Any doubts about Climate Change?

**Grampa** · 25-10-2017, 01:08 PM

This is about Climate Change deniers: it's only 2 minutes.

**AntRobertson** · 25-10-2017, 01:17 PM

I thought you said you'd only be spamming the sports threads.

**Cujo** · 28-10-2017, 01:30 PM

US winter has shrunk by more than one month in 100 years

The length of the US winter is shortening, with the first frost of the year arriving more than one later than it did 100 years ago, according to more than a century of measurements from weather stations nationwide.
The trend of ever later first freezes appears to have started around 1980, according to data from 700 weather stations across the US going back to 1895 and compiled by Ken Kunkel, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information.

Sea levels to rise 1.3m unless coal power ends by 2050, report says

Kunkel compared the first freeze from each of the 700 stations to the station’s average for the 20th Century. Some parts of the country experience earlier or later freezes every year, but on average freezes are coming later.
The average first freeze over the last 10 years, from 2007 to 2016, is a week later than the average from 1971 to 1980.
This year, about 40% of the Lower 48 states have had a freeze as of 23 October, compared to 65% in a normal year, according to Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the private service Weather Underground.
In Ottawa, Illinois, the average first freeze for the 20th century was 15 October. The normal from 1981 to 2010 based on NOAA computer simulations was 19 October. Since 2010, the average first freeze is on 26 October. Last year, the first freeze in Ottawa came on 12 November.
Quick GuideTropical storm Harvey and climate change

ShowLast year was “way off the charts” nationwide, Kunkel said. The average first freeze was two weeks later than the 20th century average, and the last frost of spring was nine days earlier than normal.
Overall the United States freeze season of 2016 was more than a month shorter than the freeze season of 1916. It was most extreme in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon’s freeze season was 61 days – two months – shorter than normal.
Global warming has helped push the first frosts later, Kunkel and other scientists said. Also at play, though, are natural short-term changes in air circulation patterns – but they too may be influenced by man-made climate change, they said.

'We will be toasted, roasted and grilled': IMF chief sounds climate change warning

This shrinking freeze season is what climate scientists have long predicted, said University of Oklahoma meteorology professor Jason Furtado.
A shorter freeze season means a longer growing season and less money spent on heat. But it also hurts some plants that require a certain amount of chill, such as Georgia peaches, said Theresa Crimmins, a University of Arizona ecologist.
Crimmins is assistant director of the National Phenology Network . Phenology is the study of the seasons and how plants and animals adapt to timing changes.

Pests that attack trees and spread disease aren’t being killed off as early as they normally would be, Crimmins said.
In New England, many trees aren’t changing colours as vibrantly as they normally do or used to because some take cues for when to turn from temperature, said Boston University biology professor Richard Primack.

Research, said natural variability, especially an El Nino, made last year exceptional for an early freeze, but “it represents the kind of conditions that will be more routine in a decade or two” because of man-made climate change.
“The long-term consequences are really negative,” said Primack, because shorter winters and hotter temperatures are also expected to lead to rising seas that cause worse flooding during heavy storms.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...h-in-100-years

**S Landreth** · 02-11-2017, 10:06 PM

October 2017 from the climate denier Roy Spencer

UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2017: +0.63 deg. C

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2017 was +0.63 deg. C, up from the September, 2017 value of +0.54 deg. C

This makes October 2017 the warmest October ever recorded by UAH

_________

RSS (Lower Troposphere) October 2017 not included

__________

Belated Met Office – September 2017 was the 6th warmest September recorded (Behind 2016, 2015, 2014, 2009 and 2005): https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/index.html

_________

The recent El Niño event has elevated the rise in CO2 concentration this year. Here, using emissions, sea surface temperature data and a climate model, we forecast that the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa will for the first time remain above 400 ppm all year, and hence for our lifetimes.: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/jour...imate3063.html - https://twitter.com/richardabetts/st...60292844527616

Global atmospheric CO2 levels hit record high - UN warns that drastic action is needed to meet climate targets set in the Paris agreement

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased at record speed last year to hit a level not seen for more than three million years, the UN has warned.

The new report has raised alarm among scientists and prompted calls for nations to consider more drastic emissions reductions at the upcoming climate negotiations in Bonn.

