I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[PeterMP]

 national security 

you really don't want me to address that idiocy and the damn greenies that enabled it. (not dissimilar to what excess they will enable if the current crop succeeds today)

 

energy independence has been possible here long before fracking took off, but certain fools preferred to enrich and have to defend despots and place their hopes in fairy tales and the good will of the Sheikhs.

 

****s wouldn't know science or economics if it was gnawing on them.

 

Well, if you are so smart, why don't you explain it to us all?

Edited August 17, 2014 by PeterMP

[twa]

Well, if you are so smart, why don't you explain it to us all?

 

why would I bother?

 

history does repeat itself

[Mad Mike]

A message about the Koch brothers from the father of capitalism:

 

 

“The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ... ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined ... with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men ... who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public” 

― Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Volume 1 of 2

 

Koch Brothers Threaten to Sue Over New Petcoke Ordinance - Toxic Waste Land - Curbed Chicago

[Skins24]

It's called climate change now, and yes they say extreme weather events will be more common.

 

No...

Not even the IPCC

 

I wouldn't say the terminology changed. Human activities are indeed causing global warming, which is driving a rapid change in the Earth's climate.

 

And warming of the Earth will lead to increased cooling in certain parts. Increased melting of arctic ice weakens the gulf stream (the heat trapped in water carried by the gulf stream is one of the contributors to warming in Atlantic European states). You will see colder European winters as a result and stronger hurricanes in the Gulf (warmer tropical waters since heat is trapped).

And no...

 

There are so many things wrong with the 'more extreme events will occur' line of thinking. Especially when it comes to a warmer climate. The number one thing wrong is that there's absolutely no evidence for it. 

Focusing on the U.S., there would be less tornadoes and strong storms as the clash between air masses becomes less dramatic. The Atlantic would see less hurricanes as more dust would come off of Africa, any change in ocean currents (like if the gulf stream weakens) would cause changes with the air currents leading to more wind shear, and as we see during El Nino years, a warmer Pacific simply causes unfavorable conditions in the Atlantic. 

Any increase in rainfall (and cloud cover) with a warming climate would, well, cause a cooling of the climate...so...

 

 

My first post was tongue in cheek but it was accurate. The net effects of a warming climate worldwide will remain positive for quite some time...and that's at incorrect rates (rates showing the Earth warming faster than it is.)

[PeterMP]

My first post was tongue in cheek but it was accurate. The net effects of a warming climate worldwide will remain positive for quite some time...and that's at incorrect rates (rates showing the Earth warming faster than it is.)

 

Can you cite something that agrees with this?

 

Partially, in terms of extreme events, this depends on how you define extreme events and what the results are.

 

And even for things like hurricanes, the thought is it will be a mixed bag.

 

The expectation is that ATLANTIC hurricanes will become less frequent (the part about wind sheer and El Nino is right), but the storms that we have will be more severe because of the warmer water.

 

And will have more severe effects in terms of rising sea levels producing more flooding and less preparation by a populace that is less experienced with hurricanes.

 

BUT that's just in the ATLANTIC.

 

A warming world almost certainly means changes in precipitation patterns, which can certainly mean decreased rain fall in areas that historically get more leading to significant drought.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059748/abstract

 

So are those extreme events?

 

In addition, the effects of clouds aren't clearly cooling.  It depends on the nature of the clouds (high or low), where they are (over the ocean or land), the time of day and year.

 

(e.g. clouds at night actually act like insulation and keep heat in reflecting heat that normally would be lost to space back to Earth).

 

There is actually a pretty lively debate over how much, if any, cooling can be expected from increased cloudiness.

Edited August 18, 2014 by PeterMP

[No Excuses]

There are so many things wrong with the 'more extreme events will occur' line of thinking. Especially when it comes to a warmer climate. The number one thing wrong is that there's absolutely no evidence for it. 

 

 

 

What evidence suggests that warmer waters in the Atlantic won't contribute to an increase in the severity of Atlantic hurricanes?

 

In essence, when you have increased warming which raises the water holding capacity of the air, you have more water vapor in the atmosphere. The end result is precipitation events that will be more intense in nature (this is an already observed phenomena and climate models predict this into the future as well). 

