2016 hottest year on record, 16 of 17 hottest years this century

262 posts / 0 new
Last post
Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
Like most climate skeptics,

@spider
Like most climate skeptics, your sources are a little sketchy. For example, Joesph D'Aleo signed an "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" which states "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception." Seems a little far from an objective scientific worldview.

The source that your Russia Today article references is based on the work of Valentina Zharkova who said that basically journalists misinterpreted her research to support an anti climate change agenda. Speaking about those journalists, she said, "In the press release, we didn’t say anything about climate change. My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it."

Read more about that here and here.

Rather than read stuff from shady Russian news sites, I suggest reading up on what NASA has to say. Or if you don't trust those dummies at NASA, perhaps these organizations:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Or you could go to this list of nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

Or you could just confirm your bias and google "climate change does not exist" and just click on any random link.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
Aye, Claudius? You have me

Aye, Claudius? You have me all wrong. I am a firm believer in planet evolution. And I wouldn't have used South Pacific islands as examples, considering volcanic islands come and go with the trade winds.

Planet evolution has been around for a long, long time. So too have grifters who, for a small fee, can protect you from it.

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@ taxfoe

@ taxfoe
Planet evolution? We aren't talking about the volcanic creation of islands We are talking about sea level rise. Which, according to those "grifters" at NASA, is caused by added water from melting land ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms. But yes, I'm sure that those people at NASA are just after your money.

Really, the idea that it is just some huge conspiracy to enable the UN or democrats (or whomever) to control us seems to reek a little of conspiracy theory. The idea that NASA or the thousands of scientists across the planet who are investigating this phenomenon are all somehow linked to a global conspiracy to control the planet for financial gain or for ideological reason frankly comes across as more than a little silly. Especially once you realize how many thousands of scientists are seeing evidence of climate change. Somehow these folks at the University of Maine, for example, are either faking the data or too stupid to understand their data. Or they are evil. Is that what you are suggesting?

Let's apply some logic.

Who benefits from climate change? Certainly, graduate students and professors have some nice, cushy work up in their ivory towers. Have they crafted an elaborate secret cabal to simultaneously manipulate data in order to keep their jobs? Certainly Democrats would benefit. Perhaps they have some sort of secret deal worked out with these evil scientists?

Who benefits from climate change denial? Know of any corporations that make billions selling oil? Do you think they might be able to fund a few scientists to keep it "fair and balanced" and keep enough doubt in the public's mind so that legislation never gets passed?

Jasper
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 02/06/2014 - 5:24am
The new Cheeto-in-Chief has

The new Cheeto-in-Chief has declared global warming "bunk". The Trump chumps here are lapping it up.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
How about that arctic ice

How about that arctic ice decline…caused by natural variability….not caused by ‘global warming’.
Arctic sea ice study from 2009.

Holocene Fluctuations in Arctic Sea-Ice Cover
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N32/C2.php

What it means
Since the change in sea-ice cover observed at the end of the 20th century (which climate alarmists claim to be unnatural) was far exceeded by changes observed multiple times over the past several thousand years of relatively stable atmospheric CO2 concentrations (when values never strayed much below 250 ppm or much above 275 ppm), there is no compelling reason to believe that the increase in the air's CO2 content that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution has had anything at all to do with the declining sea-ice cover of the recent past; for at a current concentration of 385 ppm, the recent rise in the air's CO2 content should have led to a decrease in sea-ice cover that far exceeds what has occurred multiple times in the past without any significant change in CO2.

Background
Writing about the Arctic Ocean, the authors say that over the past thirty years "there has been a rapid decline in the extent and thickness of sea-ice in summer and more recently in winter as well," but they state there is "debate on the relative influence of natural versus anthropogenic forcing on these recent changes." Hence, they decided "to investigate the natural variability of sea-ice cover in the western Arctic during the Holocene and thus provide a baseline to which recent changes can be compared," in order to help resolve the issue.