“Globally averaged concentrations of CO2 reached 403.3 parts per million (ppm) in 2016, up from 400.00 ppm in 2015 because of a combination of human activities and a strong El Niño event,” according to The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the UN weather agency’s annual flagship report.: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...it-record-high - https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

Global average CO2 concentrations rose 0.8% during 2016, the largest annual increase ever observed - The extraordinarily rapid accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere over the past 150 years is overwhelmingly and unequivocally due to human activity.: https://theconversation.com/world-gr...=twitterbutton

**misskit** · 04-11-2017, 08:05 AM

New US Report on Climate Change Offers Dire Warnings

The U.S. government on Friday released a report on climate change that said there was "no convincing alternative explanation" for global warming besides human causes.

The National Climate Assessment, which the government is mandated by law to publish every four years, said climate change was being driven almost entirely driven by human action. It warned that sea levels could rise by as much as 8 feet by the year 2100. It listed a number of damaging developments across the United States that it attributed to the rise of global temperature by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.

It said the U.S. was already experiencing increasing temperatures, precipitation levels and numbers of wildfires; that more than 25 U.S. coastal cities were already experiencing flooding; and that there was no precedent in history with which these meteorological changes could be compared.

But, it said, there is "very high confidence" that the rate of climate change will depend on the amount of greenhouse gases released globally over the next few decades.

The report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, an interagency unit that coordinates and integrates research on environmental changes, runs counter to the position on climate change taken by the current U.S administration, including that of the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Trump, Perry, Pruitt have doubts

President Donald Trump, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and EPA head Scott Pruitt have all questioned how much human activity has contributed to climate change. The president has announced the United States will leave the Paris climate agreement that would obligate the U.S. to cut its overall greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025, compared with 2005 levels.

One of the study authors, climate scientist Robert Kopp of Rutgers University, told The Washington Post he thought the report was "basically the most comprehensive climate science report in the world right now."

In response to Friday's release, White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah noted a line in the report that said there was "uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to emissions. The climate has changed and is always changing."

https://www.voanews.com/a/new-report...s/4099324.html

**Hugh Cow** · 04-11-2017, 09:27 AM

I am at at a loss on this issue. The fact is China the USA the EU and India are responsible for over 60% of the atmospheric CO2 pollution. The USA, the greatest polluter in world history is walking away from climate pollution reform. The others are doing very little considering they, together with the USA, are the root cause of the problem in the first place. They need to be drastically reducing their CO2 levels before they start lecturing other countries, after all they are the major polluters and they have caused the vast majority of the problem whilst gaining the most from polluting the planet. Whatever happened to "you forked it you fix it". Its a bit like a large company that has been poisoning a river for decades in the pursuit of profit asking the family down stream to stop pissing in the river to reduce pollution.

**HermantheGerman** · 04-11-2017, 12:46 PM

Here is the report that was approved by the White House that 13 federal agencies saying that humans are the main cause of global warming. The report directly contradicts much of the Trump administration’s position.
Trump and followers are a waste of human life.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

**Neo** · 06-11-2017, 01:16 AM

Any doubts about Climate Change?-nca_fig-jpg

Information about the science and consequences of climate change has been removed from a number of federal agency websites since the Trump administration took over. But some agencies like NASA seem to have continued their work unhindered. And today saw the release of the fourth National Climate Assessment—an official summary of the current state of knowledge about climate change.

The heavily peer-reviewed report, following the last edition in 2014, is coordinated by NOAA, NASA, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Global Change Research Program. A group of US climate scientists volunteered to write the report, which gathers together the most recent peer-reviewed research into digestible conclusions about the causes and impacts of climate change.

A June 2017 draft was shared with The New York Times by someone who feared it might be censored by federal agencies during the final approval process. But in a call with media, NOAA’s David Fahey (one of three coordinating lead authors of the report) responded to questions about censorship by saying he was “quite confident” that there had been no political interference with the contents of the report. An initial review of the highlighted main points of the report’s “executive summary” shows only a few insignificant wording changes from the June 2017 draft.

Carl Mears, who helps run Remote Sensing System's satellite temperature dataset and was a lead author on the report, told Ars, "I didn't see any signs of political interference for the chapters I was involved in. The comments from the agencies appeared to be from scientists, and most if not all were directed toward making the report clearer and easier to understand."

