Climate Change why are we still even debating it?

[Longeyes]

Please take the time to study this, climate change is proven no matter the naysayers would have you believe. Opinion is not an arbiter of truth science fortunately is.
These graphics reveal the findings of the IPCC published this January. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/01/31/12-graphics-that-contain-everything-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change/

We need solutions now not dissent, this is the biggest threat humanity now faces.

[majicbar]

The fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions to shape public debate, sewing confusion and doubt were they can not outright bring an ignorant public to believe climate change to be a lie. Moreso they have bought politicans with easy campaign money to blind their belief even in the face of obvious global change. Science has faileto provide smoking gun evidence of the truth, one sometimes needs to present the evidence in more than graphs. But is the public open to spending more time to understand when the opposition provides simplistic dogmas that feed that public ignorance. By highlighting the lesser evidence that contradicts the primary contention the greater truth can be magically hidden, though in plain sight. The proof of global climate change
is found in ocean ph, in almost all glaciers in rapid retreat, in oceans rising, in CO2 PPM record levels, in the severity of storms, in the disruption of patterns beyond statistical expectation. Instances of local exceptions do not contradict the greater claim of climate change. Temperatures are only one measure of change, change is the whole broader calculus of the environment as a whole.

[norenrad]

I don't think it's whether it's happening, I believe it's the cause. My belief is that this is a force of nature that has been going on since the Earth was formed. An example is that climate change killed the mammoths and the plethora of evidence that the Earth has experienced warm and cold climate changes as far back as we can see.

[majicbar]

I don't think it's whether it's happening, I believe it's the cause. My belief is that this is a force of nature that has been going on since the Earth was formed. An example is that climate change killed the mammoths and the plethora of evidence that the Earth has experienced warm and cold climate changes as far back as we can see.
Pretty much the opinion of paleontologists is that human beings killed off the mammoths, both in the Americas and Europe, climate if anything was improving making the lives of mammoths easier. The same can be said of several other species that were either a food source for man or a competive hunter of those food sources. While the history of the Earth shows warming and cooling periods, this one is qualitatively different. The net effects that are evidenced in the oceans has not been seen in other warming events. Oceans are however problematic in that the evidence in rocks become consumed in ocean spreading or mountain building over hundreds of millions of years. But except for that caviat, this period is unique, special, extraordinary.

[atmjjc]

You have to look at this politically; just about every politician who is screaming climate change has huge personal investments in solar or non-carbon type energy. Al Gore and you guessed it, Barack Obama have the most investments and scream the loudest over fossil fuel use.

You must also distinguish pollution from fossil fuel use, as in cars, which is blamed by some as the cause of climate change.

I received this in my inbox the other day concerning climate change.

-------------------------

Email

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.

Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO 2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

[norenrad]

These sites explain that humans were not the principle cause of the mammoth's decline, climate played a role:

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/oct/05-what-killed-off-the-woolly-mammoths

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24034954

"In place of tundra grew a vast, arid grassland that paleobiologist R. Dale Guthrie has called the mammoth steppe, stretching from Ireland to Kamchatka and across the Bering land bridge to Alaska, the Yukon, and much of North America. The grasses, broad-leaved herbs, and low shrubs of the steppe provided nutritious food, and in addition to mammoths, nourished a profusion of other outsize, exuberantly hairy mammalian megafauna—woolly rhinoceroses, enormous long-horned bison, and bear-size beavers, as well as the fearsome carnivores that hunted them: saber-toothed cats, cave hyenas, and giant short-faced bears."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/05/mammoths/mueller-text

This explains a place that is frozen now, but wasn't frozen then.

[norenrad]

"Earth’s oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists published today in the journal Nature.

The scientists analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide (CO2) measurements and found that the processes by which the planet’s oceans and ecosystems absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity.“Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120801_esrlcarbonstudy.html

I think that if we are truly concerned, we should start looking at how much of our vegetation is being destroyed. If I remember right, vegetation plays a large role in our climate and should be protected.

[Longeyes]

Climate change make no mistake is this time man made. Sites which claim 'evidence' are cherry picking data and not run by climate scientists.
To claim that Al gore had vested interests in proclaiming climate change is a ludicrous slur. The real vested interests lay in the huge multinational oil companies, coal companies, refiners power companies, even countries and the like that make billions by burning fossil fuels. They have backed ad campaigns and destroyed the rational debate in the US.

Yes natural climate is cyclical and depends on a variety of different variables the tilt of the planets axis, sun spot activity even the shape of the continents. Ice ages come and go. This time is has been shown time and again to be directly linked to our burning of fossil fuels. No one has ever been daft enough to deny that burning fossil fuels creates co2 or doesn't cause warming. The massive amounts we have pumped into the atmosphere have had an effect.

