How Come We Never Hear That The North Pole Ice Is Melting Off Siberia?

[Photon440]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

 

[ws23jrt]

Rut-Roh ---Lets measure stuff again until we get what we are looking for.

 

[HT413]

There is a lot of misunderstanding here about what the geologic record tells us. On Geologic timescales CO2 responds to inputs and outputs and feedbacks between weathering and climate. This stabilizes temperatures. The levels in the past stabilized depending on the brightness of the sun, amount of land submerged by the oceans, planetary albedo..... Geologic timescales are long (millions of years or more) compared to what is happening now. Understanding whether there will be an effect on temperature has to work from the present-day situation.

Ozone is not a good example to argue the case against dealing with our present situation. Ozone is an example of where something was discovered by scientists, and the politicians did something that reversed that. Ozone and dealing with smog in cities and fires on rivers are among the biggest successes of dealing responsibly with our world.

Evolution in scientific thought about cooling and warming is also not a good argument. Scientists argue with the best information they have and the understanding they have. This converges on reality as more and more is understood. The present best science points to clear warming and suggests with a high level of probability that there is a causal relationship between what we do and that change. Like it or not, that is what we get from them.

We make jokes about others getting Darwin awards, but we are in trouble and are headed down into uncharted territory.

The fight going on now is because there is a cost to dealing with the issue. The question we need to ask is whether those arguing one side or the other have a vested interest in getting us to do something that disadvantages us. The government is slippery on climate and other things too - yesterday's firing of Comey because he misled the public by falsely putting Hillary in a bad light is just crazy - and a complete flip.

J, all of your statements are vague and lack data. You must be employed by the EPA... sorry, the old EPA.

Prove using hard data that a rise in atmospheric CO2 is causing climate change. Or, if you prefer, prove that a warming atmosphere does not naturally absorb more CO2 from the ocean. Either way, use data to do it.

 

[Jcharger]

My intention was to be specific but brief. I did not intend to be vague. My statements that could readily be looked up.

My reaction was to three postings.

One posting had a “Hah” type comment that plotted a relationship and implied that it argued there was no relationship between CO2 and temperature on geologic timescales. I did not think a detailed discussion of solar brightening (and why it occurs), etc… also played a role on those timescales.

Another was to a posting about O3 that implied incorrectly that problem had gone away on their own. There was an accord (I think the Montreal accord) and a change in emission of compounds that result in the catalytic destruction of O3. And it is viewed as one of the big successes of humans doing something that reversed a problem. I mentioned another was city smog. Another is acid sulfate rain. The maps that show that are posted available from NADP.

A third was to a statement about the coming ice age articles of the 1970’s. And yes, I remember one of those being on the cover of national geographic. In fact I think I could probably lay my hands on it after some searching. These ideas I think had some play by people like Cesare Emiliani and (I believe) came up just as Imbrie, Hayes and others were sorting out how orbital forcing impacted glacial interglacial cycles. The puzzling issue at that time was, why we were not going into an ice age because we should have been according to that framework.

Again, the earth is more complex, and things are different from the last time earth descended into an ice age from an interglacial. One difference is that humans are around. Another one is that we are changing earth’s atmosphere, land, etc…. Something like sea ice or land ice also has a variety of factors controlling it.

We are on track to move into uncharted territory. It takes time for plants and the general ecosystem to adapt to new conditions.

I also pointed out that there is a business side to it ($$$) and that creates a tension that cuts to the wants and desires of the people (especially the super-rich and corporations). I understand people are mad, but I don’t think it is actually at the climate or at the possibility that humans have had an impact. I think it is at those policymakers who have instituted policies and the people and instruments who have made the observations that inform them. I also think it is in part because we are manipulated by the messages and messengers of those people with the $$$$ who go on inflammatory diatribes and try to confuse the issue and obfuscate by throwing partial information into the mix.

We will just have to see where this goes. I have been following this for a long time because of my work. And my conclusion is that we have some very real issues to deal with and it won’t be as nice for our kids and grandkids as it has been for us. If Hawking is right, then we are preparing ourselves for a collective Darwin award.

EPA. No I'm not with the EPA.

 

[HT413]

My intention was to be specific but brief. I did not intend to be vague. My statements that could readily be looked up.

My reaction was to three postings.

One posting had a “Hah” type comment that plotted a relationship and implied that it argued there was no relationship between CO2 and temperature on geologic timescales. I did not think a detailed discussion of solar brightening (and why it occurs), etc… also played a role on those timescales.

Another was to a posting about O3 that implied incorrectly that problem had gone away on their own. There was an accord (I think the Montreal accord) and a change in emission of compounds that result in the catalytic destruction of O3. And it is viewed as one of the big successes of humans doing something that reversed a problem. I mentioned another was city smog. Another is acid sulfate rain. The maps that show that are posted available from NADP.

A third was to a statement about the coming ice age articles of the 1970’s. And yes, I remember one of those being on the cover of national geographic. In fact I think I could probably lay my hands on it after some searching. These ideas I think had some play by people like Cesare Emiliani and (I believe) came up just as Imbrie, Hayes and others were sorting out how orbital forcing impacted glacial interglacial cycles. The puzzling issue at that time was, why we were not going into an ice age because we should have been according to that framework.