Similar to the structure of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, this first section of the Climate Assessment focuses on the physical science of climate change. The second half—which has not yet been finalized—will cover the impacts of climate change on the United States.

The conclusions are also largely similar to those of the last IPCC report, but some are stated a little more clearly—perhaps in response to the deliberate misrepresentation of some of those conclusions by politicians and “skeptics.”

It's us, and it's everywhere

The topline conclusion is obviously the degree to which observed global warming is human-caused, and the report pulls no punches: “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

Specifically, the report quantifies the amount of human-caused warming in the period from 1951 to 2010: between 0.6-0.8 degrees Celsius (1.1-1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). Its best estimate of the total temperature change for that same time period is right within that range, at 0.65 degrees Celsius (1.2 degrees Fahrenheit). (Note that the warming influence of human activities can be larger than the actual change if natural factors would have caused cooling.)

The report also summarizes the evidence for changes in extreme weather of various types. Heat waves and intense rainfall events are up in most places, for example, while trends in tornadoes are unclear. Looking forward, it notes that the frequency and severity of “atmospheric river” weather patterns hitting the West Coast are expected to increase. Snowpack in the West (key to water supplies) is expected to shrink.

On the topic of wildfires and their relationship to weather patterns, the report finds that the “incidence of large forest fires in the western United States and Alaska has increased since the early 1980s (high confidence) and is projected to further increase in those regions as the climate warms.”

The report’s sea level rise projections are notably frank about the uncertainty surrounding the worst-case scenario. While it projects 0.3 to 1.3 meters (1 to 4.3 feet) of sea level rise over the 21stcentury, it notes that “eight feet by 2100 is physically possible, although the probability of such an extreme outcome cannot currently be assessed.”

Improved science, decaying acceptance

If you’re wondering what could have changed since the last report in 2014, the new Assessment highlights a list of areas in which our understanding has improved. That includes the evaluation of the human contribution to individual extreme weather events, higher-resolution climate models producing better simulations of things like hurricanes, and studies of ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica that have bumped the worst-case sea level rise estimates upward.

While the report doesn’t speak to potential climate policies, it does explain that existing emissions pledges are not sufficient to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—long an international goal. And it provides this sobering reminder: “The present-day emissions rate of nearly 10 [billion tons of carbon] per year suggests that there is no climate analog for this century any time in at least the last 50 million years.” In other words, if the planet has ever seen anything like this, it probably predates the end of the dinosaurs.

In a statement, the White House said, "The climate has changed and is always changing. As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on 'remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions.'"

This is true, but only to the extent that the projected warming between about 2000 and 2100 in the highest emissions scenario (for example) is 2.6 to 4.8 degrees Celsius, which includes that uncertainty. But that means we can be pretty certain it's going to get a lot warmer. As the report actually says, the majority of the uncertainty is in the future trajectory of our emissions:

"Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases emitted globally and on the remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to those emissions."

As the report makes clear, there is no reasonable doubt remaining that climate change is a story about human actions—not natural cycles.

**Takeovers** · 06-11-2017, 01:28 AM

The US congress has ordered destruction of a satellite designed to monitor polar sea ice changes.

Republican-controlled Congress ordered destruction of vital sea-ice probe

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hange-research

President Trump has been accused of deliberately obstructing research on global warming after it emerged that a critically important technique for investigating sea-ice cover at the poles faces being blocked.

The row has erupted after a key polar satellite broke down a few days ago, leaving the US with only three ageing ones, each operating long past their shelf lives, to measure the Arctic’s dwindling ice cap. Scientists say there is no chance a new one can now be launched until 2023 or later. None of the current satellites will still be in operation then.

The crisis has been worsened because the US Congress this year insisted that a backup sea-ice probe had to be dismantled because it did not want to provide funds to keep it in storage. Congress is currently under the control of Republicans, who are antagonistic to climate science and the study of global warming.

“This is like throwing away the medical records of a sick patient,” said David Gallaher of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. “Our world is ailing and we have apparently decided to undermine, quite deliberately, the effectiveness of the records on which its recovery might be based. It is criminal.”