Reading opinions of activists no matter how well intentioned, doesn't mean they are right. Natural skepticism is great but cherry picking evidence and denying the truth is dangerous. You won't find hardly any climate scientists disagreeing climate change this time is man made or even scientists. Read Scientific American or New Scientist and there is article after article explaining climate change and the evidence.

In the UK the government is cutting green levies on power companies because fossil fuel prices are going up. They are offering incentives to fracking companies. It's madness. No one wants to pay for this, especially politicians. It's short termism. We need a sustainable energy infrastructure anyway fossil fuels will run out. Even if CC was baloney fossil fuels will soon be prohibitively high.

[Longeyes]

"Earth’s oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists published today in the journal Nature.

The scientists analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide (CO2) measurements and found that the processes by which the planet’s oceans and ecosystems absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity.“Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120801_esrlcarbonstudy.html

I think that if we are truly concerned, we should start looking at how much of our vegetation is being destroyed. If I remember right, vegetation plays a large role in our climate and should be protected.

So the other 50%? Stays in the atmosphere building up all the time causing heating and acidification of the oceans.
More vegetation would be great as long as it ends up trapped in the ground like coal or oil. Most bio matter as it decays releases co2 back into the atmosphere. That's why biofuels are essentially carbon neutral they don't reduce the amount of co2 in the atmosphere.

[norenrad]

"... planet’s oceans and ecosystems that absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity. Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities,..."

[whoknows]

IMHO Climate change is a smoke screen… What need to focus on folks is our effect not on climate but the effect we have on the whole biosphere. In truth it is all connected.
A volcano has no choice if it blows but we do have a choice as to whether we suck as a species or not. As far as I can see we have been pretty sucky so far.! {{{FAIL }}}

[Longeyes]

" ...continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere."


Half not all, it also doesn't mean that the system isn't creaking or that CC isn't effecting the planet. Increased Co2 levels have lead to plants growing faster all around the world and the oceans are getting more acidic.
How long are these changes mild and more importantly can we stop them before they get really serious.

[Longeyes]

IMHO Climate change is a smoke screen… What need to focus on folks is our effect not on climate but the effect we have on the whole biosphere. In truth it is all connected.
A volcano has no choice if it blows but we do have a choice as to whether we suck as a species or not. As far as I can see we have been pretty sucky so far.! {{{FAIL }}}

I agree whoknows we are one of the most successful species this planet has created but at the moment at a great cost to the rest of the species we share this world with. All consumption needs to be balanced with nature.

[Longeyes]

On the news today wettest winter in 250yrs in south of England. There's been one storm after another here, and I know it was the hot in Australia in 2013 the average temperature was 39 C for the whole continent for seven days. In the US that cold snap was weird.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/too-hot-australias-big-heat-breaking-records/
The field out the back of our property has been flooded for six weeks, last year it was twice for a week, the year before that not at all. That's not to say it's never flooded before that, but this year it is really extreme. The flood waters are rising and there are two more storms due in the next few days. It's going to be real close this time.

[majicbar]

The increase in rain and snow are consistent with a warming climate, but so are clear skies and hot temperatures. The point we miss seeing is that the overall energy in the atmosphere is greater now than before. With the oceans acting as both a thermal and chemical sink the heat flow is diguised leaving us to think things are maybe not so bad. This increase in heat changes how some processes act and how things act. With these changes we really cannot predict how things will be evolving. We very well may osscilate between extremes in the processes with no real way to fight them.

I am feeling that the best way to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere is to freeze it to dry ice, scavenge the oxygen and use the carbon to replace steel used in transportation, cars and planes, and in buildings which would be lighter, stronger, taller than those with steel. The net enrgy balance of this course would do more to bring carbon back into control than energy used to just pump it back into the ground and loose the oxygen in the process.

[norenrad]

I agree that there are always smarter and better ways to do things, but the people in charge want a quick fix that lines their pockets, screw everyone else. I also agree that we should have clean and renewable industrial processes, medicines without side effects and a general love for fellow human beings, but so long as political polarization makes money, we will always be slaves to the powers that be.

[atmjjc]

This video is so weird.

I have never seen anything like this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbs8tN8xlxA

[Doc]

More:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqptbtwXUCs

[majicbar]

Flooding in England has broken records going back 250 years, and while a single event, taken together with similar events it speaks to the title of this thread, why is it still a debate?

[atmjjc]

Here are a couple of debates, one hosted by John Stossel who is a Libertarian and the other by Pierre Morgan who is a Liberal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWT-EWKIR3M

[Marvin]

Here are a couple of debates, one hosted by John Stossel who is a Libertarian and the other by Pierre Morgan who is a Liberal.




You bring up a good point (intentionally or not), why is this topic so politically polarized?


M

“Science is based on facts, good science is based on valid facts.”