Jasper
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 02/06/2014 - 5:24am
Whatever happened to the 75

Whatever happened to the 75 word-rule? Lots of cutting and pasting here, passed off as original thought, which, as any casual observer can quickly discern, is virtually non-existent on this forum. You chump-bots are good at regurgitating misinformation. I'll give you that.

Jasper
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 02/06/2014 - 5:24am
"lets apply some logic" Is

"lets apply some logic" Is that a joke?

These people have no logic when it comes to their precious conspiracies. For example, "there's an estimated 2,670,000 undocumented immigrants in California. So, with less than 60% turnout among our eligible citizens in 2016, these people believe that 112% of California's undocumented immigrants voted. This lack of logic goes a long way toward explaining why we have [a cheese puff] waiting to be sworn in next month".

source: some guy's comment who says it better than I can (except for the cheese puff part-that's all me).

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Claudius mentions the Pacific

Claudius mentions the Pacific Islands.
What is happening there?
Lots going on.
There is natural subsidence due to plate tectonics.
There is growth of coral reefs adding area to islands.
There is a flat sea level over time as measured by SEAFRAME.
More on SEAFRAME.
In almost all cases the positive upward trends depend almost exclusively on the depression of the ocean in 1997 and 1998 caused by two tropical cyclones. If these and other similar disturbances are ignored, almost all of the islands have shown negligible change in sea level from 1993 to 2010, particularly after the installation of GPS leveling equipment in 2000.
In summary, what the public thinks we know about sea levels wiping out Pacific Islands due to sudden climate change is absurdly oversimplified, neglectful of natural forces we can't affect, and not instructive at all when it comes to informing our public policy.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
Resetting:

Resetting:
1. The original post #1 referenced a link citing statements from the UN,….. and one scientist Michael Mann: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/14/2016-will-be-the-hot....

2. Scientist Mann developed the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph of global temps; was praised by his peer group in the climategate email revelations for ‘hiding the decline’. The hockey stick data was used by the UN until some Canadians discovered that no matter what input data was used the result was the hockey stick and proved it in court. I call that intentional deception..Mann knew it was corrupt. So….that presentation was withdrawn by the UN.

3. Mann and the UN have no credibility with me. NASA and NOAA have been discovered to have adjusted past temps downward and current temps upward to demonstrate to the public that global warming is occurring. Therefore their data is untrustworthy as their conclusions regarding ‘climate change’

4. Climate variability is not caused by the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere….some of which is due to human activity.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
http://www.climatedepot.com

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/27/noaa-1695-low-max-records-broken-...

One can entertain the ‘hottest ever’ records. One can entertain the ‘coldest ever’ records.
I say entertain both.

"1695 Low Max Records Broken or Tied From Sept 11 to Sept 20. One record broken by 25F”. ( fyi: this is 2014 data. Spider)

(A “Low Max” means that the maximum temperatures for the day was the lowest it has ever been. This indicates daytime cooling.“)

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@mainemom

@mainemom
"What does that mean? What does that entail? What are some good examples of government in the USA driving technological innovation, absent a well-defined and narrow objective (eg put a man on the moon)?"

Well if you look at the big tech breakthroughs, most are not university-based (I think universities are better at open ended research, like, "what the hell can we do with carbon nanotubes?")

There are two primary sources of big breakthroughs are private labs (think Bell labs, that discovered the transistor, or Xerox PARC), and the military (they invented the internet, thanks to Al Gore, just kidding obviously).

The military is incredibly inefficient but it's the only government spending that Republicans will blindly accept, so the sheer quantity of money that goes into it is bound to produce something useful.

Also, money is never an problem in the military, so things that wouldn't normally get started in the private sector because they are cost-prohibitive get a place that they be incubated. Often, it takes a certain amount of time to get something working and then make it cheaper, and the private sector doesn't always provide that much time.

Finally, WRT renewable energy, the military has a demand for it because it can potentially reduce the risk of supply line disruption (i.e. the fewer fuel trucks you have to drive across the desert exposed to IEDs, the better).

