New climate study out of Finland

[pennsiveguy]

Originally Posted by adc100

The guy belongs in an alzheimers ward.....wow.

Great refutation of his arguments. I'm convinced!

[schoy]

Originally Posted by detroitm2

If you only sample the last 140 years, you're missing hundreds of millions of years of data.

What about the ice age? Whats to say there wasn't an opposite event that happened prior to that? How do we know we're not just seeing the effects of the Milankovitch cycles?

Other than cataclysmic natural events (asteroid impact, eruption of supervolcanoes), find me any evidence that the Earth in the past cooled or warmed as quickly in as short of a period as the last 150 or so years.

No one's claiming that there's never been any climate change in the history of the earth. Ice ages take thousands of years to form, if not a million. Heck, even the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (when the Earth reached an average temperature more than 10 degrees warmer than current average temperatures (which resulted in palm trees in the Arctic)) took about 15 million years to increase a mere 5 degrees. So far, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 1.4 degrees in the last 140 years.

Is it possible this is an anomaly? Sure, but do you really want to bet against the survival of our species? At what point are you going to get concerned?

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by schoy

Other than cataclysmic natural events (asteroid impact, eruption of supervolcanoes), find me any evidence that the Earth in the past cooled or warmed as quickly in as short of a period as the last 150 or so years.

No one's claiming that there's never been any climate change in the history of the earth. Ice ages take thousands of years to form, if not a million. Heck, even the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (when the Earth reached an average temperature more than 10 degrees warmer than current average temperatures (which resulted in palm trees in the Arctic)) took about 15 million years to increase a mere 5 degrees. So far, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 1.4 degrees in the last 140 years.

Is it possible this is an anomaly? Sure, but do you really want to bet against the survival of our species? At what point are you going to get concerned?

Well, maybe if folks could have an honest debate about the actual changes and what the causes are rather than alarmist continuing to tell us we'll be underwater 5 years ago. It is difficult to take folks seriously when all of the predictions being made of the last decade or two have been wrong, and along with these predictions we are having changes shoved down our throats that many scientists say are window dressing and wealth redistribution.

I'm all for not polluting, and finding cleaner and better ways to do just about everything but if I hear one more shrill activist screaming that I am personally killing the planet without a proper debate then no, I'm not going to get concerned that there is something we can do to prevent climate change.

[pennsiveguy]

Originally Posted by schoy

...At what point are you going to get concerned?

1000ppm.

[pennsiveguy]

As I've stated in previous posts, there are essential, fundamental questions regarding climate change. What is the correct average temperature of the earth? What is the actual current temperature? What concrete and specific actions would make up the difference? If the answer to any of those isn't clear, obvious, and feasible then the whole thing falls apart.

[Ivan Ivanov]

бггг)

[adc100]

Originally Posted by pennsiveguy

Great idea! So compare the last 140 years to the period from 400-600 million years ago, when CO2 concentrations were ~6000ppm. See how easy I did that?

During that time there was only microbial life on earth..what's your point.? Oh you don't have one. I ll check back this evening.

[pennsiveguy]

Originally Posted by Ivan Ivanov

бггг)

She's staring at that pickle in an age-inappropriate manner. Big surprise, Antifa parents did a great job with her.

[Salty Dog]

https://business.financialpost.com/o...climate-crisis

From today's Financial Post

Opinion: Are we really willing to suffer painfully high taxes to fund new energy infrastructure while China and others massively increase their emissions?

Preparations are underway for COP25, a global climate conference of thousands of politicians and observers that opens Dec. 2 in Madrid. It originally was going to be hosted by Chile but that got changed because of riots sparked by hikes in transit fares and electricity prices — of which there will be many more if COP25 participants have their way. One COP25 agenda item is the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was supposed to fix the climate crisis. Even if there is such a crisis, Paris won’t fix it. The media says it was to reduce global CO2 emissions. But that’s not what the agreement says or does. It does not require any country to reduce its emissions. Some of the planet’s largest emitters have said they will increase theirs — not just a little, but a lot. China, the world’s largest emitter, accounts for 29 per cent of global CO2. India, with its for now less developed economy, is responsible for another seven per cent. Yet both countries project increased emissions without any numerical limit. Even if all 195 nations that signed the Paris Agreement do what they have said they will do, the net effect will be no significant reduction in CO2 emissions. The disconnect between what Paris is supposed to do and what nations have said they will do is glaring.

