Obama to address Climate Change in speech - It's About Damn Time.

[Incorruptible]

Your right! You've convinced me with that compelling argument.

It's nice to see some people are smart enough to listen to me

 

[Sonikku]

To hell with the children. We need only concern ourselves with the here and now. After that it's the next generations problem.

 

[nehalem256]

Because they are taking measurements at multiple levels with in the water columns. So essentially they can calculate the total heat contained within that volume of water. These argo floats continually move up and down the water column taking measurements. Since you average the peak and lows together, the average temperature increase is going to be much lower. Tracking the heat content in the ocean is actually a better representation of how much heat is being introduced into the system. It would be difficult to have planes bobbing up and down everywhere and air acts as a insulator and not a conductor.

And that has what to do with using Joules instead of degrees as a scale?

 

[Jaskalas]

To hell with the children. We need only concern ourselves with the here and now. After that it's the next generations problem.

Throw the children today into abject poverty to provide them with a bright and glorious future!

 

[sandorski]

Throw the children today into abject poverty to provide them with a bright and glorious future!

nonsense

 

[IGBT]

he wants to appease the eco-KOOKS. What has become the alarmist ritualistic cry of cooling / warming / sky is falling theism designed to sell to the low information crowd with cherry picked data and sound bites backed up with hoaxed up videos of polar bears and glacier calving. It's a lie. A hoax. A long con spawned by alGore. It's the carbon-CON.

 

[bshole]

Your propaganda does not trump scientific FACT.

The FACT is that carbon dioxide is GOOD for vegetation and good for life. Scientists are going to have a very difficult time convincing me that global warming is bad.

Using the NDVI, one team this year reported that "over the last few decades of the 20th century, terrestrial ecosystems acted as net carbon sinks," i.e., they absorbed more carbon than they were emitting, and "net greening was reported in all biomes," though the effect had slowed down in recent years.

The latest and most detailed satellite data, which is yet to be published but was summarized in an online lecture last July by Ranga Myneni of Boston University, confirms that the greening of the Earth has now been going on for 30 years. Between 1982 and 2011, 20.5% of the world's vegetated area got greener, while just 3% grew browner; the rest showed no change.

What explains this trend? Man-made nitrogen fertilizer causes crops to grow faster, but it is having little effect on forests. There are essentially two possibilities: climate and carbon dioxide itself. Warmer, wetter weather should cause more vegetation to grow. But even without warming, an increase in carbon dioxide should itself accelerate growth rates of plants. CO2 is a scarce resource that plants have trouble scavenging from the air, and plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2 to inhale.

Dr. Myneni reckons that it is now possible to distinguish between these two effects in the satellite data, and he concludes that 50% is due to "relaxation of climate constraints," i.e., warming or rainfall, and roughly 50% is due to carbon dioxide fertilization itself. In practice, the two interact. A series of experiments has found that plants tolerate heat better when CO2 levels are higher.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323374504578217621593679506.html

 

[OutHouse]

china is #1 in Carbon emissions

 

[MiniDoom]

To hell with the children. We need only concern ourselves with the here and now. After that it's the next generations problem.

Do you feel the same about our national debt?

 

[Jaskalas]

nonsense

I submit that a war against energy leads to higher prices, greater poverty, and dimmer futures for our children.

 

[Incorruptible]

china is #1 in Carbon emissions

China, India and Brazil are all developing countries and will emit far more carbon emissions than the US but nothing is said about them.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Apparently no one refutes the graph i first presented. Why are the skeptics so angry anytime someone discusses climate change? Its as if you've taken a position and you are worried that you might actually be wrong so you stick to your one liners like "plant food CO2 good¡!" or you take a short term period of data where temperatures declined and claim "2002- 2012 global cooling!!" or
"theres fucking snow outside! Libtards->money->conspiracy! - >right wing blogs-> GLOBAL WARMING CONSPIRACY!!!"

 

[Matt1970]

Obama on coal plants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw

 

[BlueWolf47]

Obama on coal plants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw

I thought this thread has been a little dry on conspiracy.

Insueing debate on Obama try to destroy domestic energy and pay off scientists for renewables so finnaly after 20+ these scientists can get their research grants that they have been waiting for.

If somehow cimate scientists were all wrong on climate change, they would still have their job and they would then study why they were wrong so hopfully that mistake isnt made again.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Apparently no one refutes the graph i first presented. Why are the skeptics so angry anytime someone discusses climate change? Its as if you've taken a position and you are worried that you might actually be wrong so you stick to your one liners like "plant food CO2 good¡!" or you take a short term period of data where temperatures declined and claim "2002- 2012 global cooling!!" or
"theres fucking snow outside! Libtards->money->conspiracy! - >right wing blogs-> GLOBAL WARMING CONSPIRACY!!!"

