There wasn't really a global warming "hiatus." Corrected analyses show no slowdown

[werepossum]

If you have the citations showing it, then there you go. Otherwise, just saying it as your dropping the mic with a smirk on your face doesn't make you the "winner" here.

I won't even attempt it on an iPad but it's easy enough to find. Google "little ice age" followed by the nation or region. You will find numerous peer-reviewed papers showing the evidence of the Little Ice Age around the world - climate change in India and Pakistan, glacier expansion in the Andes, ice and torrential rains in China. You might first want to touch base with your fellow alarmists though before responding, just to make sure you aren't singing from last year's hymnal.

 

[Paratus]

I won't even attempt it on an iPad but it's easy enough to find. Google "little ice age" followed by the nation or region. You will find numerous peer-reviewed papers showing the evidence of the Little Ice Age around the world - climate change in India and Pakistan, glacier expansion in the Andes, ice and torrential rains in China. You might first want to touch base with your fellow alarmists though before responding, just to make sure you aren't singing from last year's hymnal.

Wuss. I answer all you guys from my iPhone.

 

[werepossum]

No shit. Of course the combination of Earths tilt and orbit will eventually put us into ice age conditions again. But not for centuries. So maybe we should focus on our immediate problems now rather than exacerbate them by preparing for a problem in a few millennia.

I mean when I'm out driving I don't speed up and make a left onto the highway ten miles from the exit. Especially when the road is curving right and coming to a stop sign.

Besides if we stock pile our fossil fuels by leaving them in the ground now we'll have them available to use to keep the planet warm when the next ice age rolls around and we won't damage our civilization now. Win-win.

You missed his point, that we are already overdue for an ice age. Statistically we should have ice covering Canada and maybe even a real country.

 

[master_shake_]

You missed his point, that we are already overdue for an ice age. Statistically we should have ice covering Canada and maybe even a real country.

Wtf?!?! Nice cheap shot!

 

[Paratus]

You missed his point, that we are already overdue for an ice age. Statistically we should have ice covering Canada and maybe even a real country.

Ok. But as his edit shows we'll be cooling for the next 80,000 years. But we aren't cooling. We're warming faster than any time in 1000's of years.

I've said the natural forcings were cooling. You and bshole apparently agree with that. You guys also agree we're warming instead of cooling.

So if we are all on the same page why don't you guys think we should do some thing about it?

 

[nickqt]

I won't even attempt it on an iPad but it's easy enough to find. Google "little ice age" followed by the nation or region. You will find numerous peer-reviewed papers showing the evidence of the Little Ice Age around the world - climate change in India and Pakistan, glacier expansion in the Andes, ice and torrential rains in China. You might first want to touch base with your fellow alarmists though before responding, just to make sure you aren't singing from last year's hymnal.

Well, first off, I'm not worried about touching base with talking points. It's either peer-reviewed science, or it isn't. If you have peer-reviewed science, then awesome. But, from what I remember, you seem to think that scientists are trying to "hide" data that there was a little ice age.

Does the data you claim to have show that the little ice age was as extreme everywhere as it was in Europe? Because if not, then that is why the data was "changed". Not to hide or obfuscate, but because as more information was made available, scientists stop using just Europe and put all of the data together.

You seem to think that scientists are just erasing data and throwing it down a memory hole. But that isn't happening. The data is still there, but as more data becomes available, a more accurate picture is made of global data, vs. local data that isn't as representative of the earth's climate as a whole.

My take is that ultimately, what we're experiencing now is from decades ago, if not a century ago. I don't think there is any stopping the current climate change quality/quantity, whereas we should start thinking as a species about it as a problem for future humans that we shouldn't just be passing the buck to. I also believe we should stop burning coal because it's toxic, and oil because we should be stockpiling it as it is so energy-dense that we shouldn't be burning it for energy when we can be using electric generated from renewable sources. Additionally, rather than sticking our heads in the sand and letting Germany/China/Country X create the tech that allows for more energy (Energy=Wealth=Improved Quality of Life) from renewable sources that isn't also poisonous, leaving the US as simply an adopter, rather than the developer. Silicon valley is great for creating apps that allow me to find a cheap cap or post pictures for the NSA to stockpile, but manufacturing+high tech is still king. Just ask Germany. And China. And Japan. I'd prefer for the US to be at the top again.

 

[bshole]

Besides if we stock pile our fossil fuels by leaving them in the ground now we'll have them available to use to keep the planet warm when the next ice age rolls around and we won't damage our civilization now. Win-win.

Technically I don't see how we our damaging our current civilization. The fear is all about what will happen to the climate AFTER we are all dead. So... you are worried about humanity a century from now, what about when the ice age hits and the shit REALLY hits the fan?

