Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are credible scientists who believe that the Pacific and Atlantic multi-decadal oscillations are the root cause of all the temperature variations that have been falsely attributed to CO2.
Actually I think there is one scientist who believes this. I'm all for funding his research. Maybe he has a point. If he's right we will find we have cleaned up our environment a bit faster than we actually had to.
The is just not so....Heat is energy, and much of the energy (heat) stored on this planet is released in violent storms.
The climate would be more stable warmer. The weather well maybe, maybe not.
During the last ice age the sea level was going up and down 3 to 6 feet every 1,500 years. That means a lot of swings in climate. The little ice age pushed the sea level 6 inches at most.
Oh my God. I really can't believe we are still debating whether or not climate change is real. 99% of scientists agree that it is. I'm going with them...
That's the point. Over the past few decades, 99% of experts on diet, nutrition, cardiology, etc. agreed that a low-fat, high-carb diet was the best way to eat. We've based our diet around the food pyramid for decades and guess what? These assumptions are why obesity and diabetes are epidemic. We listened to the experts, and they were wrong.
These dietary recommendations were made by the government, who is directly connected to the ag industry. Now we have the government that is deeply connected to green energy companies funding studies to prove AGW is not only true (some degree of human influence is obvious), but the biggest issue we're facing today. This fear mongering pours billions of dollars directly into the pockets of both green energy startups and giant corporations alike. One of Obama's first appointments was the CEO of GE, a company with a huge interest in profiting from green energy. There is a massive amount of money to be made peddling AGW and green energy -- but since it appears to be a noble cause, those profiting have insulated themselves from criticism. Following the money, objectively, paints a scenario that isn't necessarily so innocent and well-intentioned.
AGW is reality. There's no debating the fact that we have an impact on our environment and climate -- the question is how much do we effect it and should be changing our way of life to address a problem we don't know the severity of yet? Should we hamstring our economy? Should we put additional burdens and restrictions on small businesses? How much do we have to sacrifice to level things out? When a single volcano eruption effects the atmosphere more than the entirety of human activity, we have to put things into perspective.
I have engaged with plenty of AGW deniers,etc. on this forum, and I think their arguments are completely bogus. The science behind greenhouse gases and their effects is 100 years old and self-evident.
What is more surprising in my observation is how we came to the view the if we don't screw up the climate, it will be stable. All of the earth's history suggests a tremendous amount of fluctuation. So, while I think it is asinine to thoughtlessly spew greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, I wonder why we have not been thinking about climate contingency planning. Given that the Holocene was an interglacial in a Pleistocene pattern where 90% of the time is much colder, it would seem the risk of a deep freeze is real too. But more generally, why assume the Holocene will continue? It might get colder and it might get warmer, and the precipitation patterns could change, and we should openly discuss all these options, without the political stupidity that surrounds the AGW debate. The balance of nature just does not exist, or to quote the engineers, stationarity is dead.
It is a hugely important topic and the only options I seem to hear are: 1) We are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that it bad (true), 2) that is a hoax and we should drill baby drill. It is constantly changing. The truth seems be that we cannot count on any form of climate stability long-term, and so we should be building in contingency plans globally for massive changes. For example megadroughts, an Ice Age, an exceptionally hot period, etc. I could be behind on my science here, but how do we know any of these options is not around the corner?
I agree that we need to replace fossil fuels, they do pump pollution into the atmosphere. However, I think we need a measured, common sense approach, to close our coal-fire power plants as we replace them with cleaner sources.
The problem is that the way the current morons are going about it, we are punishing ourselves as a nation, forcing the closure of gigawatts of generated power without replacing it first.
We need to develop a suitable replacement energy source to fossil fuels, and it will definitely not be accomplished with batteries, wind and solar.
The people who will invest, build and operate these new cleaner power plants should be the ones currently operating our coal power plants, but our government is too busy punishing them, forcing them to close prematurely or by enacting federal regulations and policies which force them to pay hundreds of millions in upgrades, fines, fees and mandates, to bankrupt them.