 

It's really annoying when people come into these debates, loudly and definitely announcing that "there is no evidence!". There is plenty of evidence for this. Please keep an open mind.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

 

Extremes of weather and climate can have devastating effects on human society and the environment^1, 2. Understanding past changes in the characteristics of such events, including recent increases in the intensity of heavy precipitation events over a large part of the Northern Hemisphere land area^3, 4, 5, is critical for reliable projections of future changes. Given that atmospheric water-holding capacity is expected to increase roughly exponentially with temperature—and that atmospheric water content is increasing in accord with this theoretical expectation^{6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11}—it has been suggested that human-influenced global warming may be partly responsible for increases in heavy precipitation^3, 5, 7. Because of the limited availability of daily observations, however, most previous studies have examined only the potential detectability of changes in extreme precipitation through model–model comparisons^{12, 13, 14, 15}. Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. These results are based on a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analysed with an optimal fingerprinting technique. Changes in extreme precipitation projected by models, and thus the impacts of future changes in extreme precipitation, may be underestimated because models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming¹⁶.

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html

 

The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.

[Mad Mike]

Ouch! Texas Judge Slams Right-winger for Wasting His Time | TFN Insider

 

 

 

In his lengthy list of “Findings of Fact,” Judge Dietz rips into wild and unsubstantiated claims that the head of the right-wing, corporate-funded Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast, made when he testified in the case last year. The Heartland Institute argues, among other things, that the overwhelming scientific evidence on the growing threat of global climate change is wrong. It also supports voucher schemes that take funding from neighborhood public schools to subsidize tuition at private and religious schools instead.

 

From the findings of fact:

 

 

 

Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.

[Mad Mike]

could you clarify EXACTLY what the current scientific consensus is????

I hear a lot of bantering, not enough specifics

 

Climate Change and Global Warming: Vital Signs of the Planet

[twa]

Climate Change and Global Warming: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

 

link from your link

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-antarctic-sea-ice-20140830-story.html#page=1

 

Scientists struggle to explain the growth of Antarctic sea ice, but say climate change is real

A warming world may paradoxically be contributing to the growth of Antarctic sea ice, experts say

[sacase]

the funny thing about Global warming is they do more to hurt themselves than anything. First its global warming then its global climate change, then we have an exceptionally cold winter. People in general don't care about the science behind it, they use their personal observation and that tells them that things are getting colder rather than hotter. Then you see reports that there is more ice in the antarctic and more ice at the north pole then combine that with idiots like Al Gore who predicted doom and gloom and that just strengthens the average person's aversion to global warming.

[twa]

yep global warming is now expanding the Arctic ice.....can we save the polar bears from freezing by feeding them environmentalists?.....study to follow

[Mad Mike]

the funny thing about Global warming is they do more to hurt themselves than anything. First its global warming then its global climate change, then we have an exceptionally cold winter. People in general don't care about the science behind it, they use their personal observation and that tells them that things are getting colder rather than hotter. Then you see reports that there is more ice in the antarctic and more ice at the north pole then combine that with idiots like Al Gore who predicted doom and gloom and that just strengthens the average person's aversion to global warming.

 

Watch 27 years of 'old' Arctic ice melt away in seconds | Environment | theguardian.com

 

Limbaugh: 'Polar vortex' is made up, yet still proof the ice caps aren't melting | PunditFact

 

Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again

[Mad Mike]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/

 

 

The result is based on data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) on board of the Japanese satellite “GCOM-W1″. “The winter maximum has been a record for on the second consecutive year” said Walt Meier, a meteorologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. However, he stressed that it is by no means a rapid growth: The now measured maximum extent is only 3.6 percent above the average maximum extent of 1981 to 2010. “This year, the ice edge extends therefore only 35 kilometres further out to sea than in an average year,” Meier said.

Moreover, the mere extent of sea ice does not necessarily say something about the volume of the ice, because that also depends on the thickness of the frozen layer. And the vast majority of the Antarctic ice mass is located on the Antarctic continent – and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica.

 

New Theory for Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing

 

 

a new study has pinpointed another culprit: melting ice shelves. As ice shelves that ring the southernmost continent disintegrate in warming temperatures, the fresh water that flows from them accumulates in a cool

and fresh surface layer on top of the ocean. This cool layer then shields the surface ocean from the warmer, deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves.

The study "shows that global warming can cause regional cooling, and that's quite counterintuitive," said study leader Richard Bintanja, of theRoyal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. (See a map of the impact of global warming worldwide.)

"Most people think if you warm the whole system, it will warm everywhere," he said.

Also counterintuitively, a colder Antarctica may contribute to a rise in sea levels. Colder temperatures mean less snow on the ice sheets, which makes more water stay in the ocean, he pointed out.