The threat to the US sea-ice monitoring programme – which supplies data to scientists around the world – will trigger further accusations at this week’s international climate talks in Bonn that the Trump administration is trying to block studies of global warming for ideological reasons.

Earth’s sea ice has shrunk dramatically – particularly in the Arctic – in recent years as rising emissions of greenhouse gases have warmed the planet. Satellites have been vital in assessing this loss, thanks mainly to America’s Defence Meteorological Satellite Programme (DMSP), which has overseen the construction of eight F-series satellites that use microwaves sensors to monitor sea-ice coverage. These probes, which have lifespans of three to five years, have shown that millions of square kilometres of sea ice have disappeared from the Arctic over the past 20 years, allowing less solar energy to be reflected back into space – and so further increasing global temperatures – while also disrupting Inuit life and wildlife in the region.

At present three ageing satellites – DMSP F16, F17 and F18 – remain in operation, though they are all beginning to drift out of their orbits over the poles. The latest satellite in the series, F19, began to suffer sensor malfunctions last year and finally broke down a few weeks ago. It should have been replaced with the F20 probe, which had already been built and was being kept in storage by the US Air Force. However it had to be destroyed, on the orders of the US Congress, on the grounds that its storage was too costly.
Many scientists say this decision was made for purely ideological reasons. They also warn that many other projects for monitoring climate change, including several satellite missions, face similar threats from the Trump administration and Congress.

Such losses have serious consequences, say researchers. “Sea-ice data provided by satellites is essential for initiating climate models and validating them,” said Andrew Fleming of the British Antarctic Survey. “We will be very much the poorer without that information.”

**AntRobertson** · 06-11-2017, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by misskit

New US Report on Climate Change Offers Dire Warnings

The U.S. government on Friday released a report on climate change that said there was "no convincing alternative explanation" for global warming besides human causes.

[...]

Trump, Perry, Pruitt have doubts

*Sigh*

**Thai3** · 06-11-2017, 07:59 AM

well it's' freezing' in Bkk at 23 degrees, probably have a news item on today about somebody dying from the cold in Thailand

**S Landreth** · 17-11-2017, 11:03 PM

Copernicus October 2017 – 2^nd warmest October recorded: https://climate.copernicus.eu/resour.../surface-air-2

October 2017 extended the spell of exceptional global warmth that has now lasted since mid-2015. It was:

· close to 0.6°C warmer than the average October from 1981-2010;
· the second warmest October on record, though only by a very small margin of 0.01°C over October 2016;

__________

JMA October 2017 – 3^rd warmest October ever recorded: Japan Meteorological Agency

__________

NASA October 2017 – 2^nd warmest October recorded: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

__________

NOAA October 2017 – 4^th warmest October recorded: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

___________

2017 annual mean prediction updated using Oct data. Probability of ~94% it will be the 2nd warmest yr in the GISTEMP record.: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/s...96044255383553

___________

Trump environment nominee struggles to answer basic climate questions

Kathleen Hartnett White did not know the answer was more than 50%: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/c...l-advisor.html - https://www.desmogblog.com/kathleen-hartnett-white - https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...n-heat-content - Ocean Warming - https://www.carbonbrief.org/heat-abs...led-since-1997

___________

Macron: France will cover US share of funding for UN climate panel

French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday that France would cover the amount the U.S. contributed for climate science research to a United Nations panel after President Trump signaled America would exit the Paris climate change pact.

“They will not miss a single euro,” Macron said, according to Reuters, referring to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The U.S. has given the IPCC about 2 million euros a year in the past.

The Trump administration filed a formal notice with the U.N. in August that it would be leaving the agreement "as soon as it is eligible to do so." The earliest the U.S. can leave is Nov. 4, 2020.: Macron: France will cover US share of funding for UN climate panel | TheHill

**misskit** · 30-11-2017, 05:52 AM

Study: Rising Seas Will Swallow 14,000 US Historic Sites

Any doubts about Climate Change?-aa7e0396-6fc6-4830-bb22-1bb4dec07775_w1023_r1_s-jpg

Castillio de San Marcos fort, built over 450 years ago, is separated from the Matanzas River by a sea wall in St. Augustine, Florida.

