NASA says Antarctica is actually gaining ice ( 2 days ago)

[SUPcheat]

One thing about being old is that I have seen generations of politically motivated and publicity based climate hysteria wash back and forth, from global freezing to global warming, based on short term trends. Scientists on board?  Yeah, where do they get their funding from?  It's like Jonathan Swift's satires on the Royal Society in Gulliver's Travels, some things never change.  Science generating religion for politicians and political agendas.

People are so desperate for certainty, they'll jump on board any bandwagon to get it.

I would surmise that we just don't clearly know what is going on. Observable history is just too short, and scientific knowledge just too limited to know.

[dingfix]

+1, plus I admire you for posting this.  Last time I said something similar on the zone it was suggested I'd be denying the holocaust happened next.   I think you nailed it - very complex issue, multiple factors, limited understanding.  Open minds required.  Climate does change that is about the only given.

[robon]

+1, plus I admire you for posting this.  Last time I said something similar on the zone it was suggested I'd be denying the holocaust happened next.   I think you nailed it - very complex issue, multiple factors, limited understanding.  Open minds required.  Climate does change that is about the only given.

I totally agree that it takes an open mind to talk about something as complicated as climate change, but the global cooling reference is the classic strawman argument in the climate debate that rarely gets used anymore Just saying. The global cooling aura of doom from the 70s had more to do with the media than actual science. There are actually very few peer reviewed research papers from this time period, but the majority of the research was pointing towards climate change and CO2, not long term global cooling, although it was hypothesized by some researchers which can't be ignored There was also some interesting studies being done on aerosols but whatever.

We have come a hell of a long ways in a short time in regards to science and still have a long ways to go. I think some of the most relevant questions are the hardest to answer. Questions like just how much do we influence the climate? Those with an understanding of climate understand natural cycles, but how much influence do we have? Will the next significant global cooling trend come just as it normally would, or will it get pushed back if the climate continues to warm, or will it still occur but not be as severe?

Lots of unknowns, but what we do know is that we do have tangible impacts on the climate and environment and some really interesting studies have come forward in recent years. Not new, but large cities as heat sinks having impacts on regional and larger areas in regards to temperatures and weather is really interesting. It's common knowledge that cities are usually warmer than the surrounding landscape but the science is starting to reveal that the impacts on large surrounding areas downwind may be much greater than originally anticipated. Pollution having impacts on weather, and severity of storms. You can see the pollution from China in space and those particulates travel in the jet stream and there is a growing understanding of how pollution may be contributing to changing weather and storm severity on a larger scale.

The bottom line is that it's impossible to say with absolute certainty just how much of an impact we are having on the climate as a species, but to take the stance that we don't have any influence is incredibly ignorant imo.

[supthecreek]

When I see some "sky is falling" declaration from a disciples  of one belief or another...... I simply Google up some info on it..... and fact check a bit.

The following bits came up when I did 1 simple search..... "Average temperature over the history of Earth"

1st graph is typical hype you see from Climate Change Preachers.... and it does look bad! 

The next few charts are scientific findings from studying Ice Core Samples.
They look back a little further in time.... and paint a vastly different picture.

I'm am not saying that we should ignore pollution and rage blindly forward chasing our own comfort....
I'm saying that it's important to dial back the end of the world blame game.... it only give power to some and destroys others.

incidentally.... civilization has always flourished the most during rapid warming cycles.... so go flourish! 

[lucabrasi]

ncidentally.... civilization has always flourished the most during rapid warming cycles.... so go flourish! 

Hmmmm. 40 degrees and rain in February just makes a mess of things when you know it's still months for open ground or open water for any activities that don't include snow and ice. I will go back to a cold cycle here right now please but let's keep the sun moving higher in the sky every day.

