science.
 
I'm not sure if that's entirely true, because ice that's somewhat elevated may hold more water than an area of just liquid water, but the real issue with his statement is that he ignores the negative effects of Greenland and Antarctica having their ice sheets melt (as well as Canadian Arctic islands).

It's because he doesn't think that CO2 regulates temperature as much as other natural effects and he's being flippant about it. We should be seeing an accelerating of melting and it's not there. Then there's the natural warming that's been happening since the end of the little ice age. Obviously most of that is natural and since there isn't an acceleration that shows CO2 as a cause then it looks like it has been exaggerated. We've had 10 times the CO2 and colder weather before. It's not the magic compound that controls everything. Within nature we've had the "snowball earth" and periods where all the ice melted. What's happening now is insignificant and quite boring despite the scare tactics. And believe they are scare tactics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1

James Hansen, who said New York would be flooded by the year 2000:

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.

More scare tactics. We've lived long enough to see all of those predictions being wrong at some point the predictions go so far that we won't be alive to see what happens and we supposed to take on their assertions without evidence because "we have to act and there's no time to wait". It looks more like confidence tricksters than scientists. To me if people make pathetic predictions I don't believe what they say and to destroy the economy without enough reason is a huge moral problem for me. I've said it already. If the public can't handle austerity measures to balance a budget they certainly can't handle shutting down coal plants and stopping the oil sands. It's all talk and no action even from the believers.
 
It's because he doesn't think that CO2 regulates temperature as much as other natural effects and he's being flippant about it. We should be seeing an accelerating of melting and it's not there. Then there's the natural warming that's been happening since the end of the little ice age. Obviously most of that is natural and since there isn't an acceleration that shows CO2 as a cause then it looks like it has been exaggerated. We've had 10 times the CO2 and colder weather before.

When?

If the public can't handle austerity measures to balance a budget they certainly can't handle shutting down coal plants and stopping the oil sands. It's all talk and no action even from the believers.

Here I completely agree with you (and I cannot claim to be any better than most believers).
 

Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png


image277.gif


New CO2 data helps unlock the secrets of Antarctic formation

The study's findings, published in Nature online, confirm that atmospheric CO2 declined during the Eocene - Oligocene climate transition and that the Antarctic ice sheet began to form when CO2 in the atmosphere reached a tipping point of around 760 parts per million (by volume).

Of course they say a lowering CO2 level led to a tipping point to prove the CO2 connection except they are talking about 760ppm. :doh:

Then you have Richard Lindzen:

Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action | Watts Up With That?

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot: “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” | Watts Up With That?

So the reason why skeptics are excited by cosmic rays has to do with a better correlation in deep geological time to temperatures. Lindzen looks at a doubling of CO2 effect to be around 0.7 degrees per century. Not 3-6 degrees. Even with the cooler sun argument for the far ancient past the sensitivity as predicted today would fry the planet before evolution would get to humans.

So I'm not afraid of CO2 but more afraid that we will run out of fossil fuels in a couple of centuries but by then we will likely have more advanced nuclear power like nuclear fusion to fuel the planet or something else nobody has thought of yet. There's need for research and development but we don't have to decrease our living standards drastically right now and we certainly shouldn't prevent poor countries from developing. All Bono's charity work would go for nothing if Africa can't develop using fossil fuels.
 
That is interesting data. My only question is what the rest of the composition of the atmosphere was at that point. When we start going back hundreds of millions of years, there are a lot of other factors that influence climate.

I'm not at all delusional enough to believe that carbon dioxide is all that influences climate. Hell, there are other greenhouse gases that have much larger contributions to climate change by volume that carbon dioxide does. But I still see no reason to doubt that carbon dioxide doesn't have *some* impact on climate change. And the problem is that, more than ever before, we've built up an international civilization that's really incredibly dependent on very fixed climate conditions. There are a lot of factors that could mess with that, but carbon dioxide seems to still be one that has impacts that act in the short term. They may not seem huge, but society is fairly dependent on fairly fixed conditions. Eventually, that will be a problem, climate change or no, barring incredibly well-done geoengineering.
 
I think methane is even bigger but from the quantity and timescales if CO2 was such a nightmare then the stability of the planet would be called into question. The only cooling compound I've heard of is SO2, but again we need to see some correlation. My view is that CO2 creates marginal warming (negative feedback) whereas warmers believe in positive feedback on cloud reactions. Since water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas the debate gets complex on figuring out if more CO2 will increase or decrease cloud cover. Some recent projections showing part of the atmosphere warming up have been disproved by weather balloons and Richard Lindzen's "Iris effect" studies show negative feedback. When you look at satellite data you get less warming than on land based temperature measurements so skeptics have been looking for urban island heat effects on stations as cities grow and found good examples of it. Then when you see that in 1990 many colder stations were removed from the data set you may see how that might accelerate the warming compared to satellites further (though the BEST project was supposed to have solved it in favor of the warmists the data appears to be virtually the same as Phil Jones used leaving skeptic arguments unanswered). Now we get to Michael Mann who used some trees to make a temperature proxy that eliminates the historical medieval warming period to make this period much warmer. So as you can see the debate will go on and half the public will balk at trillions in taxes to"save" the planet with so much uncertainty.
 
purpleoscar said:
Satellite sources? At least it shows what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. It's better than computer projections that are overwhelmed by an agenda.

