Global Warming Debunked Again

Climate change is definitely happening. With the impending loss of solar activity in the northern hemisphere by 2030 we desperately need to pump more co2 into the atmosphere to keep us warm

 

At least provide new content.

 

For someone who likes to post about it you should know that by watching any of the Vice episodes about this or Years Of Living Dangerously mini series you could educate yourself.

Instead you talk like your typical blow hard self while looking so fucking dumb.

 

So democratic message: climate change exists and we need to take measures to try and prevent it or limit our damage

Republican message: "Here's a snow ball, hahaha yeah right it's getting warmer"

And yet the Democratic message is off base?

This idea of "it won't cause damage soon so oh well" is really stupid. First, no one says that in 5 years we are going to be underwater. What is soon is a deadline for us to reverse our behaviors to stop polluting at the rate that we are. Secondly, it's like saying "Well Iran 's nuclear factories won't be built for another 70 years so why should we try to stop them now?" which I'm sure is a topic republicans can relate to.

And lastly, the issue is happening today. Watch what I recommended above and you'll see that other parts of the world are already feeling the results of it. Just because it doesn't happen in your backyard doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

so personal anecdotes > science

 

This clearly obtuse overused line bothers the fuck out of me.

Everyone knows the climate changes. But it does so over extremely long periods of time without some sort of massive phenomenon, such as an asteroid striking or a giant amount of carbon dioxide being released from the earth through volcanic activity.

We are doing the latter right now. I have no clue how long it will take for some of the dire predictions to take place, but I'd really rather do all we can to stop it now than to ever see the day where we get to say "told ya so."

 

I just don't understand how you can recognize that the climate is an evolving creature that takes time to alter, and then expect an outcome overnight.

I agree with you that maybe the boogeyman way of approaching this topic hasn't been the best, but the problem exists. If you can admit the problem exists, then why does it matter the point in time that the predictions come to fruition?

Honestly I hope they never come to fruition because we make a ton of changes, and then in fifty years y'all get to make fun of us for all that wasteful spending. Our planet will be a nicer place because of it regardless.

 

Yea, I personally hope all the scientists are wrong.

 

where's the hysteria?

 

I respect that you do those things don't get me wrong, but as I said to TheChatch earlier in this thread, it doesn't matter.

What matters is that we hold the people responsible for supplying our energy and other pollutant producing products to certain standards that will force all of them to innovate. I don't want to stifle business, I want to keep the pressure on them to become better. Like Obama's fuel economy standards policies.

As individuals, we're going to use the products that we have available. We can do little things to help, but as long as the products available to us are producing a ton of pollutants then it doesn't matter.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...tting-temperatures-looks-like-across-the-u-s/

 

STOP RUSHING TO CONCLUSIONS. WE NEED TO WAIT 100 YEARS TO SEE IF THIS IS MAN MADE OR NOT BEFORE FREAKING OUT

 

Even if the change wasn't induced by humans climate change would be devastating to our modern specialized world. I find it a bit more comforting that we are responsible as then there as at least a course of action. But whatever, I'm tall, educated and don't want children...I'll let the foxnewsers kids deal with it

 

The problem is that most scientists think there is a cut off date that we need to reduce global emissions by otherwise we break the point of no return. And when you have people who deny the science while saying they're not scientists, it makes it pretty tough to get anything done about it.

 

Agreed. My grad work was climate change. My point is that its not going to effect me and as I don't want kids it won't effect them either. If the blithering idjuts want to spoil their grandkids world...fuck um.

 

I'm confused by what you are saying.

Are you saying it's ok to not care because you are not planning on kids?

 

Thats pretty damn selfish

 

Disastrous Sea Level Rise Is an Issue for Today's Public -- Not Next Millennium's

Posted: 07/26/2015 10:20 pm EDT Updated: 07/26/2015 10:59 pm EDT

Spoiler

Dr. James Hansen Become a fan
Climatologist

• Disastrous Sea Level Rise Is an Issue for Today's Public -- Not Next Millennium's
  Posted: 07/26/2015 10:20 pm EDT Updated: 07/26/2015 10:59 pm EDT
  
  
  
  In 2005, I argued that ice sheets may be more vulnerable than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated, mainly because of effects of a warming ocean in speeding ice melt. In 2007, I wrote "Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise," describing and documenting a phenomenon that pressures scientists to minimize the danger of imminent sea level rise.
  
  About then I became acquainted with remarkable studies of geologist Paul Hearty. Hearty found strong evidence for sea level rise late in the Eemian to +6-9 m (20-30 feet) relative to today. The Eemian is the prior interglacial period (~120,000 years ago), which was slightly warmer than the present interglacial period (the Holocene) in which civilization developed. Hearty also found evidence for powerful storms in the North Atlantic near the end of the Eemian period.
  