Renewables are our only LONG term solution. Lets transition to them as they become economically viable. There is no need to impose suffering on people today over fears about what will happen after we die. I for one could give a shit about what happens after I die. I do give a shit about the humanity existing today and the people who are increasing suffering in the 3rd world based on fear mongering. There is a certain segment of society who are actively opposing the 3rd world's access to carbon fuels. It really is fucking bizarre watching scientists attempting to drive resources away from those who need them desperately TODAY because many MAY die in the future. WTF? So the millions dying TODAY don't count? This makes utterly no sense to me, NONE!

PRAGUE — THERE’S a lot of hand-wringing about our warming planet, but billions of people face a more immediate problem: They are desperately poor, and many cook and heat their homes using open fires or leaky stoves that burn dirty fuels like wood, dung, crop waste and coal.

About 3.5 million of them die prematurely each year as a result of breathing the polluted air inside their homes — about 200,000 more than the number who die prematurely each year from breathing polluted air outside, according to a study by the World Health Organization.

There’s no question that burning fossil fuels is leading to a warmer climate and that addressing this problem is important. But doing so is a question of timing and priority. For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty.

More than 1.2 billion people around the world have no access to electricity, according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook for 2012. Most of them live in sub-Saharan Africa and in Asia. That is nearly four times the number of people who live in the United States. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, excluding South Africa, the entire electricity-generating capacity available is only 28 gigawatts — equivalent to Arizona’s — for 860 million people. About 6.5 million people live in Arizona.

 

[unokitty]

Technically I don't see how we our damaging our current civilization...

France says climate deal must avoid US Congress vote

Developing economies insist rich countries show how they will keep a promise of mustering $100 billion (92 billion euros) a year in climate finance by 2020. A mere $10 billion has been collected since the pledge was made in 2009.

$100bn promise to fight climate change 'not delivered'

The new agreement, which only becomes effective in 2020, needs to measure up with the demands of holding global temperature rise in this century below 2 degrees Celsius, the limit considered safe by scientists...

At Bonn the talks continued, as always, on the rich and poor lines. Africa reinforced its demands for the Paris agreement to treat adaptation and mitigation equally. It wants assurances on how $100 billion promise in climate finance per year will be mobilised by 2020...

"We continue to stand by our stance that developed countries must focus on helping those most affected by, and in the weakest position to cope with climate change, acknowledging they are part of the problem and solution, ensuring that all climate actions respect and promote human rights and gender equality."

Rich countries' $100bn promise to fight climate change 'not delivered'

As a key United Nations meeting got underway, Brazil, China, India and South Africa said they were disappointed in rich countries' failure to make good on a promise six years ago to mobilise $100bn a year by 2020 for climate finance.

The funds, intended to help developing countries cut their greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for sea-level rises, extreme weather and other consequences of climate change, are seen as a crucial element to reaching a global warming agreement at the end of the year.

There seems to be broad agreement that managing the environment is important.

There also seems to be broad agreement that energy resources also need to be managed prudently.

Though, I'm sceptical that giving billions of dollars to third world politicians will do either of the above.

If rich politicians want to give their money to third world politicians, I'm okay with that...

If they want to give my money to third world politicians, I'm not okay with that...

Besides, isn't this the same group that was promoting "Peak Oil" a few years ago?

When that didn't work out, they began to promote "Global Warming"?

That didn't work out, then so now they are promoting "Climate Change".

Nonetheless, the climate has been changing as long as the planet has existed... Climate has been changing since before the politicians and their "wealth transfer" programs.

Give me a call when all of the Climate Believers start sending their own money to third world politicians...

Uno

 

[dainthomas]

Ok. But as his edit shows we'll be cooling for the next 80,000 years. But we aren't cooling. We're warming faster than any time in 1000's of years.

I've said the natural forcings were cooling. You and bshole apparently agree with that. You guys also agree we're warming instead of cooling.

So if we are all on the same page why don't you guys think we should do some thing about it?

Because cooling sucks. Would North America actually be better off covered with mile thick ice sheets?

You're welcome, Canada.

 

[werepossum]

Wtf?!?! Nice cheap shot!

Just joking. Every once in a while the urge to poke Canada just overwhelms me.

Ok. But as his edit shows we'll be cooling for the next 80,000 years. But we aren't cooling. We're warming faster than any time in 1000's of years.

I've said the natural forcings were cooling. You and bshole apparently agree with that. You guys also agree we're warming instead of cooling.

So if we are all on the same page why don't you guys think we should do some thing about it?

I don't actually agree that the net natural forcings are cooling. Honestly, I don't think we know enough about the planet to even have an educated guess yet, which is why the most complicated climate models suck at trying to predict anything until after it's already happened. That's fine as long as we consider climatology a soft science like psychology, but it's not acceptable to pass off something at that level as equivalent to, say, physics.