No, that website. I couldn't find a true link to satellite sources.
 
Your sources make me :giggle:

You're laughing at his sources and you're posting links to Stephen Colbert?

A_Wanderer who sadly rarely posts here nowadays, did the scientific case for climate change properly, I suggest you take a lesson from him.
 
Was I posting Stephen Colbert as a scientific source? Was I even taking him sersiously?

NO and NO

What I was doing, and I'm glad that you of all people responded to it, was pointing out that those that keep repeating the mantra that conservatives don't write laws or use laws to promote their own prejudices are in denial.
 
What I was doing, and I'm glad that you of all people responded to it, was pointing out that those that keep repeating the mantra that conservatives don't write laws or use laws to promote their own prejudices are in denial.

What has this got to do with the debate on global warming? :huh:
 
No I can't see the video because it's only available in the U.S. but in the article:

Despite the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission's prediction of a one-meter sea level rise by 2100, the News & Observer reported last week that state lawmakers aimed to limit plans to address this (literally) rising challenge.[Yay for taxpayers!]

Republican legislators circulated a bill, which, as a Scientific American blog pointed out, stated that sea level "rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900."

Colbert joked that the "no politician wants" the graph predicting accelerating rates of sea level rise, since it looks like a "ski jump to hell." When GOP lawmakers use past data to predict the future "that makes that scary chart get all better," he declared.

If alarmist predictions actually were true and even met basic short-term predictions politicians would take the predictions more seriously but they are not precisely because they are alarmist. James Hansen is well known to manipulate projections where there is no data. So what can the U.S. do to mitigate sea-level? What if most of the sea level is natural? Why should we blow trillions worldwide to affect future sea-level when the predictions are sketchy already? Most of the world is in a debt crisis. I know the U.N. would love the tax revenue but taxpayers would be screwed. Next, IF CO2 is the main contributor to sea-level rise (the sea has been rising since the little ice age) what can we do about it if most of the world (especially China) doesn't want to stop growth? North Carolina trying to stop sea-level rise is like an ant trying to stop a runaway train.

The next thing is how is the debate illegal? Obviously the government can choose to defund what they want but the pro-global warming point of view not only legal but supported in many many areas in government. Unfortunately de-carbonizing is so expensive it would make fiscal austerity to balance the Greek budget a cake walk. Who would want California's economy spread all over the U.S.?

Listening to liberal jokes about the environment always assumes an environmental end of the world scenario as a uncontroversial premise. It's like listening to jokes that only religious people can laugh at. What if the premise is wrong? The real smoking gun would be predictions that actually mirrored actual data. That would end the debate.

EDIT:

Or this might end any worries about fossil fuels if the prototype works as planned in 2019:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wod5AxKxDiQ&feature=related
 
Here's something that's actual news:

U.N. Climate Organization Wants Immunities Against Charges of Conflict of Interest, Exceeding Mandate, Among Others | Fox News

Internal UNFCCC documents, examined by Fox News, show that among other things, top officials hope to use those immunities to avoid challenges in the future based on such things as:

--possible conflicts of interest in their duties,

--breaches of confidentiality in their work,

--violations of the due process rights of those affected by UNFCCC actions,

--making decisions or actions that are beyond the legal mandate of the organization or its subsidiaries.

And we are going to trust these idiots with our money?
 
The future we dread: Marked-up draft of UN Rio+20 agenda reveals shocking “sustainability” wish list | CFACT.TV

The United Nations plans to make its Rio+20 Sustainable Development Conference “the most significant environmental conference in history.” A draft planning and agenda document, “The Future We Want,” marked-up by myriad ultra-liberal NGOs, provides an unvarnished look at what lurks behind Rio+20.

“Americans, their free world partners and people in developing nations who hope to lift themselves out of poverty should be on their guard. Otherwise Rio+20 could easily trap them in a future we dread,” said Craig Rucker, CEO of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a Washington, DC-based organization that advances the needs of people, while also protecting wildlife and environmental values.

The UN’s international NGO allies want to expand previous calls for a “green economy,” by including new demands for “resource justice” and new mechanisms to ensure “contraction and convergence for over- and under-consumers of natural resources.” People do not need advanced degrees to figure out whose economies and lifestyles the activists intend to “contract,” Rucker commented.

Another agenda item would have the world end “speculation” in energy, raw material and economic markets. However, history has taught that it is extremely difficult even to define “speculation,” and that attempts to control investment, development and resource allocation frequently end in disaster.

The international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also advocate making national environmental policies subject to “international legal frameworks and regulations,” and “strengthening international environmental governance … within the institutional framework of sustainable development.” That would make national sovereignty “the most endangered species in Rio,” CFACT president David Rothbard stated.