[Longeyes]

I agree Marvin
Why is it so political polarised?
I think Republicans tend to be more conservative and skeptical. They wont endorse any change in the status quo because they tend to believe in the system and revel in the positive capacities of humankind. And unfortunately climate change has been labelled as something for Lilly livered liberals and tree-huggers. Democrats or left leaning folk tend to be dubious of the system and human intentions and more open to change.
And it has become polarised because people think they have a right to an opinion on it. Opnions are just that, they tend not to be based on fact but more peer group values and prejudicies. Even within the scientific community we know how stuck in the mud and biased people's opinions are. We also know how powerful a tiny bit of disinformation can be, ufology has been dismissed because of it.
Just a few bits of bad press on the part of the 'climate change' brigade, the leaked emails over egging the pudding, Al gore's tiny mistake in his lecture have just compounded the already skeptical beliefs of the wavering right. The right wing press has just fanned the flames printing any story it can find undermining climate change beliefs.

It should be down to the facts which are now undeniable. Instead it's the usual who can shout the loudest and play the dirtiest in the school playground wins the argument. We proclaim to be so intelligent but we are barely out of the jungle.
We need to grow up and act responsibly not chose what we want to believe because it suits us.

[Doc]

It is still a debate because so much is yet undetermined and interests keep pushing for quick remedies which will reap enormous profits to cronies of the powerful. It's all about hurry, hurry spend enormous sums on unproved cures and fixes. Science does not work well with urgency, propaganda, and hysteria.

[Marvin]

Has any one seen this:


http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/02/12/brutal-winter-may-see-lake-superior-freeze-over-for-first-time-in-decades/


It gives one pause....

[majicbar]

Longeyes vs CharliePrime. Climate change is very widely accepted among professional climatologists in the academic community, for every instance of a cooling report there are dozens of reports of warming. Precipitation which correlates strongly with warming is increasing in individual storms, though the overall precipitation pattern too is also changing. The atmosphere is a four dimensional environment: even when temperature might not rise, or might even cool at any one spot in the Earth's climate, over a full year those dynamics will show persistent changes vs those that had existed in the past. Example: glaciers which are "growing" are really only just on the move. A cold, old, glacier to human perceptions is frozen in place and moves, or grows only in very slow measures. Glaciers also move, or appear to grow, when increased precipitation adds to the mass and weight of the snow and ice within that glacier. Those of us oldsters with good memories see these differences, but the complex climate models back up those impressions with real data. Somehow the deniers seem to feel they are entitled to their own data to the exclusion of the whole greater world of real world observations.

[majicbar]

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/imageyakutat_oli_2013225_lrg.jpg


The Retreat of Yakutat Glacier : An indicator of change.

Located in the Brabazon Range of southeastern Alaska, Yakutat Glacier is one of the fastest retreating glaciers in the world. It is the primary outlet for the 810-square kilometer (310-square mile) Yakutat ice field, which drains into Harlequin Lake and, ultimately, the Gulf of Alaska.

The Operational Land Imager on the Landsat 8 satellite captured this image of the glacier and lake on Aug. 13, 2013. Snow and ice appear white and forests are green. The brown streaks on the glaciers are lateral and medial moraines.

Over the past 26 years, the glacier’s terminus has retreated more than 5 kilometers (3 miles). What is causing the rapid retreat? University of Alaska glaciologist Martin Truffer and colleagues pointed to a number of factors in their 2013 study published in the Journal of Glaciology. The chief cause is the long-term contraction of the Yakutat Ice Field, which has been shrinking since the height of the Little Ice Age.

Once part of a much larger ice field, Yakutat has been contracting for hundreds of years. As other nearby glaciers retreated, Yakutat ice field was cut off from higher-elevation areas that once supplied a steady flow of ice from the north. With that flow cut off, there simply is not enough snow falling over the low-elevation Yakutat ice field to prevent it from retreating.

Beyond this natural change, human-caused global warming has hastened the speed of the retreat. Between 1948–2000, mean annual temperatures in Yakutat increased by 1.38° Celsius (2.48° Fahrenheit). Between 2000 and 2010, they rose by another 0.48°C (0.86°F). The warmer temperatures encourage melting and sublimation at all ice surfaces exposed to the air.

In the past few years, the breakdown of a long, floating ice tongue has triggered especially dramatic changes in the terminus of Yakutat glacier. For many years, Yakutat’s two main tributaries merged and formed a 5-kilometer (3-mile) calving face that extended far into Harlequin Lake. In the past decade, satellites observed a rapid terminus retreat and the breakup of the ice tongue in 2010. As a result, the calving front divided into two sections, with one running east-west and another running north-south.

> More information and annotated images
Image Credit: NASA Earth Observatory image by Robert Simmon, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey
Caption: Adam Voiland

[Garuda]

Interesting article: Global warming slowdown 'could last another decade'

The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research.

Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988

[CasperParks]

Interesting article: Global warming slowdown 'could last another decade'

The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research.

Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988


The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research.

However, they caution that global temperatures are likely to increase rapidly when the cycle flips to a warmer phase.

How quick temperatures will rise after the ten year hiatus ends? Seems far off, yet in reality isn't. Often we hear, watch and read that future wars will be fought over food and water.

[southerncross]

Climate change...are we there yet? :D
The thing is we are slowly and in perceptively inching toward the end of the inter glacial warming period. Ever so slowly the boat is beginning to rock and many scientists I've read believe we will see a period not unlike the Maunder. I hope it doesn't do it frankly, as I like to eat, but it is definely showing signs of slipping toward the colder side.
That said. Take a look at this Scottish lad. Ben Nevis is a sure fire indicator of significant cooling.
Just remember weather is not climate, and vice versa.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28885119

A team of climbers and scientists investigating the mountain's North Face said snowfields remained in many gullies and upper scree slopes.

On these fields, they have come across compacted, dense, ice hard snow call neve.

Neve is the first stage in the formation of glaciers, the team said.

The team has also encountered sheets of snow weighing hundreds of tonnes and tunnels and fissures known as bergschrunds.

The large, deep cracks in the ice are found at the top of glaciers.

[Longeyes]

If anyone does believe we are facing serious trhreats from the amount of Co2 we have produced please sign this petition people worldwide are also protesting in support of it.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/100_clean_final/?slideshow

I can sincerely say this is the most important petition we've ever done.

Sorry for the language, but one top scientist just warned that we are all "f*cked" if global warming releases gigantic amounts of methane gas from the arctic tundra. The UN knows this is one of several catastrophic climate threats we're facing, and is bringing world leaders to New York for a major summit on this global emergency.

Hundreds of thousands of us will take to the streets for the People’s Climate March just before the summit. Let’s make sure that on that day we deliver the largest Avaaz petition ever, for the only solution: mobilize the world to shift to 100% clean energy. Click on the right to sign and tell everyone.

[majicbar]

http://www.climatecentral.org/oceans

It turns out that 90% of the global climate warming has happened in the oceans which are an incredible thermal sink. Warming oceans generate water vapor which causes more clouds which lower the atmospheric temperatures, thus the most recent signs of a minor cooling in some atmospheric temperatures are really an illusion caused by global warming making it look like it is cooling when it is actually on balance warmer. This might mean that we will pass the tipping point while thinking the problem is not as severe as projected. This is all the more important in that water vapor is the most potent of all greenhouse gasses and it is not in the models because it is too complicated to include the behavioral dynamics of water vapor.

[Edgar Fouche]

.

Now I don't want to get into a great about Global Warming, but I personally believe it's true. 98% of independent scientists believe it's true.
Why else, would the Pentagon (DoD) plan for the problems of Global Warming. After all they have access to ALL the real information?
Edgar Fouche

Pentagon: global warming will change how US military trains and goes to war
Climate change to become immediate factor for all strategic, operational and planning decisions
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/pentagon-global-warming-will-change-how-us-military-trains-and-goes-to-war
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/pentagon-global-warming-will-change-how-us-military-trains-and-goes-to-war

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/13/1413221457756/df9adcf8-3ac4-493b-9cf1-9a9c788f7935-460x276.jpeg


Global warming is changing the way the US trains for and goes to war – affecting war games, weapons systems, training exercises, and military installations – according to the Pentagon.

The defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, will tell a high-level meeting of military leaders on Monday that the Pentagon is undertaking sweeping changes to operation systems and installations to keep up with a growing threat of rising seas, droughts, and natural disasters caused by climate change.

“A changing climate will have real impacts on our military and the way it executes its missions,” Hagel wrote in his introduction to a Pentagon report out today. “We are considering the impacts of climate change in our war games and defence planning scenarios.”

The Pentagon’s strategic planners have for years viewed climate change as a “threat multiplier”– worsening old conflicts and potentially provoking new clashes over migration and shortages of food and water in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and opening up new military challenges in a melting Arctic.

But with Monday’s report, climate change moved from potential threat to an immediate factor in a wide range of operational and budgeting decisions.

“It makes it a reality that climate change indeed is a risk today, and we need to plan, programme and budget for it now and into the future,” said Sherri Goodman, chief executive of the military advisory board, a group of former generals and other high-ranking officers that studies US national security.

The report – unveiled at a meeting of more than 30 defence ministers from the Americas and Europe – also signalled US intention to take a lead role at international climate negotiations in Lima in December.

From now on, the military will factor climate change into a host of day-to-day decisions, a senior defence official told a conference call with reporters.