  It seemed that an understanding of the late Eemian climate events might be helpful in assessing the climate effects of human-made global warming, as Earth is now approaching the warmth that existed then. Thus several colleagues and I initiated global climate simulations aimed at trying to understand what happened at the end of the Eemian and its relevance to climate change today.
  
  More than eight years later, we are publishing a paper describing these studies. We are publishing the paper in an open-access "Discussion" journal, which allows the paper to become public while undergoing peer-review (a pdf of the paper with figures imbedded in the text for easier reading is available here). I will get to the reasons for that in a moment, but first let me mention some curious numerology to get you thinking about scientific reticence.
  
  Did you read any of the recent papers that concluded ice sheets may be disintegrating and might cause large sea level rise in 200-900 years? The time needed for ice sheets to respond to climate change is uncertain, and there are proponents for time scales covering a huge range. However, 200-900 years should cause a scientist to scratch his head. If it is uncertain by an order of magnitude or more, why not 100-1000? Where does the 200-900 precision come from?
  
  Why the peculiar 900 years instead of the logical 1000? Probably because nobody cares about matters 1000 years in the future (they may not care about 900, but 200-900 does not seem like infinity). A scientist knowing that sea level is a problem does not want the reader to dismiss it.
  
  Why 200 years? For one thing, 100 years would require taking on the formidable IPCC, which estimates that even the huge climate forcing for a hypothetical 936 ppm CO2 in 2100 would yield less than one meter sea level rise. For another thing, incentives for scientists strongly favor conservative statements and militate against any "alarmist" conclusion; this is the "reticence" phenomenon that infects the sea level rise issue2. "Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise" will be the subject of a session at the American Geophysical Union meeting this year.
  
  
  
  Fig. 1. Stratification and precipitation amplifying feedbacks. Stratification: increased freshwater/iceberg flux increases ocean vertical stratification, reduces AABW formation, and traps ocean heat that increases ice shelf melting. Precipitation: increased freshwater/iceberg flux cools ocean mixed layer, increases sea ice area, causing increase of precipitation that falls before it reaches Antarctica, adding to ocean surface freshening and reducing ice sheet growth. Retrograde beds in West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin, East Antarctica make their large ice amounts vulnerable to such melting.
  
  IPCC conclusions about sea level rise rely substantially on models. Ice sheet models are very sluggish in response to forcings. It is important to recognize a great difference in the status of (atmosphere-ocean) climate models and ice sheet models. Climate models are based on general circulation models that have a long pedigree. The fundamental equations they solve do a good job of simulating atmosphere and ocean circulations. Uncertainties remain in climate models, such as how well they handle the effect of clouds on climate sensitivity. However, the climate models are extensively tested, and paleoclimate changes confirm their approximate sensitivities.
  
  In contrast, we show in a prior paper and our new paper that ice sheet models are far too sluggish compared with the magnitude and speed of sea level changes in the paleoclimate record. This is not surprising, given the primitive state of ice sheet modeling. For example, a recent ice sheet model sensitivity study finds that incorporating the physical processes of hydrofracturing of ice and ice cliff failure increases their calculated sea level rise from 2 meters to 17 meters and reduces the potential time for West Antarctic collapse to decadal time scales. Other researchers7,8 show that part of the East Antarctic ice sheet sits on bedrock well below sea level. Thus, West Antarctica is not the only potential source of rapid change; part of the East Antarctic ice sheet is also susceptible to rapid retreat because of its direct contact with the ocean and because the bed beneath the ice slopes landward (Fig. 1), which makes it less stable.
  
  Our simulations were aimed to test my suspicion that ice sheet disintegration is a very nonlinear phenomena and that the IPCC studies were largely omitting what may be the most important forcing of the ocean: the effect of cold freshwater from melting ice. Rather than use an ice sheet model to estimate rates of freshwater release, we use observations for the present ice melt rate and specify several alternative rates of increase of ice melt. Our atmosphere-ocean model shows that the freshwater spurs amplifying feedbacks that would accelerate ice shelf and ice sheet mass loss, thus providing support for our assumption of a nonlinear ice sheet response.
  
  Our analysis, however, is based on much more than the climate simulations, as it relies on a huge body of research by the relevant scientific communities, as indicated by the 300 references. Our analysis is based on about equal parts of information gleaned from paleoclimate studies, climate modeling, and modern observations of ongoing climate changes.
  
  We submitted our paper to an open-access "Discussion" journal (ACPD) in hopes of engaging the scientific and policy-making communities in an important conversation about the urgency of reducing fossil fuel emissions and the adequacy of current and proposed policies. We conclude, for example, that 2°C global warming, rather than being a safe "guardrail," is highly dangerous.
  
  Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion is an open-access peer-reviewed journal in which the reviews and our response are published and freely available to the public. We hope this publication procedure will reduce the chance of the paper turning out to be unhelpful, which might be the case if criticisms were misinterpreted by the public. I think there is an analogy of this paper to my congressional testimony in 1988-89. Then as now, conclusions are drawn from a combination of information from paleoclimate, modeling, ongoing observations, and theory.
  
  Stakes in climate change are high, so conclusions about climate change are sure to draw fire. That's as it should be; skepticism is the lifeblood of science, essential to success of an analysis. So criticisms of my testimony, as described well by Richard Kerr, were inevitable and useful.
  
  Kerr's article is instructive about scientific reticence, which can deprive policymakers of the gut feeling of experts. This is all important for sea level rise because of lags in the system (policies → emissions → climate change → sea level rise). Information is needed as soon as possible.
  
  The most perceptive comments in Kerr's interviews may have been, as was often the case, from our good old friend Steve Schneider: "All that objective stuff rests on assumptions. The future is not based on statistics, it's based on physics." By "objective stuff" Steve referred to the arbitrary choices made to define probabilities of an outcome. The media accepts resulting probabilities as meaningful, yet entirely different results would be obtained from alternative initial choices.
  
  Steve's "objective stuff" defines IPCC's sea level analysis precisely. They choose certain 'process-based models' as first choice to define future sea level. This gives sea level rise in 2100 (relative to 1986-2005 mean sea level) of 0.74 m with likely range 0.52-0.98 m for business-as-usual greenhouse gases (RCP8.5 scenario), where 'likely' is defined as >66 percent probability. Ugh.
  
  
  
  Fig. 2. Surface air temperature change relative to 1880-1920 in 2055-2060 based on climate simulations assuming ice melt increases with a 10-year doubling time.
  
  A policymaker will take this as meaning that sea level rise is probably going to be less than a meter even if CO2 increases to 936 ppm, in other words, policymakers will take this "objective stuff" as serious, reliable estimates of what to expect. Yikes! What if someone decided to include processes such as hydrofracturing and ice cliff failure in these objective models?
  
  Steve Schneider modestly described his preferred approach as one based on "physical intuition". In other words, his best judgment based on all of the information at his disposal. "All of the information" surely includes knowledge gained from paleoclimate, modeling, observations of ongoing climate change, understanding of physical processes, etc. Of course, with this approach there is no way to specify an exact number for the sea level rise corresponding to >66 percent chance. Nevertheless, alternatives to the "objective stuff", at least in this case, are superior, in my opinion, but the result does depend on the scientific ability of the practitioner.
  
  Dick Kerr is one of the best science writers. His article contains information relevant to the scientific method in general and how we reach conclusions, not just scientific reticence. He allows readers to think and read between the lines, and draw their own conclusions.
  
  We can always say that more research is needed. Yet as the evidence accumulates at some point a scientist must say it is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong. In my opinion, we have reached that point on the sea level issue.
  
  My conclusion, based on the total information available, is that continued high emissions would result in multi-meter sea level rise this century and lock in continued ice sheet disintegration such that building cities or rebuilding cities on coast lines would become foolish.
  
  That brings me to the other reason for publishing in an open-access "discussion" journal, in addition to wanting to give the sea level rise issue more prominence prior to Paris meetings. There is a danger that the public -- not too familiar with the scientific method -- may misinterpret criticisms, which are natural and healthy for science. I'm hoping that this publication process will make that process clearer and thus also make the reality of the climate situation clearer.
  
  A startling conclusion of our paper is that effects of freshwater release onto the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic are already underway and 1-2 decades sooner in the real world than in the model (Fig. 2). Observed effects include sea surface cooling and sea ice increase in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and cooling in the North Atlantic. We suggest that the sluggishness (delayed response) of the climate models may be a result of a common excessive small scale mixing in many ocean models, including ours, as discussed previously. One of our objectives is to draw attention to this -- I also hope to get support for our group to do climate modeling to investigate the issue, because we recognize several ways that we could improve the model.
  
  Here, I expand on our conclusion that the science indicates 2°C is not a safe target. Indeed, 2°C is not only a wrong target, temperature is a flawed metric due to meltwater effect on temperature. Sea level, a critical metric for humanity, is at least on the same plane. Earth's energy imbalance is a critical metric, because energy balance must be restored to stabilize climate, which thus informs us about the required limit on greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreed upon at Rio in 1992, defines GHGs as the critical metric, saying that GHGs must be stabilized at a level that avoids "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with climate. Why have policymakers turned away from GHG amount to temperature as the metric with a value (2°C) seemingly pulled from a hat? Could it be because 2°C allows politicians to set emission targets to be achieved in the future when they will be out of office? If we stick to the Framework Convention's GHG metric, we find that the CO2 stabilization level is not 450 ppm or 400 ppm, it is 350 ppm and possibly lower with immediate implications for policy.
  
