“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.” - Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt
Article: Church of Sweden divests from fossil fuels "One of the first institutions to take up divestment, the Church of Sweden now believes investments in fossil fuel companies are a risk. Gunnela Hahn, Head of Responsible Investment at the Church of Sweden said: "We see a financial risk in owning fossil fuel companies. Their value consists to a large extent of fossil fuel reserves that risk losing value since they cannot be extracted if we are to have a liveable planet.""
Flying Fiero's has already showed me the error of my ways, once a church says something I tend to believe it. They have never ever misled anyone for any reason.
Like I said earlier, I'm not the sharpest peanut here. Far from it, BUT it seems like there are more and more things coming out where data has been changed to show global warming above and beyond what is actually happening.
And, as I said before, I accept global warming, I don't accept man made global warming. But that's a different post.
From the "beginning" Al Gore showed us his Hockey stick, it turned out to be false. And that's continued to this day, more and more things are being reported to be made from false data, inaccurate data, etc. etc.
One side of this has to be false, I'm going to bet it's the same side that proclaimed global cooling a few years ago... You remember that right? Where we were all going to freeze to death. It's not that I'm proclaiming that I'm smarter than anyone, or know more than anyone. The opposite is true, I'm just following the trends.
Originally posted by Fats: From the "beginning" Al Gore showed us his Hockey stick, it turned out to be false. And that's continued to this day, more and more things are being reported to be made from false data, inaccurate data, etc. etc.
One side of this has to be false, I'm going to bet it's the same side that proclaimed global cooling a few years ago... You remember that right? Where we were all going to freeze to death. It's not that I'm proclaiming that I'm smarter than anyone, or know more than anyone. The opposite is true, I'm just following the trends.
Brad
"Proclaimed global cooling" was never a scientific majority. Even back then, the majority believed global warming was occurring.
Why is it there are no peer-reviewed literature that debunks global warming? Are all the world's scientists in collusion with the government in a massive conspiracy? Despite the accusations of some on this board, scientists aren't generally sellouts to the highest bidder. They didn't become scientists and researchers to get rich - there are easier ways to make money, and their integrity is important for their careers.
"Proclaimed global cooling" was never a scientific majority. Even back then, the majority believed global warming was occurring.
Why is it there are no peer-reviewed literature that debunks global warming? Are all the world's scientists in collusion with the government in a massive conspiracy? Despite the accusations of some on this board, scientists aren't generally sellouts to the highest bidder. They didn't become scientists and researchers to get rich - there are easier ways to make money, and their integrity is important for their careers.
quote
Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.
masospaghetti didn't claim 'global cooling' was a non-existant theory. He said it was never supported by a scientific majority - which is why the majority of the 'evidence' at your link is from newspapers.
Here's Wikipedia: "Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s... Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, less than 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming." Source.
What I find most hilarious, the the two graphs of ACTUAL temperatures, not predictions, but ACTUAL temperatures - with the headline '1970's global cooling scare.' Actual temperatures are scary! It explains so much!
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-24-2014).]
Of course not. Scientific conclusions are based upon observation, measurement, experiment, and analysis. Consensus follows. Understanding evolves as new information is acquired. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity didn't overthrow Newton's Laws of Motion or Theory of Universal Gravitation, but rather extended our understanding of the phenomena; the trajectory of a pitched baseball was exactly the same after Einstein as before.
Physical reality is not subject to popular vote, political manipulation, or wishful thinking. It is the job of science to reveal, understand, and apply that reality, no to manipulate it into something it isn't.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-24-2014).]
A consortium of companies has just unveiled an eight billion dollar proposal (required upfront capital investment, I guess) for a massive wind energy installation in Wyoming. The system would be stabilized by converting surplus electricity into compressed air and storing that underground in Utah, using compressed air reservoirs created by drilling into natural underground salt formations. Then when more electricity is needed, the compressed air would be used to power electrical generators to get back the electricity that was originally surplussed. The project would use already existing long range transmission corridors to deliver the electricity to just over a million single family homes (or the equivalent) in Southern California. The scale of the project (in terms of electrical production), about the size of most currently operational "nukes".
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: The bigger issue of what we should do about it ... or not ... is almost entirely a question of political, social, and economic policy.
To make the correct policy decisions, these questions have answers in science. This is why the scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming has been turned into a rhetorical device. If it's public opinion the science isn't settled - how can public officials address the questions of political, social, and economic policy?