“It’s about being baked into things we are already doing, and incorporated into all the other things we are doing,” he said.

Those decisions could include war games, training exercises, and purchasing decisions – which could all be affected by conditions such as sea-level rise, heat waves, and drought.

War games scenarios would now factor in floods or storms instead of assuming optimal conditions, said Goodman. “You could make the game more complex with sea-level rise, and extreme weather events.”

She said the navy would have to test sonar and other systems under the changing ocean chemistry. The military will have to adapt to hotter temperatures.

One of the biggest and most costly decisions ahead is the location of some 7,000 US military sites.

As the report acknowledged, US military installations and personnel are already exposed to climate change. The Hampton Roads area in Virginia – which houses the biggest concentration of US forces – already floods during high tides and severe storms, and could see an additional 1.5 feet of sea level rise in the next 20 years.

Meanwhile, military bases in the south-west are coping with water and electricity shortages, under recurring droughts. Arctic land-based installations are shifting because of melting permafrost, while retreating sea ice is changing naval requirements.

The Pentagon is not planning a wholesale relocation of bases, the officials told the call. But they said the military was already bringing in sandbags and moving generators out of basements in low-lying areas. It was also shelving ideas for new construction on flood plains.

Other potential changes include cuts to outdoor training exercises – because of heat waves, or increased weapons maintenance costs and repairs because of heat and dust.

“As we think about changing weather patterns we have to think hard about where operations might be conducted and whether we need to change the assumptions about what kind of air breathing conditions ... what kind of sea state we might expect in an operating environment, and what impact they might have.”

The report said troops could also be at greater risk of infectious diseases, which spread more rapidly in hotter temperatures.

Hagel in comments to reporters at the weekend said the Pentagon anticipated an increase in humanitarian missions, because of natural disasters and recurring famines.

He also said the Arctic presented a growing military challenge.

“We see an Arctic that is melting, meaning that most likely a new sea lane will emerge,” he said. “We know that there are significant minerals and natural deposits of oil and natural gas there. That means that nations will compete for those natural resources. That’s never been an issue before. You couldn’t get up there and get anything out of there. We have to manage through what those conditions and new realities are going to bring in the way of potential threats.”

The Pentagon was first instructed by Congress in 2007 to incorporate climate change into its long-term security planning.

But Republicans in Congress have gone on to block the military from preparing for a warmer future, cutting funds for intelligence gathering or testing low-carbon jet fuels.

Officials told the call that planning for the future would help bring down climate-related costs.

“There is a lot you can do to mitigate risk and lower the cost of risks if you acknowledge the risk exists,” the officials said.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/pentagon-global-warming-will-change-how-us-military-trains-and-goes-to-war

[CasperParks]

Not long ago, we saw this in science fiction stories. Air pollution bad enough that people wore smog masks daily. Below is part of a CNN news story on a recent event where models wore stylish smog masks. Click on the link to see the styles offered.


Click for full news story at CNN Unmasking a new trend: stylish smog masks By Sarah LeTrent: (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/living/smog-mask-china-fashion-week/index.html?hpt=hp_c3)

(CNN) -- High fashion isn't often inspired by environmental hazards, but as air pollution levels soared in Beijing on Tuesday, models at China Fashion Week walked the runway wearing designer respiratory face masks.

The QIAODAN Yin Peng Sports Wear Collection showcased fashion and function in the same breath at the biannual event, which runs through the weekend. Some outfits had built-in face masks while others featured smog masks coordinated to match the ensemble.

The runway shows briefly coincide with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, for which Beijing is implementing strict pollution controls. The city is limiting traffic and shutting down industrial factories to help air quality conditions.

[Longeyes]

Not cheery festive news sorry but it's the truth....

This year is due to be the hottest on record

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/dec/17/2014-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record

[majicbar]

Not cheery festive news sorry but it's the truth....

This year is due to be the hottest on record

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/dec/17/2014-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record

What I find all the more disturbing is that they are finding that a lot of the excess heat is being absorbed in various 'sinks', so we do not see all of the effects of excess heating. Once those sinks are full, we will see the full effect of excess heat at an increasing rate. At that point it will probably be either too late to do anything, or it will be incredibly expensive, but we will have no choice but to try to do something brilliant, or suffer the consequences of the greed of those who could have made a crucial difference when it really counted.