[PeterMP]

the funny thing about Global warming is they do more to hurt themselves than anything. First its global warming then its global climate change, then we have an exceptionally cold winter. People in general don't care about the science behind it, they use their personal observation and that tells them that things are getting colder rather than hotter. Then you see reports that there is more ice in the antarctic and more ice at the north pole then combine that with idiots like Al Gore who predicted doom and gloom and that just strengthens the average person's aversion to global warming.

 

1.  Arctic sea ice is on a clear down turn.

 

2.  The "increase" in Antarctica sea ice is at least partly likely due to a change in a sensor that caused a step increase in the 1990's that was not correctly documented.

 

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/273/2014/tcd-8-273-2014.html

 

(Though there are likely other things going on there, including ozone hole issues, and changes in wind/ocean currents.)

 

3.  In terms of people's perspective, I like this cartoon:

 

[chipwhich]

Maybe we can stop the Chinese from polluting and using coal fired plants.  Oh and stop Al Gore from lighting up his house.

[Larry]

Maybe we can stop the Chinese from polluting and using coal fired plants. Oh and stop Al Gore from lighting up his house.

And perhaps cut back on burning Talking Points.

[alexey]

Climate change denial is so boring nowadays.  It's like a group of friends where the jokes have been told.  People are not even trying for a great delivery.  Soon even punch lines will be omitted.  Al Gore!  Ice!  Chinese!  Taxes! #12!

[chipwhich]

And perhaps cut back on burning Talking Points.

 

Meh, call me jaded.  The oceans filling up with plastic bottles, 1.6 gallon toilets, mercury filled light bulbs, mini mansions, and Americans who think they can change the global temperature.  Recycle recycle.  Recycle all those plastic deerpark bottles and diet soda's your slurping down like there is no tomorrow.  But if I take a reusable bag to the grocery store I am changing the planet   Damn libs

[alexey]

Meh, call me jaded.  The oceans filling up with plastic bottles, 1.6 gallon toilets, mercury filled light bulbs, mini mansions, and Americans who think they can change the global temperature.  Recycle recycle.  Recycle all those plastic deerpark bottles and diet soda's your slurping down like there is no tomorrow.  But if I take a reusable bag to the grocery store I am changing the planet   Damn libs

Think of it as the liberal outlet for frustration.

 

Frustrated conservative folks openly carry assault rifles and talk about revolution.  Frustrated liberal folks take reusable bags to the grocery store and buy free range eggs.

[btfoom]

The problem becomes, without discussing a reasonable alternative, you get to put undocumented numbers on costs without any associated costs for another solution.

 

You've put the cost of prevention billions.

 

How much is mitigation costs?

 

How much of that billions makes sense to spend in terms of national security any way?

 

How much are we (and have we) going to spend on "national defense" in order to keep the oil flowing from the ME?

 

When you look at the costs of prevention, is it really that unreasonable?

 

But if you can't even get people to admit that human caused climate change is something we are doing and something we can do something about, then you can't even start to have those conversations.

 

@PeterMP - I found this article that deals with the costs of mitigation.

 

I'm not getting into an argument either way, just thought you could at least see one person's idea about mitigation costs.

[alexey]

@PeterMP - I found this article that deals with the costs of mitigation.

 

I'm not getting into an argument either way, just thought you could at least see one person's idea about mitigation costs.

"this article" is actually called "CO2 Mitigation: It's Dopey"

 

Wear it with pride.

[btfoom]

Just another report dissecting the "97%" myth.

 

Wear that with pride.

[No Excuses]

Just another report dissecting the "97%" myth.

 

Wear that with pride.

 

It's really quite amazing how you will continue citing people who have been proven wrong and dishonest time and time and time and time again. 

 

Yup, no bias at all.

[PeterMP]

Just another report dissecting the "97%" myth.

 

Wear that with pride.

 

The number might not be 97%, but it would be very hard to believe that it isn't a huge number given the other related work such as polling of climate scientists.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

 

For any practical reasons, does it matter if the number is 94% and not 97%?

 

I'm also struck by the report in your link doesn't actually put a number on it.

 

Are we arguing over 94% vs. 97%?

 

That isn't really an argument that I suspect anybody is interested in having.

Edited September 9, 2014 by PeterMP

[Larry]

It's really quite amazing how you will continue citing people who have been proven wrong and dishonest time and time and time and time again.

Yup, no bias at all.

Some evidence, to go with that attempt to dismiss the information simply by attacking the source, might help your case.