If a cab driver wants to buy an expensive hybrid cab to replace his gas guzzler. He keeps the gas hog, earning profits and saving up his money so he can retire his old cab and buy the new hybrid car. He does not punish himself by sending his only cab to the scrap yard, leaving him bankrupt with nothing, except three more years of car payments on the car he just scrapped.
What little ice age? There was no real ice age....NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 and 1850....At most there was modest cooling (less than 0.5 degree Celsius lower than 20th century average) of the Northern Hemisphere during this period.
Scientists call it the Little Ice-Age, for lack of any other way to explain it. So are you claiming that either the LIA did not occur, or that some global warming denier made up that term for the period?
For you guys the LIA seems to be your climate normal, most all of your climate temp graphs start in the LIA to show catastrophic man-made global warming. You guys seem to think we need to return to the climate of the LIA.
AGW is reality. There's no debating the fact that we have an impact on our environment and climate -- the question is how much do we effect it and should be changing our way of life to address a problem we don't know the severity of yet?
Not to mention we haven't determined witch direction to change our lives. What is the problem and what is the cure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu
Should we hamstring our economy? Should we put additional burdens and restrictions on small businesses? How much do we have to sacrifice to level things out? When a single volcano eruption effects the atmosphere more than the entirety of human activity, we have to put things into perspective.
What direction do we push things? Where is the climate headed and what should we do about it? Currently warmer, but what about Greenland? Warmer should send Greenland's ice into the ocean. That should trigger a major re-glaciation. Do we prepare for this contingency by adding greenhouse gasses to the environment? What is the best thing to do?
That is the inference to be made from what you said.
Colder temperatures gets more ice. Ice is a big player in a climate feedback loop. So if more ice made it less stable then less ice should make it more stable. Running the ice to zero should make it quite stable.
I really don't think you can infer that from what I've said at all.
Just because glacial periods tend to have unstable climates it doesn't follow that warm periods have stable ones simply because warm is the opposite of cold. The climate is most likely stable only to a certain point.
There is no universal set of rules for climate because there is no universal cause of climate change, and no universal set of conditions that repeats over and over until the end of time.
Do you have any idea how ignorant it is to continue to insist that AGW is a proven fact when the real world data doesn't agree with the hypotheses?
...
Not to mention why not just change the data to fit the hypothesis?
If you know what the answer is then the data is wrong not the hypothesis.
The answer is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is wrong because it causes global warming.
That is the problem with mixing politics and science. Do you remember the hole in the Ozone layer? Everyone was all worked up over it. Now anything being said about it? That discovery coincided with DuPont's patents on R-12 running out. Everyone had to switch to the new refrigerant and recycle etc. Now they have R-12a and you can put that one in your car with a kit from AutoZone.
Are we stupid enough to fall for it all over again?
So I say with some reasoning to back it up. Warmer is better.
I really don't think you can infer that from what I've said at all.
Just because glacial periods tend to have unstable climates it doesn't follow that warm periods have stable ones simply because warm is the opposite of cold. The climate is most likely stable only to a certain point.
There is no universal set of rules for climate because there is no universal cause of climate change, and no universal set of conditions that repeats over and over until the end of time.
Ice, albedo, fresh water in the North Atlantic, There is a repeating cycle every 1,500 years approximately going back 2 million years or more. The magnitude of that cycle is approximately proportional to the amount of ice.
Ice drives feedback loops, some positive some negative, for both warming and cooling. Eliminate the ice and you eliminate the feedback loops and you don't amplify the noise in the system.
Feedback loop. Ice is white. It reflects a lot of light. Cooler gets more white making it cooler still. Warmer make it less white, getting warmer still. That is the simplest one. There are more complicated ones.
Last edited by ContrarianEcon; 03-17-2015 at 10:39 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Climate Vs. Weather.