NEW YORK — Almost 14,000 archeological sites and national monuments in the United States could be lost by the year 2100 as seas rise due to climate change, scientists said on Wednesday.

The findings offer a glimpse into the vast amount of global cultural heritage that could be destroyed, the study said. One in 10 archeological sites that it analysed on nine southeastern coastal states risk inundation.

“The data are sobering: projected sea level rise ... will result in the loss of a substantial portion of the record of both pre-Columbian and historic period human habitation,” the authors said in the journal PLoS ONE.

“(There are) serious concerns over the threat of global climate change to the archaeological and historic record.” Scientists predict sea levels are on track to surge by an average of one meter globally by 2100.

'A tiny fraction'

In the first study on such a scale, researchers combined data on the elevation of archeological and historic sites along in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts with sea-level rise predictions.

“This is only a tiny fraction of what's out there,” co-author David Anderson, an archeology professor at the University of Tennessee, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by phone.

“The record of human occupation of coastal regions goes back thousands of years and we stand to lose a lot of that.”

Salvaged history

Florida's 17th century Castillo de San Marcos fortress and Fort Matanzas, which date back to European colonial struggles for the New World, are among the historic national monuments that could disappear. Other sites are in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

The authors called for a debate about which fragments of human history should be salvaged through relocation and documented for posterity.

https://www.voanews.com/a/study-clai...s/4142412.html

**harrybarracuda** · 30-11-2017, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Thai3

well it's' freezing' in Bkk at 23 degrees, probably have a news item on today about somebody dying from the cold in Thailand

Which one of the words "Climate" and "Change" do you need help with?

**AntRobertson** · 30-11-2017, 11:40 AM

Both.

He's not very bright.

**RPETER65** · 30-11-2017, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by misskit

New US Report on Climate Change Offers Dire Warnings

The U.S. government on Friday released a report on climate change that said there was "no convincing alternative explanation" for global warming besides human causes.

The National Climate Assessment, which the government is mandated by law to publish every four years, said climate change was being driven almost entirely driven by human action. It warned that sea levels could rise by as much as 8 feet by the year 2100. It listed a number of damaging developments across the United States that it attributed to the rise of global temperature by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.

It said the U.S. was already experiencing increasing temperatures, precipitation levels and numbers of wildfires; that more than 25 U.S. coastal cities were already experiencing flooding; and that there was no precedent in history with which these meteorological changes could be compared.

But, it said, there is "very high confidence" that the rate of climate change will depend on the amount of greenhouse gases released globally over the next few decades.

The report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, an interagency unit that coordinates and integrates research on environmental changes, runs counter to the position on climate change taken by the current U.S administration, including that of the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Trump, Perry, Pruitt have doubts

President Donald Trump, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and EPA head Scott Pruitt have all questioned how much human activity has contributed to climate change. The president has announced the United States will leave the Paris climate agreement that would obligate the U.S. to cut its overall greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025, compared with 2005 levels.

One of the study authors, climate scientist Robert Kopp of Rutgers University, told The Washington Post he thought the report was "basically the most comprehensive climate science report in the world right now."

In response to Friday's release, White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah noted a line in the report that said there was "uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to emissions. The climate has changed and is always changing."

https://www.voanews.com/a/new-report...s/4099324.html

HARP and it's Russian and European Union counterpart.

**harrybarracuda** · 30-11-2017, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

HARP and it's Russian and European Union counterpart.

I don't quite get what your point is.

The majority of climate scientists for many years have measured and studied the evidence and concluded the planet is warming and the climate is changing.

The only scientists that you or others have tried to trot out to prove otherwise have invariably turned out to be on the payroll of big oil.

Idiots like Rick Perry, Pruitt and orange cunto "have their doubts" but they don't know the first fucking thing about science.

Only a fucking moron would give the latter any credence.

**Switch** · 30-11-2017, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I don't quite get what your point is.

The majority of climate scientists for many years have measured and studied the evidence and concluded the planet is warming and the climate is changing.

I have two concerns.
1. Cyclic climate change is a fact based on evidence. Accelerated climate change from anthropogenic causes is a relatively new phenomenon, measured since the industrial revolution.