The science is relatively clear - greenhouse gas emissions must slow down immediately. To encourage the market to diverge from a fossil fuel economy to a more clean energy economy will require policy changes. This is where climate change threatens political philosophies with extinction. Rather than admit a political philosophy doesn't work in all cases - these conservatives that deal in absolutes reject taxes and regulation as the answer to anything at all.
The sad part? Deniers haven't got a different solution. That's why they deny the science. If they accept the scientific evidence they have to come up with a practical solution.
The saddest part? Deniers would rather geoengineer the planet than engineer a reduced carbon economy. Yeah, the same folks who spent over a decade trash talking computer models and calling the scientific evidence "a joke" believes geo engineering is a good strategy to combat a problem they don't believe exists. They're willing to accept whatever risk and damage is necessary just avoid the taxes. That's pretty telling.
Originally posted by Puglet01: Why is it that paying higher taxes is the only way to fix this problem?
Courtesy of Exxon Mobil: "If policymakers do move to impose a cost on carbon, we believe that a carbon tax would be a more effective policy option to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions than alternatives such as cap-and-trade... It is rare that a business lends its support to new taxes. But in this case, given the risk-management challenges we face and the policy alternatives under consideration, it is our judgment that a carbon tax is a preferred course of public policy action versus cap and trade approaches." Source.
Why is it that paying higher taxes is the only way to fix this problem?
All ideas and proposals with a stated objective of reducing the carbon footprint need to be analyzed in a complete and systematic and impartial way (to the maximum extent that is possible) before jumping on the bandwagon.
But what is that statement--cast with the format of a question, but not any of the substance of a question---what is that?
Is it "no matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it"..?
This is why the scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming has been turned into a rhetorical device. If it's public opinion the science isn't settled - how can public officials address the questions of political, social, and economic policy?
Denying the science is a delaying tactic originally developed and employed with great success (at least for several decades) by the tobacco industry. The same tactic has now been adopted enthusiastically by the fossil fuel industry and its conservative backers.
Originally posted by Fats: You already convinced me, by posting attack cartoons that "humorously" insinuated low intelligence on my part, among other things. Yep, that did it.
I'm being blamed for how you feel after seeing a cartoon you identified with? The shoe fits? Shoot the messenger I guess...
“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.” - Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt
Typical opinionated political piece - of course the climate is changing, it has been changing since the beginning of time.
The question is how much of it is due to man? Here comes all the hateful and I'm stupid posts. Also all the claims that the majority of scientist says it is true. I like to see this poll where EVERY single scientist on earth had voted, when the true fact is only a fraction was polled (there is a link to this way back posted in this thread). But that doesn't matter since we are all apparently stupid...and only the 'smart' people are allowed to have a "real" opinion.
The way you combat bad credit history is to throw so much paperwork at them that they can't possibly keep up. Anything you submit that goes unchallenged becomes your new record.
This is the method FlyingFieros is using. Post so much stuff that it's difficult to sort the bs from the real stuff.
I mean, it's obviously the right way to do things, screw those that don't believe, they are just stupid... Right?
For nearly two centuries prior to 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating. Maximum retreat exceeded 50 kilometers (31 miles). In places, more than a 1.0 kilometer (0.62 mile) thickness of ice had been lost.
So water that was brought into the desert from another part of the country through canals and such, AND is effected by a drought. is caused by global warming...
Report from Australian Government - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority: Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014 “… the greatest risks to the Great Barrier Reef have not changed. Climate change, poor water quality from land based runoff, impacts from coast development, and some remaining impacts of fishing remain the major threats to the future vitality of the Great Barrier Reef”
Global warming=pollution? pollution=global warming?
Is this your argument? It can't be, because there are probably 20 more pages of you throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.
"A study conducted by scientists at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in collaboration with scientists in Ethiopia, reports that climate change alone could lead to the extinction of wild Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica) well before the end of this century..."
We’re Saved! CO2 Caused Climate Change Doesn’t Destroy Coffee
quote
How many stories over the past few years have hyperventilatingly (yes, I know, not a word) told us that coffee production was doooooomed due to “climate change”? Like this one from the hyper-partisan Huffington Post (via Tom Nelson)
The wild Arabica coffee plant, the parent of the bushes on coffee farms, could go extinct as soon as 2080, according to a study by researchers from the Kew Royal Botanic Gardens published in PLoS One on Wednesday.