Private labs have historically driven a ton of big technology changes, and I think the one that is most likely to change the landscape right now is Tesla. They've already claimed to have a solar roof tile that is cheaper than a regular roof tile (https://www.tesla.com/solar) and isn't hideously ugly. It's too early to tell but like I said, promising.

So what can government do? Obviously military spending, though wasteful, is not going away. And I know a lot of Repubs hate subsidies for solar/wind technologies but if it decreases our dependence on foreign oil, it increases our national security.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@spider:

@spider:
I'll ask again, but you are just posting shit over and over again, not responding to the discussion. Are you trying to understand this better, or are you just trying to, "win"?

(spoiler alert: no one "wins" on the internet, everyone is a loser)

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
Ok anon....here is a response

Ok anon....here is a response.
I am posting information that has value to me so that others may read it and draw whatever conclusions they want and use their critical thinking skills to believe whatever they want. I try to be sure it is sourced so the viewers can decide if the info is credible.

When you call my postings 'shit' that hurts my feelings.

Sort of.....

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
mini ice age debunked:
anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@spider:

@spider:
"How about that arctic ice decline…caused by natural variability….not caused by ‘global warming’.
Arctic sea ice study from 2009."

From the actual paper:
" Superimposed on these long-term
trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity
that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years."

(emphasis mine).

Umm hello - the interpretation that "since it's been there before, it's no big deal now" is fallacious - it's like saying, "we have geological evidence that Florida has been under water before, so it's no big deal if it goes under water again."

Also, in the past it takes 3000 years for the sea ice to change, whereas we are doing it in like 50 years.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
When warm pacific water

When warm pacific water squirts thru the Bering straits up there near Alaska, it increases the ice melt. Natural variation.

https://robertscribbler.com/2015/06/23/hot-blob-2-takes-aim-at-sea-ice-a...

Impacts Already Visible Up the Coast

This year, waters in the Strait are extraordinarily warm — measuring 5.4 degrees above normal surface water temperatures. A plug of 5 C + above average water entering the Chukchi, Bering, Beaufort and East Siberian seas at a time when solar insolation is hitting peak intensity and during a period when nearby Arctic regions like Alaska are experiencing some of their hottest temperatures ever recorded. These waters, at temperatures in the range of 7-8 degrees Celsius, are warm enough to rapidly melt any ice they contact. And they’re flooding directly toward the ice pack.

Northward propagation of these currents during spring and summer plays a critical role in the rate of sea ice recession in the Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort and East Siberian Seas. Waters warmed by the summer sun and by the more rapidly heating continents amplify in the Bering Strait before making contact with the sea ice and pushing it to melt and recede.

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
We have a tidal gauge in

We have a tidal gauge in Portland harbor. It reports about 8 inches of sea level rise per century. It has not been a steady increase. There are periods when it jumps and periods when it does not change much. It's been recording for a long time. Maybe longer than appreciable man made co2. Somebody can check to see if the rate of rise is increasing. Sorry I'm too bored to do so. I hear tell of rising sea levels in George's bank. Sounds like warm current shifts to me and not melting ice packs. Whatever

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
No I'm wrong again. It is 0

No I'm wrong again. It is 0.61 feet in the last century. That's 7.3 inches. See how easy it is to overstate climate change effects? Even I'm doing it. The graph shows a consistent average rise slope dating back to 1910. No spikes yet.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
It is not the 0.04% CO2 in

It is not the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere.

Artic Sea Ice measurement.
http://www.nature.com/news/error-discovered-in-antarctic-sea-ice-record-...

More satellite problems with Arctic Sea Ice measurement
Anthony Watts / April 11, 2016
A few years ago in 2009, I was the first to notice and write about a failure of the instrumentation for one of the satellites used by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) to show Arctic Sea Ice extent. Later, after chastising me, they had to pull the plug on the data. Today, we have what appears to be a similar problem with satellite sea ice measurement. Note the big uptick similar to (but opposite in sign) what happened before in 2009:

WAIT…..WAIT…WE HAVE THE SECOND LOWEST ARCTIC ICE SINCE 2007! SEE BELOW. Its likely within the margin of error you know…..’likely’ is a term used by the scientific community; commonly used to replace the word ‘maybe’. IPCC says likely means: > 66% probability.

https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/articles/2016/09/15/arctic-sea-ice-cov...