2. Please be wary of ‘predictions’ especially those based on modeling, and any combination of modeling and statistics. Climate science can only scratch the surface of possibilities in an incredibly complex set of values, some of which are not yet fully understood. The interaction of all these possibilities is currently unfathomable.

**harrybarracuda** · 01-12-2017, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Switch

I have two concerns.
1. Cyclic climate change is a fact based on evidence. Accelerated climate change from anthropogenic causes is a relatively new phenomenon, measured since the industrial revolution.

2. Please be wary of ‘predictions’ especially those based on modeling, and any combination of modeling and statistics. Climate science can only scratch the surface of possibilities in an incredibly complex set of values, some of which are not yet fully understood. The interaction of all these possibilities is currently unfathomable.

Valid points, but we have both historical record and evidence from such things as ice bores to tell us exactly what was going on going back centuries, and in the case of cyclical events, millenia.

And they all point to the same thing:

We're fucking up the climate.

Now it may be that eventually it would shift to the point where it's too hostile for human survival anyway. But why rush it?

**RPETER65** · 01-12-2017, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I don't quite get what your point is.

The majority of climate scientists for many years have measured and studied the evidence and concluded the planet is warming and the climate is changing.

The only scientists that you or others have tried to trot out to prove otherwise have invariably turned out to be on the payroll of big oil.

Idiots like Rick Perry, Pruitt and orange cunto "have their doubts" but they don't know the first fucking thing about science.

Only a fucking moron would give the latter any credence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_F...search_Program

**AntRobertson** · 01-12-2017, 07:45 AM

Is your goal to try to muddy the waters with asinine irrelevancies or convince everyone that you're a moron and/or in the throes of some exponential mental regression due to dementia or similar?

Because you're not really achieving the former (props for the latter however).

**Switch** · 01-12-2017, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Valid points, but we have both historical record and evidence from such things as ice bores to tell us exactly what was going on going back centuries, and in the case of cyclical events, millenia.

And they all point to the same thing:

We're fucking up the climate.

Now it may be that eventually it would shift to the point where it's too hostile for human survival anyway. But why rush it?

It’s also worth remembering that historical measurements were not as accurate, or as complete as they are today. As I’m sure you are aware, statistics can be presented in misleading ways.

Im not a denier, just a cynic. When climate scientists don’t find what they have predicted, there is always a temptation to make the evidence fit the prediction. That’s just human nature.

I always go back to mining. 90% of material dug from the ground is spoil or waste. It matters not whether it’s coal, gold, or diamonds, the net result is the same. Localized pollution on a horrendous scale.
Has anyone ever considered what happens to the space left behind, when millions of barrels of crude oil are extracted around the world on a daily basis? Whatever material fills the void left by extraction, has to come from somewhere?

**harrybarracuda** · 01-12-2017, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Is your goal to try to muddy the waters with asinine irrelevancies or convince everyone that you're a moron and/or in the throes of some exponential mental regression due to dementia or similar?

Because you're not really achieving the former (props for the latter however).

*** Brainwashed whackjob alert ***

(From the link he kindly provided)

HAARP is a target of conspiracy theorists, who claim that it is capable of "weaponizing" weather.

**harrybarracuda** · 01-12-2017, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Switch

It’s also worth remembering that historical measurements were not as accurate, or as complete as they are today. As I’m sure you are aware, statistics can be presented in misleading ways.

Im not a denier, just a cynic. When climate scientists don’t find what they have predicted, there is always a temptation to make the evidence fit the prediction. That’s just human nature.

I always go back to mining. 90% of material dug from the ground is spoil or waste. It matters not whether it’s coal, gold, or diamonds, the net result is the same. Localized pollution on a horrendous scale.
Has anyone ever considered what happens to the space left behind, when millions of barrels of crude oil are extracted around the world on a daily basis? Whatever material fills the void left by extraction, has to come from somewhere?

Yes but examination of ice bores allows them to get hard historical data going back thousands of years, so they know what the CO2 levels have been over that period, and can tie it to historical events such as volcanoes.

Not quite sure what your point about mining is though. How is that relevant, other than as another example of profit going before people?

**RPETER65** · 01-12-2017, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

*** Brainwashed whackjob alert ***

(From the link he kindly provided)

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

US government climate report: Climate change is real and our fault

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions