We don't have 12 years to stop climate change, we have 12 years to be

[Ardeus]

Exactly, a politician.

There's not just slightly less ice now. We lost nearly 3/4 of the ice volume in the arctic since there are satellites gathering information about it.

My last post had very simple concepts, I don't think the most effective way to counter the reasoning behind it is to post a large portion of unrelated text. To be honest I lack the patience needed for this kind of debate.

Pragmatically, I would like to be proven wrong by data and reasoning that point to an inversion in the current course of events. This can be done by showing that the current positive feedback loops will stop or that significative negative feedback loops will kick in in the next few years. In the absence of that, Brit humour will do

 

[User1]

To be honest I lack the patience needed for this kind of debate.

Personally speaking your concern about the impact of global warming on humanity and all other time constraints in the bag that comes with it is what I have a lack of patience for. There is a far great threat of a world war or nuke going off than there is of the artic melting.

On a side note - I hope you can swim if we are all proven wrong (on either side of the argument).

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Exactly, a politician.

There's not just slightly less ice now. We lost nearly 3/4 of the ice volume in the arctic since there are satellites gathering information about it.

My last post had very simple concepts, I don't think the most effective way to counter the reasoning behind it is to post a large portion of unrelated text. To be honest I lack the patience needed for this kind of debate.

Pragmatically, I would like to be proven wrong by data and reasoning that point to an inversion in the current course of events. This can be done by showing that the current positive feedback loops will stop or that significative negative feedback loops will kick in in the next few years. In the absence of that, Brit humour will do

Pragmatically really?

So lots of plausible data has been shown by graph, video, text, and printed opinions of recognized experts that just have an opposing view to your assumptions. So in your opinion the opinions of 31, 000 scientist (900o of whom are climate scientists) who believe this is not supported by the actual temperature fluctuations in the last millennia, century, decade, or at least several years as supported by graphs, documents and related data does not give you pause as to the arrived upon assumptions? I thought you believed in science? My bad at least should lead to more questions. But please refrain from telling us the sky is falling due to someone's computer model absent actual observed data in temperature records as it relates to CO2 levels in those same time periods. No question the polar ice caps are fluctuating but where is the science to link to the actual cause....oh yeah I forgot someones flawed computer models that deviate widely from observed actual data. Not long ago the cause of polar ice cap melting was ozone so they outlawed Freon. Guess that was not the cause so what other causative chemical can we drag out next...oh yeah what about CO2? Things the make me go hmmmm....what? Yes I am a skeptic the more I see where the buck stops.

I mentioned the $100,000 research on Sunfish and if they can get drunk to illustrate the danger of mixing big government grants and "some science questions that don't need to be asked."

$4.7 billion dollars is a lot of Cheddar for climate change research would you not agree? So there is money attached to the research in the United States alone. Just saying I may have to stop working for a living and develop a computer model. Where is my old math book?

 

[Thales]

The idea the scientists the study climate are getting rich from that study is specious.

 

[User1]

The idea the scientists the study climate are getting rich is specious.

Who said anything about scientists getting rich or the money? Unless you are Al Gore although he isn't a scientist via traditional schooling.

What is typically said is follow the money - lobbyist, activist, politicians, environmentalists, law firms representing, and the many more hands or palms that are greased along the way.

 

[Thales]

Who said anything about scientists getting rich or the money? Unless you are Al Gore although he isn't a scientist via traditional schooling.

The post right above mine.

 

[Brian1f1]

And it quickly depleted its battery doing so and immediately needed a charge...

They say ignorance is bliss, but I disagree, in some cases people could make better decisions if they weren’t ignorant.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Exactly, a politician.

Deary me. You can't even distinguish the difference between a local, state, or federally elected politician from a director of the U.N. Environment Program, which is directly related to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who made the numerous discredited projections based on their defective climate science model projections.
I guess, rather than face up to the facts you blame shift instead to remove responsibility away from those you put on a pedestal & consider infallable.

There's not just slightly less ice now. We lost nearly 3/4 of the ice volume in the arctic since there are satellites gathering information about it.

3/4??? 75% ???

This graph from Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC) – Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (ROOS) says different.

For the 39 year period the data shows -
yearly maximum ice has declined by 11%
yearly mean has declined by 18%
yearly minimum has declined by 38.6%

75% ????

My last post had very simple concepts, I don't think the most effective way to counter the reasoning behind it is to post a large portion of unrelated text. To be honest I lack the patience needed for this kind of debate.

How can previous observations of temperature rises & reduction in arctic ice be unrelated. It isn't of course. I don't believe its patience you're lacking Ardeus.

Pragmatically, I would like to be proven wrong by data and reasoning that point to an inversion in the current course of events.

I've repeatedly done this in previous posts, but you don't read it, or ignore it, or blame shift.
The fact that the increase in globale average temperature being less than half that predicted by climate models is a good place to begin re-evaluating you perspective.
Another is that a reduction in arctic sea ice is not proof of causation.