The NGOs would place both nature and man in jeopardy, since they call for curbs on “any technologies that might imply a serious risk for the environment or human society, including in particular synthetic biology, geo-engineering, genetic modification, nuclear energy [the best green technology you fools :D] and nanotechnology,” Rothbard observed.

They would curtail the very technologies that allow us to provide for people’s needs in the most efficient, least intrusive manner. Few policies are more counterproductive than forcing people to grow low yield crops that are susceptible to insects and drought, or to rely on inefficient energy technologies, he said.

The document also seeks to impose staggering financial burdens on people in developed nations. It would give the UN 0.7% of a nation’s gross domestic product – some $1,325 per year for an American family of four. A Canadian family would pay $1,211, while their counterparts would be taxed $1,206 in Germany and $1,171 in Japan. Norwegian families would take dubious first place honors, paying a whopping $2,445 every year. Other countries’ obligations, based on World Bank 2010 data, can be found on CFACT.tv.

The NGOs most popular agenda item appears to be increased funding and powers for the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which they want to turn into an international version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “People concerned about the impacts that EPA has had on American energy prices and jobs – for minimal health or environmental benefits – should be especially wary of giving vast new powers and funding to the UNEP, which is completely unelected and unaccountable,” Rucker commented.

On climate and energy, activists claiming to be acting for “indigenous peoples” said the UN should insist that developed countries shift rapidly to low-carbon energy use. Not to be outdone, environmental NGOs are demanding that developed countries cut carbon dioxide emissions by 95% by 2050. [Ha, ha, ha fuck you U.N. :lol:] That would take the United States back to what it emitted around the time of the Civil War, while accomplishing nothing for the climate.

To pay for this expansive eco-wish list, the United Nations and NGOs also want to give the UN authority to tax every currency conversion and financial transaction, fuel sales and air travel tickets – and seize all funds that currently provide subsidies and tax deductions for fossil fuel and nuclear power. These funds would be in addition to the extensive foreign aid already provided by taxpayers and treasuries of developed nations.

CFACT invites people to examine this remarkable document at CFACT.tv – and determine for themselves how much it actually represents “the future we want.”

The Committee is taking a delegation to Brazil to expose these potentially devastating policy proposals. “We also intend to inject some much needed common sense into the deliberations, and ensure that at least some consideration is given to the needs of real people, especially the world’s poor – and not just to the unreasonable and often outrageous demands of Deep Ecology, anti-development activists,” Rucker said.
 
HIV does not cause AIDS. Smoking does not cause lung cancer. And burning fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming.

Typical Al Gore talking point garbage. The science on cancer and HIV is much better than on global warming/climate change/climate disruption. Intelligent skeptics know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but they don't attribute runaway global warming with a doubling of CO2. That's why the temperature hasn't increased like the U.N. expected. Scientists still can't separate man made causes from natural ones and that hasn't changed.

Now that Obama is re-elected this kind of garbage alarmism is going to happen again to try and use guilt on the public. Unfortunately for the left my assertion that we would have to eliminate industry to actually stop human CO2 from increasing the total on the planet is still true. No taxes anywhere has stopped it for any country and the recession did more to decrease the CO2 added to the atmosphere from humans than regulation did. There's no green technology for decades that can compete with fossil fuels.

I think now maybe Obama and EPA should push as many people out of work in coal and fracking as possible and blow money on solar and wind. That will make my point better than complaining about this boring drum beat. Also the public can tell of hypocracy when they know that most of the alarmists have a good standard of living and actually want to increase it like everyone else.
 
Ever since Hurricane Sandy, many where I live are rethinking the whole climate chang "conspiracy". Granted, houses were built in areas that can't survive massive flooding, so urban planners are to blame for the destruction. But what happened in NYC six weeks ago was not the norm - at least not until recently.
 
Typical Al Gore talking point garbage. The science on cancer and HIV is much better than on global warming/climate change/climate disruption.
Everytime Al's name is mentioned with climate change, another million sets of eyes role :rolleyes:

The science on cancer and HIV is pretty clear, but just like climate change has it's deniers, both in the science community and in the general public. One need look no further than FYM to find both type of deniers...

Intelligent skeptics know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but they don't attribute runaway global warming with a doubling of CO2. That's why the temperature hasn't increased like the U.N. expected. Scientists still can't separate man made causes from natural ones and that hasn't changed.
Intelligent skeptics are becoming fewer and farther between. I've seen many in the scientific community even who were deniers now moved to the fence.

There's no green technology for decades that can compete with fossil fuels.
By repeating this over and over; it shows you really don't understand the point.
I think now maybe Obama and EPA should push as many people out of work in coal and fracking as possible and blow money on solar and wind.
There's a huge push to end fracking down here in Texas, and guess who the loudest voices are? The Texas Tea Party.
 
I think it's generally accepted that the planet goes through natural warming and cooling periods. But is it such a stretch to think that man-made effects have caused an acceleration of that process?

And even if none of that were true, can anyone seriously say with a straight face that copious amounts of fossil fuels emissions is good for our health? What is so wrong with striving to create a cleaner, healthier environment for our kids, grandkids and generations to come? Why is this even a partisan issue?
 
Back
Top Bottom