The current panic over the “climate crisis” makes it politically necessary for most governments to respond with dramatic displays of determination to “fight climate change.” Unfortunately, as Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus has written: “The reality is that most countries are on a business-as-usual trajectory of minimal policies to reduce their emissions … The international target for climate change with a limit of 2°C appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies even with very ambitious abatement strategies.” Meeting the UN’s global emissions reduction target for 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 are not practically possible. The only safe political path between the panic and the possible is to pretend to do the impossible — which is the real purpose of the Paris Agreement.

Already, after just four years, only 17 of 195 countries are on track to their targets. If every country met its stated 2030 goals, how close would the planet come to the year 2100 targetof 1.5°C maximum warming? Not close. According to economist Bjorn Lomborg, the reduction in warming would be less than five per cent of 1°C. Even if nations stay on track all the way to 2100, that gets you only 13 per cent of the 1.5°C target.

In addition to targeting CO2 emissions, the Paris Agreement aims to transfer wealth. Developed countries have agreed to transfer $100 billion annually to developing countries, starting in 2020, to help them reduce emissions. The U.S., which had been expected to pay about $45 billion annually, recently announced it is quitting the agreement. With the U.S. out, this key part of the agreement will probably fail.

Getting the entire planet completely off fossil fuels by 2050 would require a complete global energy overhaul from the current mix of 80 per cent fossil fuels and only 1.3 per cent wind and solar. That is highly unlikely. As Canadian energy expert Vaclav Smil has put it: “As in the past, the unfolding global energy transitions will last for decades, not years, and modern civilization’s dependence on fossil fuels will not be shed by a sequence of government-dictated goals.”

Greta Thunberg and other eco-celebrities and protesters focus on the wrong political leaders. The developed countries account for about a third of global CO2 emissions, the developing countries two thirds. China, not Sweden or the U.S., is where most new emissions come from. Yet no one is allowed to protest in front of the Chinese legislature in Tiananmen Square against China’s massive new coal plants.

Human-caused climate change can only be controlled through universal global action. Every country should do its part, but how much is our part and, for that matter, what is the whole? Without knowing we cannot rationally determine what our part should be. And, with most other countries not doing enough, should we be the exception and do more, or should we also do less? If the planet’s capacity for additional CO2 emissions is limited and needs to be rationed, how do we do this, who does it and by when? Blocking traffic or taking a day off school to carry placards provides drama but not answers.

Over the past century or two, voters have judged governments on their success in raising overall well-being. A sudden transition off fossil fuels would drastically reduce living standards. Painfully high carbon taxes and big increases in other taxes would be needed to fund massive new energy infrastructure. Are we really willing to do this, for no net global effect, while China and others massively increase their emissions? If not, we need to stop pretending the Paris Agreement will fix the “climate crisis.”

Andrew Roman is a retired litigation lawyer with experience in environmental, electricity, energy and constitutional issues.

[TomHudson]

Originally Posted by adc100

Four takeaways from your post:

1. You don't understand the dynamics of how the climate is changing in the last 140 years. (btw-the increase from 300ppm to 400ppm C02 is 33% not 3%.)

2. You have no understanding how and why climate varied in the past and why.

3. You have a rigid opinion which can not change.

4. You don't seem to be able to be able to reason logically.

Again "if" you were interested on learning you could read."The Story of Earth". But that's not happening.

If you want to discuss one issue at a time instead of just ranting ,that's fine. :cheers:

1) human contribution to CO2 is approx 3%, the rest is natural.
140 years isn’t even represented on a climate scale.

2) I’m very aware of climate change, hence the appearance and disappearance of glaciers that covered most of North America. At some point, who decided that the glaciers were supposed to just stop melting? Al Gore?

3) the rigid opinion is the doomsday scenario that is politically motivated to create a power redistribution away from the current 1st world countries.
There are absolutely no restrictions on third world countries to restrict emissions, only a promise to “shift green”. Which leaves China and India to continue “polluting” with 60% of all GHG’s, and will grow, as their economy grows and brings another 400 million people into middle class.
But “science” is a buzz word to you, which you interpret as “truth”

4). There is no logic in taxing home heating oil, propane, natural gas, auto fuel etc...and then redistributing that money to lower income groups.