[CasperParks]

Largely ignored by mainstream media is movement of Earth's magnetic poles. Without a doubt a shifting of North and South Poles has an effect on climate. Pollution caused by humans living on the planet is part of the problem, however it is not the only issue. That said, it does not give humanity a license to pollute. Humans upon the Earth should take the role of good stewardship. When and wherever possible, humanity must seek to lessen their impact on the planet.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxo6L255Pp0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIayxqk0Ees


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPqYfAHRPtk

Website Magnetic Reversal dot org has resource material, click here to view. (http://magneticreversal.org/)

Visit The Mobile Observatory Project by clicking here. (http://www.observatoryproject.com/)

[southerncross]

I agree magnetic north is moving and at a rate of speed that has surprised them. I think it is why weather is so wild in its shifts as the atmosphere is affected by the magnetic field. The only thing that stands in the way of a mini ice age is rainfall and we have seen heavier rain lately. Ice age doesn't have to mean a mile of ice over the North American continent. It can mean longer winters ( parts of the east coast were dealing with snow in May), shorter growing seasons, and droughts (west coast).

All weather is, is the planet seeking to rebalance its atmosphere. Climate is the longer picture of that process. The sun and the earths core/magnetic field are principal drivers of our climate. I know that's debated, but mans influence is a small part of that equation. The sun is the ruler and even it is responding to outside influences we are just now beginning to understand. Mars and other planets in our solar system are dealing with climate change, it just isn't widely reported. Change is the default setting for planets. They are dynamic partners in this solar system as are all planets. It's timeline is on a millenia scale, we just can't wrap our heads around it and typically think in terms of decades.
That's not going to cut it. We have to widen our vision big time.

[Longeyes]

I'm sorry guys the earth's magnetic field does effect our weather, but it isn't responsible for large scale climate change occuring at the monent. The evidence is quite stark, this time round it is down to us and it's linked crucially to the amount of fossil fuels we've burnt and the amount of co2 that has released into the atmosphere. There are many natural factors influencing climate change solar activity, the precision of the equinoxes ect , but this time we are the reason.
The science is very solid.

[CasperParks]

I'm sorry guys the earth's magnetic field does effect our weather, but it isn't responsible for large scale climate change occurring at the moment. The evidence is quite stark, this time round it is down to us and it's linked crucially to the amount of fossil fuels we've burnt and the amount of co2 that has released into the atmosphere. There are many natural factors influencing climate change solar activity, the precision of the equinoxes ect , but this time we are the reason.
The science is very solid.

No disagreement that pollution caused by humanity is a major contributor and escalates climate change.

Is it possible that pollution is speeding-up and or causing a magnetic flip of the poles?

[Longeyes]

No disagreement that pollution caused by humanity is a major contributor and escalates climate change.

Is it possible that pollution is speeding-up and or causing a magnetic flip of the poles?

Hi Casper, You have to have a viable mechanism for that. I don't know of any. From what I understand the magnetic poles are set by currents in the magma deep under the Earth's crust. Another magnetic field could affect it possibly but would probably have to be incredibly strong to move the molten iron magma that deep. I doubt it.

[CasperParks]

I'm sorry guys the earth's magnetic field does effect our weather, but it isn't responsible for large scale climate change occuring at the monent. The evidence is quite stark, this time round it is down to us and it's linked crucially to the amount of fossil fuels we've burnt and the amount of co2 that has released into the atmosphere. There are many natural factors influencing climate change solar activity, the precision of the equinoxes ect , but this time we are the reason.
The science is very solid.


No disagreement that pollution caused by humanity is a major contributor and escalates climate change.

Is it possible that pollution is speeding-up and or causing a magnetic flip of the poles?


Hi Casper, You have to have a viable mechanism for that. I don't know of any. From what I understand the magnetic poles are set by currents in the magma deep under the Earth's crust. Another magnetic field could affect it possibly but would probably have to be incredibly strong to move the molten iron magma that deep. I doubt it.

Longeyes,

You are likely correct.

Pollution warming the climate, causing and or increasing speed of poles shifting was a passing thought.

[southerncross]

The sun is the principal driver of our climate. I agree precession factors in there heavily.
I do not believe human pollution is a principal factor. Ice ages are a documented cycle. They come, they go. Human pollution had nothing to do with the last ice ages be they massive or recent minis as in the little ice age. Volcanism tributes to shorter chilling such as Krakatoas influence.
Generally I hate debates on ice ages and climate as its more of a food fight so I just let everyone believe as they will and say go in peace. nothing is going to stop the planet from doing what its going to do anyway.

To answer the threads title question of why we're still debating it...I think folks like a good debate and politics plays in to this. Climatologists on both sides of the argument get a lot of research money to continue their debate. There are many answers to that question. I'll stick with Dame Nature...she'll have the last word.

[calikid]

I read an interesting book on the subject of Global Warming about 5 years ago.
The author took the stance that earth's gravity pulls heavier objects, like lumps of uranium, towards the earths core.
If it were not for vulcanism churning up core contents, we would never see heavier elements on the earth's surface.
Anyway, that particular author postulated that increased radioactive materials coming together at the core (heavy radioactive elements making their way every deeper) was responsible for global warming. Like a furnace growing every hotter as more fuel is added to it.
It was a good read, I can dig up the title if anyone is interested.

