• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Jeb Bush on Climate Change. WTF???

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Doc Savage Fan said:
Where warming is occurring shown below.
Click to expand...
Consensus science didn't like that cooling trend in the Antarctic... so they got rid of it. Data is entirely reversible.

screenhunter_08-nov-04-15-53.jpg
Click to expand...
 
dank69 said:
Maybe I'm reading that abstract wrong?Doesn't seem to refute my source.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bshole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
realibrad said:
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.
Click to expand...

bshole may be referring to UAH and/or RSS data. Just a guess on my part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top