I do agree we should do something now, simply because our system is huge and we have extremely limited power to influence it. If we suspect a boulder is about to roll down the hill and flatten our house, best to chock it now rather than try to stop it once we are sure. But on the other hand, I'm not going to chock it with my brand new truck just in case. (If I had a brand new truck.) We need to look at technologies where we get the most bang for our buck. We should be heavily subsidizing solar, especially point-of-use solar which doubles in reducing grid requirements. I'm honestly not sure that wind is practical, but where it is we should be subsidizing that as well.

Basic science is a pretty cheap investment. We should be heavily investing not in studies proving global warming, but rather in technology research to do something about it if it's right. Even if the current alarmists are 100% wrong, basic scientific knowledge is always useful. Technology to remove atmospheric (or marine, or aquatic) carbon can also be used to produce carbon for manufacturing as well as horizontal leveraging into different fields. We should be heavily investing in basic research on capturing heat spectra energy just as we do visible spectra - waste heat management is wasted energy (pun intended) and for nuclear plants especially can be its own environmental disaster. Capturing waste heat is a two-fer, as we get the extra energy and release from coping with the waste heat. We should be heavily investing in better nuclear plant technology, things like pebble bed and thorium reactors and small, sealed, closed-cycle reactors. We should be mandating higher levels of insulation - home construction in America particularly is a model of bad energy design - as well as higher efficiency. Energy Star and the like have been with us for awhile, and there's no reason why we should still be handing out tax credits for what should be the law and for which the investment should have been long ago amortized. We should be retiring all existing coal plants and oil burners. We should be identifying man-made and significant natural sources of methane and capturing that, another two-fer. A commercial hog farm for instance is one of the nastiest things known to mankind, but it would be a lot less offensive if we were capturing the energy in decomposing hog waste.

What we should not be doing is cap-and-trade, sending money to third world nations for mitigation, or tolerating dishonesty in climate scientists. If your proxies work everywhere except everywhere they can be tested, then they don't work, period, and you need to figure out why rather than hiding the discrepancy by using actual measurements to continue your model. NO paper should ever be peer reviewed without ALL the base data AND all the formulae used. Shit that won't fly in high school should not fly when done by PhDs. Any experiment that requires a statistically significant amount of datum points to be discarded should not be considered to produce valid results, period.

 

[dphantom]

Ok. But as his edit shows we'll be cooling for the next 80,000 years. But we aren't cooling. We're warming faster than any time in 1000's of years.

I've said the natural forcings were cooling. You and bshole apparently agree with that. You guys also agree we're warming instead of cooling.

So if we are all on the same page why don't you guys think we should do some thing about it?

I do not think anyone disagrees we have had some warming since the end of the LIA and that man has been a cause of some of it. I certainly do not.

But who is to say what if anything should be done about the <1C of temperature rise over the last 150+ years. Why not hope we can return to the Minoan or Roman warming periods? Both periods warmer than what we are experiencing now and expected to experience throughout this century.

That is not to say we can or should pollute our planet. We can and should find economical, market-based and driven alternatives to fossil fuels. Those are coming along and will grow more robust over the coming decades.

 

[xBiffx]

That is not to say we can or should pollute our planet. We can and should find economical, market-based and driven alternatives to fossil fuels. Those are coming along and will grow more robust over the coming decades.

This is where one side doesn't get it. To them saying that we shouldn't (let alone possibly couldn't) do anything about warming is equal to wanting to trash and pollute the environment. It's a ridiculous premise meant only to demonize your opposition in order to gain some made up moral high ground.

 

[lotus503]

This is where one side doesn't get it. To them saying that we shouldn't (let alone possibly couldn't) do anything about warming is equal to wanting to trash and pollute the environment. It's a ridiculous premise meant only to demonize your opposition in order to gain some made up moral high ground.

We are only one decent sized asteroid impact from some serious climate change.

One thing I find puzzling is when you look at the record of human history, warming periods have always been the periods of the most advancement.

 

[nickqt]

We are only one decent sized asteroid impact from some serious climate change.

One thing I find puzzling is when you look at the record of human history, warming periods have always been the periods of the most advancement.

Were there 7+ billion humans during most of human history? That may cause problems if warming were to occur rapidly now.

 

[xBiffx]

Were there 7+ billion humans during most of human history? That may cause problems if warming were to occur rapidly now.

So we should fix what may happen?

If the number of people are the problem, why have none of the solutions addressed that?

Same goes for food/crops and the need for GMO's debate but that's another thread.

 

[lotus503]

Were there 7+ billion humans during most of human history? That may cause problems if warming were to occur rapidly now.

Of course there weren't 7b.

I was listening to a Joe Rogan Podcast and he had a guy on Randall Carlson. He had an interesting perspective on the whole subject. Worth checking out.