“It’s roughly tied for second lowest with 2007 – actually very slightly lower than 2007, but likely within the margin of error,” said Walt Meier, a research scientist and sea ice specialist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. “It could still drop further, though at this point that seems unlikely.”

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
After mid-October, ice growth returned to near-average rates, but extent remained at record low levels through late October.
A primary culprit behind the slow growth is that sea surface temperatures in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the Barents and Kara Seas along the Eurasian coast, as well as the East Siberian Sea, were above average..

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
A primary culprit behind the

A primary culprit behind the slow growth is that sea surface temperatures in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the Barents and Kara Seas along the Eurasian coast, as well as the East Siberian Sea, were above average.

Spider, was that due to El Nino?

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@spider

@spider

It is not the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere.

You keep mentioning the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere as if that disqualifies it from being able to affect the atmosphere. But even at low concentrations CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. This was demonstrated as far back as 1859 by physicist John Tyndalll. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius found that doubling CO2 concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming, writing: if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression His calculations are still in use today.

Or maybe they working in collusion with democrats to control the population a hundred years later...

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@spider

@spider

More satellite problems with Arctic Sea Ice measurement
Anthony Watts / April 11, 2016

Again, your sources are really suspect. Anthony Watts is a blogger who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree Additionally, he has been paid by the Heartland institute, a conservative think tank that in the 1990s worked to deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans but now advocates against climate change. It is known for its persistent questioning of climate science and for its promotion of 'experts' like Anthony Watts who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research.

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
Claudius welcome, you erudite

Claudius welcome, you erudite spokesman for the herd.

Heartland institute does terrific work in all aspects of public policy.

So nice that anoncoward has enlisted you to help him defend your lost cause.

Fact is, nobody but you and the other recipients of grants, fellowships, expanding govt programs and naive youth looking to save the world gives a poo about climate change.

The nerds and nobodies in the climate and earth studies realm became too enthralled too quickly with the excitement of microphones and cameras in their faces, facing a panting and flushed face world awaiting their next utterance about the crisis du jour, and ruined their own case and credibility.

Deal with it. Looks like you are going to have to actually prove it scientifically which may take a generation. Your character assasinations and reliance on bullying ain't working.

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@Mark T. Cenci

@Mark T. Cenci

Claudius welcome, you erudite spokesman for the herd.

If by "herd" you mean" science," then I am guilty as charged.

Heartland institute does terrific work in all aspects of public policy.

Well, their work for the tobacco industry might indicate a willingness to be mercenary in their positions. As for their "good work" I hardly think that hiring unqualified hacks such as Anthony Watts demonstrates much commitment to "quality work." Rather, I think their mission is to inject enough doubt in the minds of the public in order to prevent meaningful legislation.

nobody but you and the other recipients of grants, fellowships, expanding govt programs and naive youth looking to save the world gives a poo about climate change.

I totally agree with you here. I am quite certain that nobody really cares about it. And that is pretty tragic. In my opinion, there is a knee-jerk reaction to this issue because democrats are seen as supporting it and so republicans will react viscerally against it. Of course, democrats do the same thing...

Deal with it. Looks like you are going to have to actually prove it scientifically which may take a generation. Your character assasinations and reliance on bullying ain't working.

Well, I think that the case is made pretty strongly by the scientific community. I'm afraid, however, that you are unwilling to consider it. Perhaps part of the problem stems from a misunderstanding of what scientific proof looks like. Science works towards greater and greater understanding of phenomenon. As such it doesn't really "prove" something so much as come closer and closer to understanding. I would argue research overwhelmingly suggests anthropogenic climate change is happening.