There is also no logic in taxing a recycling company for “carbon” when its using grid power that’s 85% green sourced energy. But it certainly provides an uneven playing field for international business....


What would make the rainforest better? ICE! Lol....

The greatest diversity of life on this planet, was when there was almost no ice at all. It allowed humans to actually be who and where we are today.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by TomHudson

1) human contribution to CO2 is approx 3%, the rest is natural.
140 years isn’t even represented on a climate scale.

2) I’m very aware of climate change, hence the appearance and disappearance of glaciers that covered most of North America. At some point, who decided that the glaciers were supposed to just stop melting? Al Gore?

3) the rigid opinion is the doomsday scenario that is politically motivated to create a power redistribution away from the current 1st world countries.
There are absolutely no restrictions on third world countries to restrict emissions, only a promise to “shift green”. Which leaves China and India to continue “polluting” with 60% of all GHG’s, and will grow, as their economy grows and brings another 400 million people into middle class.
But “science” is a buzz word to you, which you interpret as “truth”

4). There is no logic in taxing home heating oil, propane, natural gas, auto fuel etc...and then redistributing that money to lower income groups.

There is also no logic in taxing a recycling company for “carbon” when its using grid power that’s 85% green sourced energy. But it certainly provides an uneven playing field for international business....


What would make the rainforest better? ICE! Lol....

The greatest diversity of life on this planet, was when there was almost no ice at all. It allowed humans to actually be who and where we are today.

BLASTPHEMER, RACIST!

[Salty Dog]

One of the original Greenpeace members and a scientist who has a PhD in actual climate science. An excellent 20 min video. This is from 2015 but he is active and sheds common sense and science on the sky is falling folks.

[Salty Dog]

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/con...greta-thunberg

In fact, the current IPCC report invoked by Ms. Thunberg, and written by scientists chastened by past embarrassments, (especially the infamous “hockey stick” graph purporting to show a rapid rise in the world’s temperature), incites horrible fears but does not predict their occurrence. It “estimates” that human activities have caused a one centigrade degree rise in world temperatures, that is to say that if there were no humans the temperature would be one degree cooler; this isn’t a one-degree increase traceable exclusively to people in a measured time. And while it is “estimated” that the one degree is “likely” to reach 1.5 degrees by 2052, that is only “if it continues to increase,” not a startling forecast. But anthropogenic emissions (caused by humans) “alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5 degrees.” I emphasize that I am not trying to twist the IPCC’s meaning. It clearly acknowledges that an acceleration (and a slight acceleration at that) in global warming is not certain and if it occurs at all, it will not be solely due to human activities. The IPCC devotes a good deal of its attention to “attribution studies,” which it states are not conclusive and after the serious predictive errors of the past, it is commendably cautious in signalling a possible source of concern. It is clear that if these risks exist, they depend on a great variety of factors, including “rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development, and vulnerability.”

It is clear from this report that we don’t know whether any warming that may be occurring is the result of anthropogenic factors or is just a function of long-term meteorological cycles. And it is clear that there is no reason to believe, if warming is anthropogenic, it will increase if anthropogenic emissions do not increase. Nor is it necessary that any such warming is or would be harmful. Let us accept the tenor and content of the report Ms. Thunberg cites as she reproaches us for destroying the world’s future, and apply its lessons to Canada. Canada is responsible for less than two per cent of the world’s anthropogenic emissions and so we should, as good citizens of the world, try not to increase them, even though we don’t know if doing so is harmful. This does not require capital punishment of the oil and gas industries, abolition of the internal combustion engine and of jet airliners, and of the consumption of beef. But the great majority of the world’s anthropogenic emissions are from China and India, with more than a third of the world’s population, and it is not Canada’s duty to penalize ourselves to mitigate the aggravation of this condition by those countries, especially as we salute the rapid economic growth in China and India that is lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty every year. This is benign economic development in furtherance of which we extensively export our energy, agriculture, forest products and precious and base metals.