[Longeyes]

The whole thing about carbon sinks filling which Majicbar mentioned is a big worry. The Antarctic storms which rotate around the southern pole produce massive swells and has been responsible for absorbing a lot of Co2 out if the atmosphere. Scientists now think that it is almost full.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630153.700-major-antarctic-ice-survey-reveals-dramatic-melting.html#.VVfPMYF4WK0

Today I read the El Niño this year is going to be pretty extreme...

Many experts are warning of a "super El Niño" this time round. "We have this enormous heat in the subsurface that is propagating eastward and it's just about to come to the surface," says Axel Timmermann of the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. "I looked at the current situation and I thought, 'oh my dear'."
Full article here
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630215.600-extreme-el-nino-expected-to-wreak-havoc-on-weather-this-year.html#.VVfQLYF4WK0

[Longeyes]

The sun is the principal driver of our climate. I agree precession factors in there heavily.
I do not believe human pollution is a principal factor. Ice ages are a documented cycle. They come, they go. Human pollution had nothing to do with the last ice ages be they massive or recent minis as in the little ice age. Volcanism tributes to shorter chilling such as Krakatoas influence.
Generally I hate debates on ice ages and climate as its more of a food fight so I just let everyone believe as they will and say go in peace. nothing is going to stop the planet from doing what its going to do anyway.

To answer the threads title question of why we're still debating it...I think folks like a good debate and politics plays in to this. Climatologists on both sides of the argument get a lot of research money to continue their debate. There are many answers to that question. I'll stick with Dame Nature...she'll have the last word.

There a few problems with what people 'believe' about this. There aren't any climatatologists on the other side of the debate they virtually all have evidence the climate is warming and agree that this time round we have caused it. In the scientific world there no real debate it's been proven as fact.
The problem with climate change is there is nothing you can point at and go 'there told you so that tornado is down to climate change' Yes, the earth has natural cycles we can do nothing about, but this time it is clearly connected to the levels of co2 in the atmosphere and that is due to us burning fossil fuels.
It's naive to think we can't effect the world in that way, where are the cod your side of the Atlantic? Prehaps even more terrifying than climate change in the last 40 or so years as the human population has doubled the number of wild vertebrates has halved. The sea is getting more acidic and is rising. These are facts.
The other problem with climate change is that people think it 's a matter of opnion. No one can tell you what to believe, but if every expert is saying 'your house is going to burn down with electrics like those', you'd be mad to ignore it. You can deny it all you like but when your house burns down where does that leave you?
We need a whole load of volcanoes to cool the atmosphere down, their effects only last a decade or so. And this thing is solvable we just need a whole load more solar power. Plenty of desert in Texas turn it into a power station. Germany produced half it power from renewables at one point this year. Coal gas will run out eventually anyway. People are mostly worried about having to drive a stupid electric car I agree with that there's nothing like a decent petrol engine but boo hoo we can't always have what we want.

it was June last year Germany produced over half it energy with solar power. It hasn't crippled thier economy yes it the change was heavily subsided but the oil industry is also subsided
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/germany-now-produces-half-its-energy-using-solar

[southerncross]

I come from several generations of staunch conservationists and my sister was an oceanographer. I'm a firm believer in alternative energy and find the whole idea exciting. If I could drive a solar powered car I'd be there in a second, or electric for that matter.
I agree with the earlier poster regarding the sun and Precession. The planet has hit its precessionary extreme and is beginning to tilt back, so we're on the extreme of that cycle. The sun, despite some powerful x flares is at a sun spot low not unlike the mini ice ages we've had before. I think that is the big driver of that train. Are we contributing ? I think so. Especially with oceanic pollution/acidity. We're certainly killing the food chain in the oceans. The industrial scale of harvesting and waste when they do so, tossing tons of dead fish back into the ocean, is criminal. I believe Mother Earth will have her revenge.
We can debate this till we're exhausted, but in the end I think we'll see the planet cool, for whatever reasons people choose to believe or blame. Ice cores have demonstrated the flip to cold was a rapid one in the past. Like I said, I don't think I'll be sitting under a mile of ice anytime soon, and it may warm more before it plunges, but I'm prepared to see a colder climate before I die, which is likely 20 to 25 years away. So, I'll plan on colder weather in my old age, and eating a great deal less fish !

[CasperParks]

Vice has an interesting article, click here to read:
Writers, Scientists, and Climate Experts Discuss How to Save the World from Climate Change (http://www.vice.com/read/sos-0000653-v22n5)

Following contributed to article
Alan Weisman, writer: HAVE FEW KIDS
Michael Pollan, food and agriculture expert: ENCOURAGE SMART FARMING
Ken Caldeira, climate scientist: MAKE PEOPLE BETTER
Naomi Oreskes, climate historian: FREE THE ENERGY MARKET
David Keith, climate-policy expert: EMBRACE GEOENGINEERING
Lauren Markham, journalist: REINVENT THE CITY



I skimmed the article, found a number of interesting points and bookmarked it for a later read.

