Obama calls for urgent action on climate change

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

The thermometer in your backyard should be telling you that the temperature is climbing but I suspect that is because it’s Spring heading into Summer.

CO2 is up and the global temp has plateaued. You consider that to be solid evidence that the global temp may/might/maybe increase in the future. I don’t.

Back in the 70s most scientists expected that warming was coming, even though the global temp was going lower, the fact that it did not got cooler and the mechanism that explained the warming then continues to increase and most of it is going in the oceans as part of a cycle that is bound to “reappear” soon as cycles do, tell us that you are wrong.

@doorhinge

If the IPCC supporters want to change the status quo of energy production and regulate all manufacturing, then they will have to provide convincing proof that their speculations are something more than speculations.

The latest reports are **more **evidence of what is going on, and like smoking being harmful the reason why is because several lines of inquiry show it, many more are used to report that this is more than just speculations.

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

[ul]
[li]So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).[/li][li]If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” (Evans 2006).[/li][li] If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).[/li][li] Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening (Jones 2003).[/li][li] With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).[/li][li] An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).[/li][/ul]
Science isn’t a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it’s like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what’s driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

Well, sorta rapid, right?
Modeled to be hundreds of years at the current increased rate…

“Rapid” on a geological time scale.

The conservative estimates were that roughly a foot of an increase in the ocean level by the end of the century.

Those estimates will have to change.

@Chief_Pedant

Once you decide the fundamental problem is AGW, you can retrofit any and every event into that paradigm. I’m curious which model predicted the record sea ice levels before they happened. If they didn’t, I’m curious why a post-event explanation is now so persuasive, and why failure of past modeling to predict it does not give pause as to how good are models are for what will actually happen.

Because they do not depend on models alone.

@Chief_Pedant

And I’m curious if you would have been inclined to scold a denier who 5 years ago might have insisted the sea ice would soon reach record levels.

The typical effort was to use the extent of the ice or the increase inland in the Antarctic in an attempt to discredit this, when it was clear that the volume is the important issue here.

How does Arctic sea ice loss compare to Antarctic sea ice gain?

Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain, and the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth is increasing as a result.

@Chief_Pedant

None of this means the AGW paradigm is wrong. It does mean that once we establish a paradigm it’s nearly impossible to have a truly objective approach.

The issue has been the paradigm that claims that almost all scientists and scientific organizations are wrong. The progress seen in other nations demonstrates who is preventing change by relying on information and sources that should had been ignored decades ago.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

Back in the 70s most scientists expected that warming was coming, even though the global temp was going lower, the fact that it did not got cooler and the mechanism that explained the warming then continues to increase and most of it is going in the oceans as part of a cycle that is bound to “reappear” soon as cycles do, tell us that you are wrong.
The latest reports are **more **evidence of what is going on, and like smoking being harmful the reason why is because several lines of inquiry show it, many more are used to report that this is more than just speculations.

Smoking was actually proven to be harmful.

The IPCC supporters were forced to look for an explanation as to why the global temp wasn’t increasing as they had so adamantly/strongly/animatedly predicted. They seem to have settled on the oceans acting as a heat sink/CO2 sponge. I hope they’re right - this time.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

Smoking was actually proven to be harmful.

On the specific subject of the ocean rise, losing coastal cities and entire nations sounds harmful to me. As it is the other evil twin coming from the oceans of ocean acidification.

@doorhinge

The IPCC supporters were forced to look for an explanation as to why the global temp wasn’t increasing as they had so adamantly/strongly/animatedly predicted. They seem to have settled on the oceans acting as a heat sink/CO2 sponge. I hope they’re right - this time.

This is recklessly ignoring that the same ones that report that also report that the cycle will come back and the warming on land will resume.

Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2

And your say so of “forced to look for an explanation” is a strawman, many researchers reported before on natural forces and cycles masking and creating “pauses” the human signal is still there.

Birth of a Crock

[BrainGlutton]

Tom the Dancing Bug is, once again, probably right.

[GIGObuster]

@GIGObuster

The conservative estimates were that roughly a foot of an increase in the ocean level by the end of the century.

Those estimates will have to change.

My mistake there, it is actually close to a meter, but now more is to be expected.

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

The point stands, the spokesperson that told us nothing was going to go wrong because Ice was increasing got it wrong. “nutcase” is reserved when those sources ignore all the costs that now will have to be added to the protection of coastal cities, cropland and massive movement of people.