Even if the world resumes a very gradual warming trend, few people in Canada would dispute that that would be a good thing for this country. What has, at a practical level, occurred, is that the United Nations, an organization dominated by under-developed countries, stumbled upon global warming as an excuse to demand reparations from, and posture as morally superior to, the West. This movement was greatly enhanced when the international left, defeated in the Cold War and abandoned by a China that underwent the grace of conversion to economic growth, clambered aboard the climatist bandwagon as the best way to harass capitalism. They weaponized all the bird-watchers, butterfly-collectors, promoters of wetlands and conservationists and followed Lenin’s dictum: “If you can’t get in the door, try the window.” And they are confirming his dictum that “The capitalists are so stupid they will sell us the rope we hang them with.” Indicative of this is the Canadian governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, using his position to harangue the British public and eminent international groups with climatist demands. That is not within the remit of his office; he should stick to interest rates, money supply, and the integrity of the financial system.

[Poiseuille]

Originally Posted by pennsiveguy

If it were settled, it wouldn't be science. If it's science, it'll never be settled. The notion of "settled science" is oxymoronic. And several other forms of moronic as well.

famous geocentric denier Nicklaus Copernicus was very familiar with the notion of "settled science".
in his day it was called "dogma", but same-same.

[Poiseuille]

not directly quoting SaltyDog here in order to avoid taking up space, but tyvm for taking the time to post that. well done.
might be useful to point out that the IPCC 'report' that Thunberg and others endlessly hector us about is not written by scientists.
as its title, A Summary For Policy Makers suggests, it is a political document with authors who are emphatically not free of bias. That's how Michael Mann's absurd Hockey Stick managed to avoid the shredder.
this has been true of every IPCC 'report' from the beginning.
attached below is a paragraph from the IPCC website, first page. look at the last sentence:

[adc100]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/con...greta-thunberg that is to say that if there were no humans the temperature would be one degree cooler; this isn’t a one-degree increase traceable exclusively to people in a measured time. And while it is “estimated” that the one degree is “likely” to reach 1.5 degrees by 2052, that is only “if it continues to increase,” not a startling forecast. But anthropogenic emissions (caused by humans) “alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5 degrees.”

What you are missing and its understandable bc you listen to folks that are not very bright or have an agenda.

The reason that the temp is only up what it is is bc it is currently taking over 500 billion tons of ice melt per year to keep it at level. Conservatives don't seem to be inclined to scientific reasoning. But carry on.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...lion-tons-ice/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...sh-its-a-lot1/

[///M4ster Yoda]

Originally Posted by adc100

What you are missing and its understandable bc you listen to folks that are not very bright or have an agenda.

The reason that the temp is only up what it is is bc it is currently taking over 500 billion tons of ice melt per year to keep it at level. Conservatives don't seem to be inclined to scientific reasoning. But carry on.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...lion-tons-ice/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...sh-its-a-lot1/

.

[1MOREMOD]

So when can I expect to have beachfront and fish dorado in Washington

[hubbahubba]

Warning, this post has nothing to do with science.

Warming, cooling, sure. Is man attached to that? Maybe at least a little bit, right? So my question is this: If it is man that is causing all the hubbub, why would those that are in the "know" call for more of one country than another? I mean, if it is off the rails and we are all doomed, why is there a difference in responsibility between countries? Serious question... If China and India can keep burning up the atmosphere with pollution, doesn't that also affect the countries that are more diligent in care for mother Earth? Is their pollution less dangerous than that of the US? Or the EU? If we're all gonna die because of it, why do we give ANYBODY a pass with less stringent regulations? Maybe so we can all die at the same time, just that developed countries are expected to be third world broke by the time it happens? That seems pretty dumb to me, am I the only one?

[1MOREMOD]

Agreed

[hubbahubba]

Said another way: We're all downwind of one another eventually. If they want us to quit farting, they should quit farting too.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by adc100

What you are missing and its understandable bc you listen to folks that are not very bright or have an agenda.

The reason that the temp is only up what it is is bc it is currently taking over 500 billion tons of ice melt per year to keep it at level. Conservatives don't seem to be inclined to scientific reasoning. But carry on.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...lion-tons-ice/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...sh-its-a-lot1/

So I listen to a lot of different people, most of them quite bright. You may not agree with them but that doesn't make them "not bright". And one could argue that the folks pushing the green agenda have an agenda.