To generate their predictions, the researchers used a computer to simulate the potential impact of climate change on the regions that are home to the wild coffee plant, in the mountains of East Africa. They found that by 2080, global warming was likely to reduce the number of “bioclimatically suitable localities” for wild coffee growth by between 65 and 100 percent. In other words, if their worst-case scenario comes true, there will be nowhere on earth for wild coffee to grow. In the long term, that spells almost certain extinction.
And it’s all your fault for refusing to buy a Chevy Volt, keeping your AC below 78, taking showers longer than 2 minutes, and using hair spray. Oh, look, computer models, which have worked oh so well in predicting this 15+ year pause, predicted drought where there is wet, told us kids wouldn’t know what snow looked like, and…well, did their computers actually predict anything correctly?
So, what’s the reality? Namely that there is so much coffee being produced that growers are considering growing less because the glut is reducing profits and they do not have the space to store it
(Bloomberg) Brazil is increasing competition among coffee sellers as farmers unload beans to clear storage space for the next harvest, judging that losses will be limited by translating dollar revenues into weaker reals. With global output exceeding demand for a fourth year, accelerating sales will drive prices down 11 percent to $1.08 a pound by Dec. 31, according to the median of 18 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
“The lower real will most certainly help exports, making Brazil a much more aggressive seller,” said Rasmus Wolthers, a trader at Wolthers & Associates, a brokerage in Santos, Brazil. “There’s a lot of coffee in Brazil, and there isn’t enough space to store it all, so producers will have to sell. I expect to see much more aggressive sales offers.”
Colombia, the second-biggest grower of arabica beans, increased exports by 32 percent in the first five months of the year after the peso weakened 7.1 percent against the dollar, according to the nation’s Federation of Coffee Growers. Sales from Peru, the third-largest producer in South America, fell 31 percent in the period as buyers turn to supplies from Brazil.
The glut has caused prices and the futures market for coffee to fall. But, you say, that’s just a few South American countries
Global coffee production, including robusta that accounts for 41 percent of supply, will exceed demand by 4.46 million bags in 2013-2014, from a 10 million-bag surplus a year earlier, according to the USDA. Inventories will reach a five-year high of 30.53 million bags, the USDA predicts.
Well, another Warmists meme bites the dust…not that they’ll ever admit they were wrong, they’ll simply ignore their previous prognostication and blame this on CO2 in another way.
BTW, Starbucks is mentioned in the story, noting that their costs have gone down and profits are up potentially 21%, partially due to the glut of coffee beans. Will they stop whining about “climate change”?
Isn't this fun? You post a story in your constant barrage of stories, I copy the text and paste it into google with the words "Hoax" or "fake" after it. And BOOM, Google gives me a list of articles that have another side to the things you post, many point out that the things you have posted are made up, or at best blown way out of proportion.
I know I'm cheating using Google, and not researching all this myself like I'm sure you did. I don't blame you though, it's all just talking points you get from some global warming hoax website.
Originally posted by Fats: For nearly two centuries prior to 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating. Maximum retreat exceeded 50 kilometers (31 miles). In places, more than a 1.0 kilometer (0.62 mile) thickness of ice had been lost.
Between 1941 and 1950, the glacier retreated 2 miles and thinned in height, ~340 feet. You can see the height lost on one of the mountains in the background, the white mark. (Source, for 2 miles figure).
Between 1950 and 2004, the glacier retreated 5 more miles and thinned 2285 more feet. Source.
These figures also match less detailed data from Wikipedia, here.
quote
Originally posted by Fats: How much do you believe is due to man?
I support the scientific consensus, practically all is due to anthropogenic emissions.
quote
Originally posted by Fats: So water that was brought into the desert from another part of the country through canals and such, AND is effected by a drought. is caused by global warming...
Really?
Yep, global warming caused those canals.
quote
Originally posted by Fats: Global warming=pollution? pollution=global warming?
Is this your argument? It can't be, because there are probably 20 more pages of you throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.
Now you’re just grasping for straws.
This massive report on the Great Barrier Reef from the Australian Government lists climate change as a major threat. It specifically uses the sentence “Climate change remains the most serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef.”
quote
Originally posted by Fats: We’re Saved! CO2 Caused Climate Change Doesn’t Destroy Coffee
You didn’t even watch the video or read what you quoted. Your ‘rebuttal’ doesn’t even apply.
My link or video doesn’t claim coffee is doomed. It states wild coffee could go extinct due to increasing temperatures. The video states production could be moved to other areas more suitable.
quote
Originally posted by Fats: Isn't this fun? You post a story in your constant barrage of stories, I copy the text and paste it into google with the words "Hoax" or "fake" after it. And BOOM, Google gives me a list of articles that have another side to the things you post, many point out that the things you have posted are made up, or at best blown way out of proportion.
I know I'm cheating using Google, and not researching all this myself like I'm sure you did. I don't blame you though, it's all just talking points you get from some global warming hoax website.
Do yourself a favor, look up “confirmation bias” and reevaluate your life.
Between 1941 and 1950, the glacier retreated 2 miles and thinned in height, ~340 feet. You can see the height lost on one of the mountains in the background, the white mark. (Source, for 2 miles figure).
Between 1950 and 2004, the glacier retreated 5 more miles and thinned 2285 more feet. Source.
.
1941-1950= 9 years at 340 feet comes to 38 feet a year and .23 mile per year..
1950-2004= 54 years at 2285 feet a year comes to 42 feet a year and slowed to only .09 mile per year.
SO in conclusion the Glacier is actually retreating / melting at a constant and increasing lower rate...so no man made(up) global warming link at all,
P.S. before you rant about the difference in the height,please note that the taller the height in a pitched glacier like the picts show is wider at the top than the bottom,thus the older data of the thickness will always be less at a thicker vs a thinner spot.
P.S. Also .09 miles per year is less than .23 miles per year,thus negating the "its shrinking faster' argument...
Originally posted by Fats: BTW, saying that a glut of the same thing [CO2] that causes plants to grow would cause them to not grow.... BRILLIANT!!
That is a statement that really needs to be rethought.
Atmospheric CO2 has both direct and indirect effects on plants that depend on photosynthesis to grow and flourish (like coffee plants).
What is a "glut" of CO2..? More than there already is (in terms of atmospheric ppm). But how much more? This has to be considered systematically. Elevating CO2 levels somewhat above their current range could cause coffee plants (for example) to grow more rapidly in terms of their stem and branch length, or their leaf density, but also produce fewer coffee berries. The characteristics of the coffee berries that are produced could change under a different CO2 regime in ways that make the end product (brewed coffee) more desirable or less desirable in the the average coffee drinker's cup. Elevating CO2 levels into a second and even higher regime (continuing this thought experiment) could change the effects on the world's coffee crops in markedly different ways than what would be observed (if this experiment were actually carried out with real coffee plants and coffee biologists) during the first round of this experiment, where CO2 was somewhat elevated (first regime) but not elevated all the way into the second regime.
And that's just coffee. I have read just enough on this subject (a few media reports) to be open to the hypothesis that what would be better for coffee (in terms of a new CO2 regime) will be not better, but actually disadvantageous for corn and sugar beets. The science of how forests and food crops can be expected to respond to varying levels of CO2 is not that far along.
There was a Woody Allen movie where the human characters were dwarfed by gigantic fruits and vegetables, but the idea that hey, no need to worry about moreCO2--that will just cause more of what humans like to have from plants..? That's not thinking it through, and not thinking it through Big Time.
Beyond that are the indirect effects of CO2 on photosynthetic plants. So yeah, my corn crop could be improved under a higher CO2 regime because there would be more of that in the atmo' to drive photosynthesis. However, it turns out that the changes as the global temperature regime responds to this higher CO2 level (higher, courtesy of Peabody Coal Company) also caused my farm not to receive nearly as much rain as before; so the corn couldn't grow at all, because it didn't have enough water.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-24-2014).]
That is a statement that really needs to be rethought.
Atmospheric CO2 has both direct and indirect effects on plants that depend on photosynthesis to grow and flourish (like coffee plants).
What is a "glut" of CO2..? More than there already is (in terms of atmospheric ppm). But how much more? This has to be considered systematically. Elevating CO2 levels somewhat above their current range could cause coffee plants (for example) to grow more rapidly in terms of their stem and branch length, or their leaf density, but also produce fewer coffee berries. The characteristics of the coffee berries that are produced could change under a different CO2 regime in ways that make the end product (brewed coffee) more desirable or less desirable in the the average coffee drinker's cup. Elevating CO2 levels into a second and even higher regime (continuing this thought experiment) could change the effects on the world's coffee crops in markedly different ways than what would be observed (if this experiment were actually carried out with real coffee plants and coffee biologists) during the first round of this experiment, where CO2 was somewhat elevated (first regime) but not elevated all the way into the second regime.
And that's just coffee. I have read just enough on this subject (a few media reports) to be open to the hypothesis that what would be better for coffee (in terms of a new CO2 regime) will be not better, but actually disadvantageous for corn and sugar beets. The science of how forests and food crops can be expected to respond to varying levels of CO2 is not that far along.