[robon]

I largely agree with you Creek. The irony in all this is most of the sky is falling rhetoric comes from the media or conspiracy theorists who cherry pick data that fits their arguments the most. Many scientists are quite conservative in their terminology and quite a few research papers don't read at all like what we see on the news. A researcher might say something like, if this trend persists we MAY or COULD see changes....yada, yada. Words like may or could are not absolutes, but the media and those with an agenda leaning either way cherry pick  and dramatize findings to make a story more interesting and bolster their cause. It goes back to the global cooling debacle of the 70s. If you listen to one side, you would think every single scientist was hypothesizing that we were heading for an ice age, and the end is nigh. The majority of the research during this time was actually hypothesizing about CO2 and the potential for global warming, not cooling, but the media ran with the cooling because it actually was cooler then. It's not that some studies weren't looking into cooling trends, but the interpretation of much of the research was totally skewed to fit an agenda that was easier to sell to the public at that time. Cooling was the buzz word then. Now it's warming and climate change, which makes sense because we are in a warmer period now with many heat and precip records falling over the world consistently. It's easier to sell, but the science is also getting better, and the question remains how much we really do influence the climate. I think we do to an extent, but it's impossible to quantify such a large scale experiment right now.

[starman]

Ahh,,,the sky is falling and when the DOD, CIA, NASA and the worlds leaders are telling us so it's not the best idea to think otherwise going forward. Climate change skeptics can join the flat earth society, the faking of the moon landing club and all the other groups whose members sit at home wearing tin hats doing Google search's to find the real "truth".

It's the CO2 levels that are of great concern and the laundry list of it's effects on the Earth's climate.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[supthecreek]

"Climate change skeptics"  .... another great cliche'.... 

That's impossible to deny...... the climate is constantly changing. It always has been. Sometimes more than others.
I think that was covered in graph #4......But ok.....

I don't believe I have made any statement of opinion, other than climate has always changed, and we should approach any current reaction from the understanding that Earths temperature is NOT a static thing. Any honest discussion of it should leave political agenda out of it.

I am quite sure that the DOD, CIA, NASA and world leaders all have a large financial stake in the conversation. Nothing they say should be blindly accepted as fact.

"Tin hats doing google searches finding the "real truth".... ha ha... you must be feeling challenged.
Apparently you missed my statement in graph#2
"I'll be the 1st to double check this"

by the way starman.... do you have any facts to dispute the "Ice Core Sampling" data? or just one liners from the manual?

What do you think of the wide temperature cycles, that the samples indicate? Are they not worth considering or discussing because they don't fit the narrative?
Or are they all fake? I am open to any facts you have that disprove the assertion that climate has always changed.

I was simply trolling to see what reaction I would get...... very predictable. You don't like to discuss opposing views, so the standard response is to insult.... Nice world you live in.

[starman]

The problem is CO2. Your temp charts are just a red herring. Being a skeptic is fine if you're buying a used SUP. When you're a dimwit like myself it's best to go along with the really smart guys on the subject of climate change. It's serious shit and a lot of petro dollars are being spent to produce the garbage that's being Googled.

Want proof?  http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

[PonoBill]

+1, plus I admire you for posting this.  Last time I said something similar on the zone it was suggested I'd be denying the holocaust happened next.   I think you nailed it - very complex issue, multiple factors, limited understanding.  Open minds required.  Climate does change that is about the only given.

I totally agree that it takes an open mind to talk about something as complicated as climate change, but the global cooling reference is the classic strawman argument in the climate debate that rarely gets used anymore Just saying. The global cooling aura of doom from the 70s had more to do with the media than actual science. There are actually very few peer reviewed research papers from this time period, but the majority of the research was pointing towards climate change and CO2, not long term global cooling, although it was hypothesized by some researchers which can't be ignored There was also some interesting studies being done on aerosols but whatever.

We have come a hell of a long ways in a short time in regards to science and still have a long ways to go. I think some of the most relevant questions are the hardest to answer. Questions like just how much do we influence the climate? Those with an understanding of climate understand natural cycles, but how much influence do we have? Will the next significant global cooling trend come just as it normally would, or will it get pushed back if the climate continues to warm, or will it still occur but not be as severe?