I think coastal areas , water and food production are serious concerns but I think Humans ability to innovate will offset much of the damage we have caused, unfortunately things have to get really bad before we get our asses in gear usually.

 

[bshole]

We are only one decent sized asteroid impact from some serious climate change.

One thing I find puzzling is when you look at the record of human history, warming periods have always been the periods of the most advancement.

And a single massive solar EMP away from a catastrophe of unimaginable destruction. Imagine a world with no power, communication and satellite systems. And what are we doing to prevent this? Not a damn thing.

Funny that none of the climatologists seem to give a shit about this particular danger. A danger which could be easily and inexpensively mitigated.

Protection against the damage of a severe solar storm could be done easily and rather inexpensively by the electrical utilities; however it is not being done, and there are few signs that it will be done. A severe solar storm poses little threat to electronics, but would take down the most important power grids in the world for a period of years. This is a special problem in the United States, and is a severe threat in the eastern United States. So, more important than preparing for a nuclear EMP attack is preparing for all of the ramifications of a severe solar storm which would cause an electrical power outage that would, in most areas, last for a period of years. Most standby power systems would continue to function after a severe solar storm, but supplying the standby power systems with adequate fuel, when the main power grids are offline for years, could become a very critical problem.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-flare-electronics2.htm

 

[nickqt]

So we should fix what may happen?

If the number of people are the problem, why have none of the solutions addressed that?

Same goes for food/crops and the need for GMO's debate but that's another thread.

Fixing what "may" happen? No. We should address the problems that we might be creating for future humans. As decent stewards of the planet, we should aim to do the least harm possible at all times.

Of course there weren't 7b.

I was listening to a Joe Rogan Podcast and he had a guy on Randall Carlson. He had an interesting perspective on the whole subject. Worth checking out.

I think coastal areas , water and food production are serious concerns but I think Humans ability to innovate will offset much of the damage we have caused, unfortunately things have to get really bad before we get our asses in gear usually.

Right. Things will probably have to get really bad before we get our asses in gear. Some of us though would prefer to work on it before it gets really bad. Really bad means lots of dead people and suffering.

And a single massive solar EMP away from a catastrophe of unimaginable destruction. Imagine a world with no power, communication and satellite systems. And what are we doing to prevent this? Not a damn thing.

Funny that none of the climatologists seem to give a shit about this particular danger. A danger which could be easily and inexpensively mitigated.



http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-flare-electronics2.htm

Actually, climatologists aren't concerned with CME's because it's not their purview. Nothing "funny" about it.

NASA, though, is monitoring the sun because a massive CME could knock out satellites and electric grids.

Of course, a massive enough CME could destroy transformers, and if enough were destroyed, things would be very hectic and awful for quite a while.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...looming-threat-of-a-solar-superstorm-6643435/

Any sane nation with a decent set of priorities would be constantly upgrading infrastructure. Burying the electric grid, making it more redundant, and protecting transformers.

 

[xBiffx]

Fixing what "may" happen?

This.

We should address the problems that we might be creating for future humans.

Is the same as this.

May happen and might be....same thing.

Not wanting to pollute the environment has nothing to do with what may happen to future human. It has everything to do with current humans not wanting to live in a toilet.

 

[werepossum]

We are only one decent sized asteroid impact from some serious climate change.

One thing I find puzzling is when you look at the record of human history, warming periods have always been the periods of the most advancement.

This is true, but it may be obsolete. We are now advanced enough to tailor our crops to a particular climate, so if the climate quickly changed we might have serious problems catching up, especially given how many of our crops are intentionally sterile hybrids. Both rapid warming and rapid cooling have historically caused terrible famines as regional rainfall either greatly decreased or increased to the point of rotting or washing out crops, and quick changes typically destabilized weather for decades. Question would be whether we with our advanced technology could adapt to rapid climate change quickly enough to avoid the famines leading into the period of advancement.

Also, some things can cause great advancement and still be quite nasty to experience. The fourteenth century was a time of great societal advances in Europe, but largely because the Black Death killed off more than a third of Europeans, which grossly destabilized the existing equilibrium of power between lord and tenant. So we could advance as a species or culture and still be miserable pups living through it.

 

[nickqt]

This.



Is the same as this.

May happen and might be....same thing.

Not wanting to pollute the environment has nothing to do with what may happen to future human. It has everything to do with current humans not wanting to live in a toilet.

Not polluting the environment directly affects future humans, if you believe that polluting the environment now creates a toilet for extant humans.

 

[xBiffx]

Not polluting the environment directly affects future humans, if you believe that polluting the environment now creates a toilet for extant humans.

That's a secondary result. The reason people don't want to do it now is for their own benefit. People are selfish and there is no denying that.