I'm really not trying to bully or assassinate character. But I'm really concerned that those on the other side of this issue are simultaneously quick to both deny the work of NOAA and NASA (which has very very rigorous standards for research and which continuously and rigorously respond to critics) and quick to use suspect (and often roundly discredited) sources. It's just an obvious case of confirmation bias.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
So Claudius…..Re:

So Claudius…..Re:
”You keep mentioning the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere……….. as if that disqualifies it from being able to affect the atmosphere.”

I have mentioned the 0.04% CO2 a couple of times because:

1. My intent is to quantify the target population of the molecules ‘up there’ that are capable of absorbing escaping infrared radiation and yielding thermal energy. 95% are H2O….water vapor. Those arguing that man made CO2 is the forcing function for global temperatures do not address the thermal contribution due to water vapor.

2. The 400 or so ppmv of CO2 means for every 1,000,000 parts (particles/molecules) per unit volume of the DRY GASES in the samples, 400 are CO2. Got a million dry gas parts? 400 are CO2. 400.
That very small inventory is driving global temperatures? Remember, not all of that 0.04% was generated by human activities! That argument alone causes me to be skeptical enough to ask more questions.

Re: “…as if that disqualifies it from being able to affect the atmosphere.”
I used to teach communications in industry. One of the principals we used for the students was: Don’t assume that the message you sent was the same one that was received. I did not use the word ‘disqualifies’, you did. I did not send that message.

I say: The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, with the property of absorbing escaping infrared radiation resulting in an exothermic reaction, is…IS….capable of affecting the atmosphere….but not enough to be the forcing function for increasing global temperatures.

Nobody in the scientific community is offering proposals to ‘deal with’ the greenhouse gas called water vapor.

Methane? You betcha, Californian Gov Brown is going to regulate cow farts because of the methane. And, I just read the post by anon about feeding seaweed to the cows…..nice one anon. Article said more methane in the burps than the farts, so go with the seaweed feed. Maine has a lot of seaweed. Nice.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@mainemom:

@mainemom:

Op ed in WSJ from Roger Pielke, Jr.:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518

Let me know if it's paywalled, I can copy/paste here for you.

Edit:
Two comments:
1) FWIW, if you respect Roger Pielke, Jr's opinion, he does believes the Earth is warming and that it's because of anthropogenic CO2, and he also believe we should have a carbon tax (all from the op ed).
2) The story of his life is pretty horrific. I think his analyses were pretty interesting and merited further discussion, not a secret campaign to bring him down. WTF Democrats

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
The presence of CO2 in the

@Spider

Ah! So we are almost in agreement! We just have a few things to work out...

The 400 or so ppmv of CO2 means for every 1,000,000 parts (particles/molecules) per unit volume of the DRY GASES in the samples, 400 are CO2. Got a million dry gas parts? 400 are CO2. 400.
That very small inventory is driving global temperatures? Remember, not all of that 0.04% was generated by human activities

Yes! Emphatically yes. As I mentioned before, that the small percentage of CO2 is capable of affecting temperatures has been settled science for almost 100 year. Settled science. Arrhenius in 1896 calculated that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming. That is pretty much in line with current and more rigorous calculations. So yes yes yes.

I'm sorry that you don't believe it, but it is mathematically demonstrable. Isn't that what science is for? Explaining phenomena that is initially hard to understand or believe?

The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, with the property of absorbing escaping infrared radiation resulting in an exothermic reaction, is…IS….capable of affecting the atmosphere….but not enough to be the forcing function for increasing global temperatures.

I guess I find it very very strange that you tend to believe people like Anthony Watts rather than actual scientists to form that opinion. Because it very much sounds like an opinion based on reluctance to support theory supported by liberals. Can you explain why you don't trust science?

Nobody in the scientific community is offering proposals to ‘deal with’ the greenhouse gas called water vapor.