Again, the earth is more complex, and things are different from the last time earth descended into an ice age from an interglacial. One difference is that humans are around. Another one is that we are changing earth’s atmosphere, land, etc…. Something like sea ice or land ice also has a variety of factors controlling it.

We are on track to move into uncharted territory. It takes time for plants and the general ecosystem to adapt to new conditions.

I also pointed out that there is a business side to it ($$$) and that creates a tension that cuts to the wants and desires of the people (especially the super-rich and corporations). I understand people are mad, but I don’t think it is actually at the climate or at the possibility that humans have had an impact. I think it is at those policymakers who have instituted policies and the people and instruments who have made the observations that inform them. I also think it is in part because we are manipulated by the messages and messengers of those people with the $$$$ who go on inflammatory diatribes and try to confuse the issue and obfuscate by throwing partial information into the mix.

We will just have to see where this goes. I have been following this for a long time because of my work. And my conclusion is that we have some very real issues to deal with and it won’t be as nice for our kids and grandkids as it has been for us. If Hawking is right, then we are preparing ourselves for a collective Darwin award.

First, my prior post was a personal stack and I'd like to apologize for that.

I agree that we are preparing ourselves for a collective Darwin Award. I'd attribute that to our over population, factory farming practices, overuse of antibiotics, etc.

I'd happily agree with man-made global warming and the CO2 to global warming correlation if even someone could show historical data even resembling a causation. Climate science is the only science where the community rejects the need for hard data backing their fundamental conclusion. Instead, they just say, "hey, just think about it and it makes sense."

So did the flat earth and grocentrism. Until data proved it wrong. Problem here is the powers that be want to warp this into a global redistribution of wealth.

Fun fact, what do all professional scientists have in common? They all receive a pay check.

 

[mopar 3 B]

First, my prior post was a personal stack and I'd like to apologize for that.

I agree that we are preparing ourselves for a collective Darwin Award. I'd attribute that to our over population, factory farming practices, overuse of antibiotics, etc.

I'd happily agree with man-made global warming and the CO2 to global warming correlation if even someone could show historical data even resembling a causation. Climate science is the only science where the community rejects the need for hard data backing their fundamental conclusion. Instead, they just say, "hey, just think about it and it makes sense."

So did the flat earth and grocentrism. Until data proved it wrong. Problem here is the powers that be want to warp this into a global redistribution of wealth.

Fun fact, what do all professional scientists have in common? They all receive a pay check.

Their bigest acomplishments is to get an article published and name in print reguardless the stupidity of it.
If this were not the case the National Enquirer would have folded long ago.

 

[Budnicks]

If it's as bad all the
Negative Nancy Globalist Green party Eco Nazi dooms-dayers
& Steven Hawkins {spelling ?} says,
"we can't do **** about it anyway", it's inevitable according to them...

We might as well enjoy your life we have left on earth...

Again it's called weather, we always evolve & the sun
or our relationship in orbit to the sun, really that simple,
over millions {billions ?} of decades...

The oceans heating & cooling cycle from north to south,
is where we get all our weather patterns...
It's constantly changing & it's not predictable, never has been
& it never will be...

Again the decaying vegetation from the ocean floor, under lakes
or on land & methane deposits or volcanoes do far more harm,
proven to have effected our climate, than Mankind has
"except maybe regionally/locally"...


Supposedly we were originally a heaping ball of molten lava,
Earth went threw many changes, hot then cold then warm then
multiple ice ages now it's temperate very Little change if at all in reality
not some propaganda fed to everyone by, may I say a blatantly bias
& an agenda, green $$$ grants, inaccurate short term model based,
not facts, driven science "Globalist" community etc. etc. etc.

What will be the narrative 30-40 years from now another ICE AGE,
LIKE THHEY ALL SAID IN 1977, THEY WERE ABSOLUTE THEN TOO !!!
it's all a fucken' green $$$ scam, for grants, they tell you the doom is coming
& need science $$$$ grants/funds to find a fix , but they never or rarely
ever do fix any of it, just more theory best guess BS...

Mathematics are provable facts, science isn't, it's the best wild *** guess
albeit from some very smart, maybe well meaning, some even misguided
ideological types of stubborn & even arrogant selfish people too...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

They're not all correct, most are wrong, it's called a "Theory"
a theory isn't fact, it's based on science, predictions
which is at best all wild *** educated guess !!
Nothing is set in stone...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Prediction: = uncertain event

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

 

[Paul_G]

I am not reading 4 pages of bull **** for this thread, so I am just going to put in my 2 cents anyway.

When I was a kid anyone who thought they could change the weather was an idiot. I still believe that today. I have to say that I also do firmly believe in climate change. I am a firm believer alright. The climate is changing, just like it has been doing since God created this planet and put us on it.

That previous sentence probably pisses off a lot of people all by itself.

 

[Pops1967GTX]