Jeb Bush on Climate Change. WTF???

[Doc Savage Fan]

Looks like the volcanos at 150E aren't doing shit.

Ocean currents run clockwise and some are likely to be much more active than others..

 

[Jaskalas]

Where warming is occurring shown below.

Consensus science didn't like that cooling trend in the Antarctic... so they got rid of it. Data is entirely reversible.

 

[dank69]

No.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062231/full

Maybe I'm reading that abstract wrong?

Thus, our results broadly support the hypothesis that the recent increase in Antarctic SIE is due to internal variability, though the reasons for the inconsistency in simulated and observed changes since 1979 remain to be determined.

Doesn't seem to refute my source.

 

[dphantom]

Maybe I'm reading that abstract wrong?Doesn't seem to refute my source.

I do not know what your source is.

"In addition, Bintanja et al. [2013] and Swart and Fyfe [2013] showed that accelerated melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to induce sea-ice expansion but, using realistic accelerating rate of freshwater forcing, [Swart and Fyfe, 2013] have ruled out a substantial contribution from Antarctic ice-shelf melting to the increase in SIE."


There are a number of other papers. None recently can positively confirm SIE growth is caused by melting glaciers.

 

[realibrad]

Well that is the rub isn't it? We pretty much can scientifically prove what will happen to the poor if we switch to alternative fuels. People in 3rd world nations will starve and people will be poorer in 1st world nations. If science is wrong about the negative consequences of global warming (which are extremely poorly defined, what exactly are they....) it will be too late to save all the humans who were harmed and died due to the excessive cost of energy if we switch to alternative energy before it is cost effective.

No warmist has considered the geopolitical consequences of America unilaterally detonating its economy in the age of a rising China which refuses to follow suit. The implications of a nuclear powered China with ambitions of Southeast Asian conquest and a super charged economy are as scary as the worst "predictions" of the warmists. Monomania can be a very bad thing indeed.

Still waiting for an explanation of 15 years of no warming (using the satellite data). I am truly interested in why all that scientific data is garbage and indicative of nothing.

I suppose I would be considered a warmist, and yet I do not advocate switching to alternative energy before its cost effective. The difference is that I use cost effective in the economic way, and you use it in the finance way. The price of goods/services should include external costs. This is very hard to do, which is why governments are supposed to tax things to help solve this issue.

I am for nuclear energy.
The negative impact of global warming is not poorly defined.
I do not want the US to tank its economy, as that would cause chaos.

If global warming is left unchecked, the amount of poor people who will be hurt will be just as big if not larger. If we force the market to go and use forms of energy which are not cost effective (with all externalities included) then poor people will be hurt.

As for the satellite data and warming, you need to be more specific for me to answer. I dont think the original question was directed toward me, but ill try and answer it.

Are you talking about surface temps, troposphere temps ect? After you explain that, I should have enough to go find the answer.

 

[Jaskalas]

There are a number of other papers. None recently can positively confirm SIE growth is caused by melting glaciers.

There's another theory out there that the Sea Ice at both poles is in cyclical opposition. Apparent data from before 1979 is the biggest contributor to this theory.

 

[dphantom]

There's another theory out there that the Sea Ice at both poles is in cyclical opposition. Apparent data from before 1979 is the biggest contributor to this theory.

Indeed that is a likely possibility in the studies I have read or at least the abstract portion. Also, 1979 happens to be a high point of overall SIE in the cycle so the decrease noted over the last few decades may in fact simply be a multi-decadal natural phenomenon. We now seem to be entering the upswing of SIE.

 

[dphantom]

As for the satellite data and warming, you need to be more specific for me to answer. I dont think the original question was directed toward me, but ill try and answer it.

Are you talking about surface temps, troposphere temps ect? After you explain that, I should have enough to go find the answer.

bshole may be referring to UAH and/or RSS data. Just a guess on my part.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

bshole may be referring to UAH and/or RSS data. Just a guess on my part.

RSS data only covers as far south as 70S, whereas UAH data goes to 85S.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Why, because he doesn't want to enact some "cure" to climate change that's worse than the problem it's trying to solve?

More like, because he doesn't want to piss off the big money donors who profit from the status quo. :whiste:

 

[Paratus]

No.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062231/full

So has the mass of Antarctic ice increased or decreased according to your links?