There was a Woody Allen movie where the human characters were dwarfed by gigantic fruits and vegetables, but the idea that hey, no need to worry about moreCO2--that will just cause more of what humans like to have from plants..? That's not thinking it through, and not thinking it through Big Time.
Beyond that are the indirect effects of CO2 on photosynthetic plants. So yeah, my corn crop could be improved under a higher CO2 regime because there would be more of that in the atmo' to drive photosynthesis. However, it turns out that the changes as the global temperature regime responds to this higher CO2 level (higher, courtesy of Peabody Coal Company) also caused my farm not to receive nearly as much rain as before; so the corn couldn't grow at all, because it didn't have enough water.
You do realize that none of what you posted contradicts his statement you were quoting..
The science is relatively clear - greenhouse gas emissions must slow down immediately.
Or what?
I've been hearing that greenhouse gas emissions must slow down IMMEDIATELY!!!!!! for, what 15-20 years now.
The "consensus" you keep referring to, these brilliant SCIENTISTS, gave us a long list of consequences that were going to happen if we didn't reduce greenhouse gas emissions IMMEDIATELY!!!!! And, you now, some of these things, if not done NOW, well, we might hit a tipping point of no return. NO RETURN!!!!!!
This "science based upon" observation, measurement, experiment, and analysis. I love this next part. ...and consensus follows. Uh, yeah, I guess.
The only problem is that in the analysis of the accuracy of the model created after the "observation, measurement, experiment" phase in accurately predicting what would happen IMMINENTLY!!!!! Almost ZERO of the predictions have happened.
The "consensus" was supposed to follow having the model's predictions actually be correct.
You are left with two major difficulties.
1. If this is "science", how about getting ONE prediction based on the models to actually be correct and 2. If this is "science", why are the scientists forming a consensus of opinion when the model makes incorrect (consistently) predictions?
Last night in the middle of cooking dinner I began to second guess myself on this image.
The change between 1941 and 1950 is much more dramatic than the change from 1950 to 2004. Looking from 1950 to 2004, it doesn't even really look like very much melting happened at all. Yet according to the data much more melting happened after 1950 than 1941-1950. This discrepancy demanded a real answer!
There was a big unknown factor that could help solve this problem: Where was this picture taken?
Using previous information and Google Maps, I'm pretty sure I've found the approximate location the picture was taken:
The layout matches perfectly. You can also match the white mark on the mountain in the background.
Interestingly enough, 90% of the melting that happens after 1950 is not visible from where the picture was taken. While I did find denier outlets touting these same three pictures together, absolutely none of them informed their readers that most of the melting after 1950 isn't even visible in the picture.
Criticism of the 1941-2004 image was simply "Looks like most of the melting happened before 1950" - which is false. More melting happened after 1950, it's just impossible to see from the location the picture was taken. Just another example of deniers manufacturing controversy. This time it's to hide the fact global glacier retreat has accelerated in recent years. But the picture I used is not the best tool to demonstrate this reality.
However, I would like to extend an apology to Fats. He knew there was something wrong with the image and there genuinely was. I would also like to extend a thank you, for helping me further refine my position by learning new things.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-25-2014).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: That is a statement that really needs to be rethought.
Thanks for tackling that.
The only thing I would add is lab tests and field tests have shown elevated CO2 will add mass but dilutes protein content in some plants like wheat. So great, they’re larger plants but lower quality.
Originally posted by fireboss: SO in conclusion the Glacier is actually retreating / melting at a constant and increasing lower rate
It's constant and increasing and lower?
quote
Originally posted by fireboss: P.S. before you rant about the difference in the height,please note that the taller the height in a pitched glacier like the picts show is wider at the top than the bottom,thus the older data of the thickness will always be less at a thicker vs a thinner spot.
That's absolutely ridiculous.
Height in this instance means thickness and has nothing to do with elevation. Muir glacier was well over 2000 feet thick in 1941.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Almost ZERO of the predictions have happened.
Examples?
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: 1. If this is "science", how about getting ONE prediction based on the models to actually be correct and 2. If this is "science", why are the scientists forming a consensus of opinion when the model makes incorrect (consistently) predictions?
"Not only has the IPCC done remarkably well in projecting future global surface temperature changes thus far, but it has also performed far better than the few climate contrarians who have put their money where their mouth is with their own predictions." Source
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-25-2014).]