For example; The greatest change in sea ice in the arctic is in the summer low. Perhaps you can tell me the cause of this considering the summer mean temperature in the arctic has not increased since at least 1958 . . . 60 years ?
And is mostly barely above freezing at 74K

Proof......................................................Annual, Summer and Winter anomaly

How is CO2 forcing responsible for the summer ice loss when the summer mean temperature hasn't increased in over 60 years? Why hasn't the summer temperature increased from CO2 forcing especially when the sun is shinning directly on the arctic circle?

How could the increase in winter temperature be responsible for summer ice loss, or anyother ice loss when the temperature is still well below freezing.

The arctic temperature is below freezing for almost 90% of the year, & bareley above freezing for the rest. What causes the ice to disappear considering temperature is not responsible ???

Enjoy the inter-glacial

.

 

[User1]

They say ignorance is bliss, but I disagree, in some cases people could make better decisions if they weren’t ignorant.

Often an overlooked truth. People, renters and buyers, and those that still live at home, are the front line. Things that continue to draw power (chargers for example) and recycling. Simple things but then again those of us here probably are already doing things along these lines.

 

[User1]

The post right above mine.

Hmm...didn't see it. I still don't see where they are saying $$$ to scientists. Unless you are referring to grants but that isn't lining their pockets.

 

[Jacked Reefer]

There are several ways to control the masses. A common god that sets rules. Or a common fear that the people make the rules for. When people stopped believing in god, there needed to be a doomsday, a reckoning if you will. Take some things that are actually happening (icecaps shrinking, reefs dying) add a expiration date for the earth and the believers of “science” will go buck wild providing for the people who started those assumptions. Think, when did solar panels get implemented on a large scale? And when did the idea of global warming gain traction? At this point all you can do is do what makes you happy and hope entropy doesn’t catch up we don’t have an effect on the world no matter what we do. The least we could do is hold respect for the other species we share this planet with.

Edit: the only science you can really believe is your own.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

The idea the scientists the study climate are getting rich from that study is specious.

who claimed this?

 

[Thales]

Hmm...didn't see it. I still don't see where they are saying $$$ to scientists. Unless you are referring to grants but that isn't lining their pockets.

"$4.7 billion dollars is a lot of Cheddar for climate change research would you not agree? So there is money attached to the research in the United States alone. Just saying I may have to stop working for a living and develop a computer model. Where is my old math book?"

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Who said anything about scientists getting rich or the money? Unless you are Al Gore although he isn't a scientist via traditional schooling.

What is typically said is follow the money - lobbyist, activist, politicians, environmentalists, law firms representing, and the many more hands or palms that are greased along the way.

add the banks to that. They just drool at the thought at all the money they could make trading carbon credits.

 

[Thales]

There are several ways to control the masses. A common god that sets rules. Or a common fear that the people make the rules for. When people stopped believing in god, there needed to be a doomsday, a reckoning if you will. Take some things that are actually happening (icecaps shrinking, reefs dying) add a expiration date for the earth and the believers of “science” will go buck wild providing for the people who started those assumptions. Think, when did solar panels get implemented on a large scale? And when did the idea of global warming gain traction? At this point all you can do is do what makes you happy and hope entropy doesn’t catch up we don’t have an effect on the world no matter what we do. The least we could do is hold respect for the other species we share this planet with.

Edit: the only science you can really believe is your own.

Do you really mean that? How do you get on a plane or cross a bridge or use a computer or go up in a skyscraper or go to a doctor or decide to smoke?

 

[Hermie]

This is kind of sad to see how many climate change deniers there are... There won't be any changes to policy until the people making policy are directly impacted (and can no longer make a buck off it), and because the poorest (and least political effectual) will suffer first, there is very, very little chance we can significantly mitigate the impacts of man-made climate change. I am a severe pessimist in this regard. People's imaginations are far too small and their greed is far too deep to make the changes necessary to protect the "common good."

 

[Lowell Lemon]

who claimed this?

Not me. I just mentioned the $4.7 billion dollars invested in climate change research. I know the academics don't get a blank check but they do get grants for research. Not sure where all the money goes but their seems to be a lot of it floating around.

 

[Jacked Reefer]

Do you really mean that? How do you get on a plane or cross a bridge or use a computer or go up in a skyscraper or go to a doctor or decide to smoke?

I do micro science. Example. Hypothesis: If I cross this bridge if will not break.
Tes: other cars will cross the bridge before me
Observation: the bridge did not break
Conclusion: I may cross the bridge safely
Edit: plus the system has been in place for hundreds of years. Do what you have to do to make yourself believe you have control. I’m just here for the ride.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

This is kind of sad to see how many climate change deniers there are...

What is a climate change denier (besides a derogatory term to describe someone who disagrees with the most alarmist baseless projections put forward by ignorant people)?

 

[Lowell Lemon]

This is kind of sad to see how many climate change deniers there are... There won't be any changes to policy until the people making policy are directly impacted (and can no longer make a buck off it), and because the poorest (and least political effectual) will suffer first, there is very, very little chance we can significantly mitigate the impacts of man-made climate change. I am a severe pessimist in this regard. People's imaginations are far too small and their greed is far too deep to make the changes necessary to protect the "common good."

Very few people deny climate change the only question is the actual scientific cause and are you willing to spend money on someones bad computer models. It has become more like a late night infomercial than settled science. Just send us $39 billion more dollars and we might be able to find some kind of possible solution...maybe.