I think another source of our disagreement is that you are willing to disregard climate science and that you assume that scientists are either lying or stupid. I think that neither is true. I think you might not be clear on what peer reviewed science is all about. Anyway, you really can't suggest that climate science hasn't put thought and effort into thinking about water vapor, can you? Of course they have! There are so many sources that deal with it that my only conclusion must be that you are willfully ignoring it.

Simply put:
Water vapor in the atmosphere exists in relation to the temperature. Increasing temperature causes more water vapor to evaporate and raises temperatures. So when CO2 from fossilized sources causes a temperature increase more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback loop.

Moreover, unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is short-term. It rains, it snows, and its concentration varies greatly. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. So CO2 remains in the atmosphere a long, long time.

So, Spider, I'm happy that we agree that increase CO2 does cause warming. If you don't like my explanation of water vapor, then google it. But it is clearly is not a factor as you suggest. And beleive me, scientists have indeed considered it.

You are almost ready to accept that It is the rapidity with which CO2 is being uncovered from fossilized sources and introduced into the atmosphere that is causing warming.

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
Oh yes, all the meaningful

Oh yes, all of that meaningful legislation that we need.

Heartland is a libertarian public policy think tank, dedicated to local and state issues, as opposed to Cato and Heritage, which focus mostly on federal issues. They exist to provide state legislators information that is unavailable elsewhere, as the media and Academia are complete sell outs to Pro Government Extremism.

All the better if they receive money from tobacco companies and oil companies. Doesn't bother me a bit. And I'm sure these studies you disparage were done at a time when there was a typical hysterical push toward some daffy do-gooding ding dongery like defining second hand smoke in an automobile as child abuse.

Because that's what is really going on with far too much "meaningful legislation". Want a local example?

I worked for a client who wanted to add a dormer to his house and was prevented from doing so by Maine DEP. Primary residence. Family. Kids in school, growing up fast. Small house. No room. Postage stamp lot. Full basement, half finished, half used for utilities.

Can't add a dormer because the house is on a sand dune. Had to spend thousands of dollars for help with the DEP permit process.

Was turned down because his first floor is not 2 feet above today's flood stage. Got to be 2 feet above current flood stage because of rising sea levels in the next 100 years. Only alternative was to lift his house off the foundation, remove the foundation, and install a break away foundation on piers. But that would have been a net decrease in square footage of the house and there was no place to relocate the furnace, to say nothing of the costs and the family dislocation. Want to know what the DEP reviewer told me? "His house is big enough". So it's come to that? A bureaucrat determining how much space your family needs because of a regulation written from science fantasy?

As the tide gauge shows, sea level is rising 7 inches per century and there is no evidence yet of any rate increase or inflection point in the data. A steady rise slope in the data since 1910.

So why punish people with a 24 inch sea level rise assumption? Because of global warming hysteria, leading to learned scientists being consulted about what to do and how to protect us. What vanity. What a waste. This is what more and more people are dealing with and why your ideas are held in such low regard.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
anonymous_coward, Pielke is

anonymous_coward, Pielke is not the only scientist who has been bullied by Democrats and the alarmist lobby for publishing information that challenges even a tiny portion of the alarmist narrative on climate. Do some research on Judith Curry.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Ah, Claudius, are we going to

Ah, Claudius, are we going to go the route of dismissing arguments and evidence due to 1) who might have paid for dinner and 2) what the presenter studied at university?
Fabulous.
Let's take environmental bully Bill McKibben for example. He's the publicity -addicted writer who gets paid (though he claims to be a volunteer) to go around the country (the world?) making speeches and pulling stunts (hoping to be arrested) all to advance the cause of fighting climate change (and garner attention to himself).
Degree from Harvard, not in science.
But he cares so darn much!!!!!
Conveniently changes his positions in order to get in front of the latest parade and be noticed.
The Re-education of Bill McKibben
And oh by the way takes money from grant-awarding organizations and denies doing so!
Bill McKibben is not what he seems to be – I catch him in a lie
Just ask the denizens of South Portland what a great man he is. They ought to know; he told them!

Pages

Log in to post comments