Lots of unknowns, but what we do know is that we do have tangible impacts on the climate and environment and some really interesting studies have come forward in recent years. Not new, but large cities as heat sinks having impacts on regional and larger areas in regards to temperatures and weather is really interesting. It's common knowledge that cities are usually warmer than the surrounding landscape but the science is starting to reveal that the impacts on large surrounding areas downwind may be much greater than originally anticipated. Pollution having impacts on weather, and severity of storms. You can see the pollution from China in space and those particulates travel in the jet stream and there is a growing understanding of how pollution may be contributing to changing weather and storm severity on a larger scale.

The bottom line is that it's impossible to say with absolute certainty just how much of an impact we are having on the climate as a species, but to take the stance that we don't have any influence is incredibly ignorant imo.

Actually if you run most global climate models long enough you get an iceball. Simple reason for that. Iceballs are stable unless something big happens. The ice reflects the light that would warm the land. Simple, and irreversible. Have a big enough downcycle of insolation and presto--iceball. Of course that might not happen for ten or a hundred thousand years, or much longer, but planets with liquid water in the goldilocks region all sit on that knife edge. It's a lot more likely reason why the Fermi paradox isn't really a paradox. the stupid "global warming kills off civilizations" hypothesis assumes a whole bunch of things that are not likely to exist everywhere. Reflectivity of ice is much more reliable.

I don't get why people jump on a single bandwagon, but they do. You can believe in God and science too, you just can't be stupid about it. You can worry about global warming and not think we all need to commit economic suicide--or at least not believe that someone living in a one room shack in New Delhi is going to pass up their chance to have an air conditioner.

No simple answers--at least none that work. I resent people who treat this as a religion, but then again I resent stupid, generally.

[supthecreek]

starguy said "Want proof?"

Wow. The LA Times reporters wrote an article. And they found a villain. A big oil company. Now that's a surprise.
Ok..... I'm convinced.

I've had my fun..... carry on.   

[SUPcheat]

DOD, CIA, NASA, no, they have never lied to anybody or manipulated.  I feel so safe with them and what they tell me. The NSA, too!

[starman]

So what are the pro's and con's of both sides of the climate change debate?

If you accept the premise that you are being lied to and climate change is a hoax then it's ok to burn unlimited amounts of fossil fuels. You are betting that life goes on with little or no consequence to the environment, geo politics and quality of life. What if you are wrong? Well the penalty is pretty severe to the extent that the planet eventually becomes uninhabitable once the tipping point is crossed. So the trade off is the status quo if you are right and mass extinction if you are wrong.

Looking at believing the science and accepting that rising CO2 levels are a threat to our plant what are the pro's and con's. Well if it's all a hoax then you are left with an economy that's transitioned from dirty fossil fuels to clean renewable sources. The money flow to the oil producing countries slows to a trickle and the money that was spent on oil now leaves the public with more to spend on other things. If it's not a hoax then you, at the very least, have made an effort to reduce greenhouse gasses and maybe save the planet and leave less of a mess for future generations.

So when the DoD, CIA, NASA, Exxon-Mobil and many others world wide think that rising CO2 levels is a threat on many different levels something bad is happening. They all have done extensive risk-benefit analysis and are all making plans for the future. They are not ignoring the science and are planning for a lot of different scenarios. Doing nothing is not an option for any of them.

[Bean]

There is certainly more to cleaning up our environment than climate change alone...the two don't even have to go hand in hand.

[eastbound]

The "science" that denies global warming and the ill effects of pumping carbon into our atmosphere can only be found with cherry-picking. Needle in a haystack maybe a better analogy for the search for credible climate change denial "science".

Economic suicide is what happens when the deniers control the politics in vulnerable places--like in.....Miami, where swaths of once lovely residential areas are now, in fact, flooding at most and/or all high tides. You might feel differently about the NYer article were you trying to get a mortgage on or sell one of these properties. Miami, the place where, by edict of local politicians, no reference to increased flooding and climate change can legally be mentioned in any government-sourced document. But then this is the "religion" and "belief" that supposedly pervades the NYer piece I linked.

The sad people trying to deal with the new phenom that their Miami houses are flooding with great regularity have beliefs---that they got shafted.