I so wish I could understand you.

I think there will be time to move everyone, if that’s what you are worried about. When an Alarmist uses terms like “rapid rise in sea level,” what they mean is decades or hundreds of years; not by Tuesday next. Plenty of time to build new stuff in a safer place.

To the best of my knowledge, we’ve never cared about the future cost of anything at all. Why right now I’m consuming retirement bennies that I plan to have my grandkids pay for. As I look at the US Federal Budget, it turns out I am not alone.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

…This is recklessly ignoring that the same ones that report that also report that the cycle will come back and the warming on land will resume.

And your say so of “forced to look for an explanation” is a strawman, many researchers reported before on natural forces and cycles masking and creating “pauses” the human signal is still there.

“Recklessly ignoring?” Hardly. The IPCC and their supporters could have made it clear from the very beginning (some 25 years ago) that their predictions couldn’t possible come true because the Earth doesn’t follow the IPCC script.

“Cycles masking”. I like that term. It sounds so scientific. This is what we are currently predicting but “cycle masking” may prove us wrong. Please ignore the times when reality disproves our predictions.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

“Recklessly ignoring?” Hardly. The IPCC and their supporters could have made it clear from the very beginning (some 25 years ago) that their predictions couldn’t possible come true because the Earth doesn’t follow the IPCC script.

Lets see what a scientist that was filmed by Frank Capra in the 1950’s told us:

So you think Climate change is new? Sorry to disprove that idea, but people have been talking about our impact for over 50 years. Don’t you wish they started back then, instead of waiting so long.

This exerpt is from the well known educational documentary “Unchained Goddess” produced by Frank Capra for Bell Labs for their television program “The Bell Telephone Hour.” It was so well made, that it went on to live a continued life in middle school science classrooms across the nation for decades.

Nearly half a century before Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth,” this film was made. But what does it reveal? That our scientists have known for over two generations about this danger, but our politicians and citizenry have chosen to ignore the dangerous implications of this fact until it really is too late to avoid the preventable consequences.

Indeed, just a few degrees of increase in temperature is beginning to melt the polar ice caps, in our lifetimes it is expected to rise about a meter, with much more coming later if we do not control our emissions.

@doorhinge

“Cycles masking”. I like that term. It sounds so scientific. This is what we are currently predicting but “cycle masking” may prove us wrong. Please ignore the times when reality disproves our predictions.

What it is clear is that you are willing to leave on the record that you are wilfully ignoring that this also happened in the 70’s, the popular media and a few scientists back then were wrong, most scientists were correct; now virtually all scientists report that more warming is coming, and they do so with more evidence, better tools and more understanding.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

I so wish I could understand you.

I think there will be time to move everyone, if that’s what you are worried about. When an Alarmist uses terms like “rapid rise in sea level,” what they mean is decades or hundreds of years; not by Tuesday next. Plenty of time to build new stuff in a safer place.

Now the question is who’s party is demanding nowadays that nothing should done to prepare better and to cover the cost of all that?

@Chief_Pedant

To the best of my knowledge, we’ve never cared about the future cost of anything at all.

As usual you only want to look more out of the loop, this was noticed in other discussions were you already wilfully ignored what was done to control the long range damage to the ozone layer, acid rain, phosphates in the waterways and other issues.

@Chief_Pedant

Why right now I’m consuming retirement bennies that I plan to have my grandkids pay for. As I look at the US Federal Budget, it turns out I am not alone.

It is good IMHO that you leave for posterity good examples of the ones that were so proud to leave the problems to the future.

Après nous, le déluge.
Of course, Madame Pompadour is not really remembered too fondly, but as an example that should not be followed.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, at least Obama’s trying to do something.

Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule

On June 2, 2014, EPA proposed a commonsense plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants. States, cities and businesses across the country are already taking action to address the risks of climate change. EPA’s proposal builds on those actions and is flexible - reflecting that different states have a different mix of sources and opportunities, and reflecting the important role of states as full partners with the federal government in cutting pollution. This proposal will maintain an affordable, reliable energy system, while cutting pollution and protecting our health and environment now and for future generations.

Be prepared to counter the inevitable RW talking points.

[BrainGlutton]

The right responds to the new EPA regs on CO2 emissions.