  The bottom line message scientists should deliver to policymakers is that we have a global crisis, an emergency that calls for global cooperation to reduce emissions as rapidly as practical. We conclude elsewhere and reaffirm in our present paper that the crisis calls for an across-the-board rising carbon fee and international technical cooperation in carbon-free technologies.
  
  Despite the increased threat of sea level rise, I believe that it is still possible to keep impacts of human-made climate change moderate. However, that optimism is based on the assumption that we are close to the point when it is widely recognized that a policy with an across-the-board rising carbon fee that rapidly phases down carbon emissions also makes good economic sense.

 

If this thing really works, I hope governments invest in them. It's not like we're just gonna start planting forests to do the job.

 

lol ya, fuck it

 

The Department of Energy says wind power is poised to become one of the country’s largest sources of energy, generating 35 percent by 2050, up from 5 percent today.

And it’s not just the windiest states that will generate wind energy. Thanks to improvements in technology, every state now has the capacity to produce wind power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/offshore-wind-power-gets-foothold-in-us_55b62248e4b0224d8832acc5


NEW SHOREHAM, Rhode Island, July 27 (Reuters) - Rhode Island's Deepwater Wind will start installing the foundations for North America's first offshore wind farm on Monday, a milestone the company says could pave the way for an industry long established in Europe but that is still struggling with opposition in the United States.

The 30-megawatt wind farm, which will include five turbines located three miles (4.8 km) off the coast of the bucolic summer tourist destination of Block Island, will take more than a year to build and is scheduled to produce electricity for the tiny island community and the mainland by the end of next year.'

Offshore wind projects have been delivering power in Europe since the 1990s, with nearly 2,500 turbines connected to the grid, but they have struggled to gain a foothold in the United States due to worries about cost, the esthetics of towering wind turbines within view from the coasts, and the impact on birds and whales.

 

Forget freaking out about it, how about just addressing it. It's just risk management. Some risks hit and become huge issues, and others don't, but it's much cheaper to address the risk than try to fix it once it's an big issue.

 

thank goodness people with this opinion will soon be the minority

 

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/apple-micr...s-commit-140bn-address-climate-change-1512696

 

smells like science conspiracy to me boys

 

apple has been way out in front of this for a long time

building renewable forests, solar powered server farms, recycling programs, etc

 

It's nice to know that at least the technology market is committed to developing business plans geared towards finding solutions to a problem that has only started to materialize

 

These companies just watched An Inconvenient Truth and started shelling out money.

 

And General Motors, among others listed.

 

If the people who's offspring will be affected can't be bothered to pull their collective head out of the sand I've given up on them. I'm more ecologically responsible that 90% of the world but the effects of climate change...honestly arent something I will continue to worry about.

 

Climate change: Obama unveils Clean Power Plan

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33753067

 

anybody know how they came up with the goals for this thing?

I was looking at the following:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/08/080115-seven-most-coal-dependent-states/

and see that SC has the third largest reduction goal, but is already in the bottom half on coal use.

 

My two biggest customers are related to the coal industry around Kentucky and they've been really down this year.

Personally it's sucked, but it's worth it over the long run.

 

Kentucky and WV apparently get more than 90% of their power from coal, but only have to reduce their emissions by ~20%. Meanwhile washington is already 5th lowest in emissions and has to cut by 71%.

This shit ain't making no sense.

 

The more reliant you are on one energy source, the more difficult it is to move away from it.

Washington already has alternative energy systems in place that they can focus on increasing output. Kentucky and WV reducing their emissions would take a massive investment since no systems are in place.

A lot of their economy is also tied to coal. Making them reduce emissions by 70% would basically destroy those states.

 

i can see that for kentucky and wv, but from the limited data i've seen, i can't find any rhyme or reason to the targets. just saying that i'd like to see how they arrived at them.

 

Apparently that national geographic is full of shit man. It shows SC needing to be at 772. I got to looking at the EPA:
http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplantoolbox/clean-power-plan-state-specific-fact-sheets

And they show SC only needing to be at 1152 by 2030, and they project the state to be at 1202 by 2020 without the clean power plan.

 

From what I can gather, the way the goals work is as follows.

The EPA did some hocus pocus where they cluster the country into three regions. From each region, they set two emissions reductions lines: 1 for coal&oil plants and another for natural gas plants. Whichever regional line is the least restrictive becomes the national number for that type of power plant. 1305 for coal & 771 for natural gas in 2030.

Then for each state, they take the current mix of the two types of plants, assume that mix will be the same in 2030, and the target is then the average of the two target numbers using your state's current mix for the weights. If for example, you currently generate 66% of your fossil fuel power from coal and 34% from natural gas, your target is .66*1305 + .34*771 = 1123.

 

Speed of glacier retreat worldwide 'historically unprecedented', says report

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ted-climate-change?CMP=twt_science*gdnscience