What is the thesis to refute?

That ocean maintain an unchangeable temperature for millions of years?

Are you saying a 0.18ºC on a 15 year scale shows something?

Science works like this.

Someone has a theory.
Then other people try to disprove it with observations.

Some 20 years ago the theory, that was settled in stone, was that the higher concentration of CO2 went the higher the air temperature would climb, due to positive feedbacks like ocean evaporation that would increase the water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour being the highest contributor to the GHE.

Those models based on a settled science were wrong.

When they can explain the lack of warming we can talk again.

 

[Jaskalas]

Apparently no one refutes the graph i first presented. Why are the skeptics so angry anytime someone discusses climate change? Its as if you've taken a position and you are worried that you might actually be wrong so you stick to your one liners like "plant food CO2 good¡!" or you take a short term period of data where temperatures declined and claim "2002- 2012 global cooling!!" or
"theres fucking snow outside! Libtards->money->conspiracy! - >right wing blogs-> GLOBAL WARMING CONSPIRACY!!!"

Ocean Heat Content? How long have we been accurately measuring that?

Call me when you reach the length of the 60 year ocean cycles. If any of us haven't died from old age by then.

Moreover, why should I care about OHC measurements?

 

[Incorruptible]

People that believe this crap need to have their heads examined and OP you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

We have so many serious problems and obama wants to talk about climate change.

He is doing this to deflect from the other scandals and to shore up his base of idiots.

 

[CrackRabbit]

People that believe this crap need to have their heads examined and OP you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

We have so many serious problems and obama wants to talk about climate change.

He is doing this to deflect from the other scandals and to shore up his base of idiots.

People that believe the crap you do should be ashamed of themselves as well.

 

[Incorruptible]

Climate change isn't a problem and obama must educate himself on the issue.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Ocean Heat Content? How long have we measuring that?

Call me when you reach the length of the 60 year ocean cycles. If any of us haven't died from old age by then.

Moreover, why should I care about OHC meas

You make a argument. But thats the same as claiming global warming isn't happening because over the last 15 years the temperatures have increased at a slower rate. They have not leveled off but slowed. This occurs about every ten years but the peak temperatures always reach a new threshold. Scientiists call it the up and down escalator.

 

[BlueWolf47]

What is the thesis to refute?

That ocean maintain an unchangeable temperature for millions of years?

Are you saying a 0.18ºC on a 15 year scale shows something?

Science works like this.

Someone has a theory.
Then other people try to disprove it with observations.

Some 20 years ago the theory, that was settled in stone, was that the higher concentration of CO2 went the higher the air temperature would climb, due to positive feedbacks like ocean evaporation that would increase the water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour being the highest contributor to the GHE.

Those models based on a settled science were wrong.

When they can explain the lack of warming we can talk again.

You didnt disprove anything. You decided to use their temperatures that represent the increase in heat content in a volume of water. Those temperatures are only relevent when you apply the calculations for heat content based on the the volume of water that experinces the changes.

The heat need to increase the ocean from the surface to 2000 feet down by
. 18 is enormous. If you had just measured surface temperatures the results would have been much higher in terms of degrees C.

 

[Greenman]

Climate change is the best issue ever for a politician. Great fear factor, the need for billions of dollars to study the problem, and the solution will be tax increases, huge tax increases. The'll be able to sell their influence for hundreds of millions of dollars as well. More power, more money, more control, it's a great time to be in politics.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Climate change isn't a problem and obama must educate himself on the issue.

Hahahhahaha... The little troll thinks he's more educated than Neil deGrasse Tyson or 97% of Climate Scientists
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I can never get a straight answer to this question:

What is wrong with trying to improve the quality of earth's atmosphere, waters and soil?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Climate change is the best issue ever for a politician. Great fear factor, the need for billions of dollars to study the problem, and the solution will be tax increases, huge tax increases. The'll be able to sell their influence for hundreds of millions of dollars as well. More power, more money, more control, it's a great time to be in politics.

Unlike that whole warmongering thing. That's not a fear-based issue at all, nope, and very little money to be made either, right?

 

[DeadFred]

Even IF climate change were a problem, how does shutting down our coal plants help when India and China are opening dozens of new ones every week?

All it will accomplish is the destruction of our jobs and increase our energy prices.....BRILLIANT!