[Longeyes]

Hi Casper
couldn't agree more with the have less kids. There are just far too many of us here already. The planet is not just for us surely? What about all the amazing creatures we share it with?

Came across this very worring report this am
This the hottest 4 months globally and we could be seeing a big temperature hike this year maybe even 0.5 c

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/14/3658741/hottest-4-month-record/

[majicbar]

Hi Casper
couldn't agree more with the have less kids. There are just far too many of us here already. The planet is not just for us surely? What about all the amazing creatures we share it with?

Came across this very worring report this am
This the hottest 4 months globally and we could be seeing a big temperature hike this year maybe even 0.5 c

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/14/3658741/hottest-4-month-record/

It has been said that the first people to live to 1000 have already been born. The idea is that at 80 your genes can be reset to go back to 40, and this can be done indefinitely but the estimation is that by 1000 something will have killed you beyond what medical science will be able to recover your life for you. Now what is needed, is to consider this and the Earth's population: there really will be too many damn people! We need to issue licenses to have children, certain couples will just have to forego children all together. Having one child will be all that the Earth can endure and not everyone can have their lives extended.

[Longeyes]

A sad day has arrived so soon.
Have to say my dad in his 80's has been having his lunch outside and says there are flowers on his strawberries in Nov! It is unseasonably warm here in the UK, alarmingly so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036?SThisFB

Warming set to breach 1C threshold

Global temperatures are set to rise more than one degree above pre-industrial levels according to the UK's Met Office.

Figures from January to September this year are already 1.02C above the average between 1850 and 1900.
If temperatures remain as predicted, 2015 will be the first year to breach this key threshold.
The world would then be half way towards 2C, the gateway to dangerous warming.
The new data is certain to add urgency to political negotiations in Paris later this month aimed at securing a new global climate treaty.
Difficult to measure
For researchers, confusion about the true level of temperatures in the 1750s, when the industrial revolution began and fossil fuels became widely used, means that an accurate assessment of the amount the world has warmed since then is very difficult.
To get over this problem, the Met Office use an average of the temperatures recorded between 1850 and 1900, which they argue makes their analysis more accurate.
'This is the first time we're set to reach the 1C marker and it's clear that it is human influence driving our modern climate into uncharted territory' Prof Stephen Belcher, Met Office
Their latest temperature information comes from a dataset jointly run by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The HadCRUT database showed that in the first nine months of this year, the global mean temperature had just gone above 1C, hitting 1.02 with a error factor of plus or minus 0.11C....

[Longeyes]

This Jan in the Artic has been 6 degrees celcius higher than preindustrial average.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/

[Marvin]

This Jan in the Artic has been 6 degrees celcius higher than preindustrial average.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/



How are the temperatures in the Antarctic?



M

[Marvin]

Here is a hint...


"Last week a study was published in the Journal of Glaciology by a group of NASA researchers reporting that satellite data shows that, as a whole, Antarctica has been gaining—rather than losing—ice mass during the past two or more decades."

http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/10/antartica-ice-melting-or-growing/


Also see:


http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum


In order for the term "Climate Change" to be exchanged with the old term "Global Warming" (because this is what we are really talking about), one must apply any rising temperatures globally.

For me, cherry picking data to support only one side adds up to agenda.



M

[majicbar]

Here is a hint...


"Last week a study was published in the Journal of Glaciology by a group of NASA researchers reporting that satellite data shows that, as a whole, Antarctica has been gaining—rather than losing—ice mass during the past two or more decades."

http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/10/antartica-ice-melting-or-growing/


Also see:


http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum


In order for the term "Climate Change" to be exchanged with the old term "Global Warming" (because this is what we are really talking about), one must apply any rising temperatures globally.

For me, cherry picking data to support only one side adds up to agenda.



M

As a geographer with some grasp of the issue, (there can be no real experts as we would really need them to be in this rapidly changing field of study), I would like to point out a major misconception in the NASA scientists implication in reporting the finding of greater ice being found in Antarctica. The formation of ice in Antarctica is not a linear process, rather it is a dynamic process that depends on complex interactions between moisture in the atmosphere, temperature profiles in 3-D, energy gains from solar inputs and radiative losses impacted by cloud cover and impacted by the balance of the water vapor profile which again is in a dynamic and not a linear mode. Also we need to remember that ice expands as it approaches 32F, and reacts chemically quite differently as well in the dynamics of snow and ice formation. In short: the report of greater and growing ice being found in the Antarctic could well be a sign of Global Climate Change and warming. Forming an algoryth which can aptly display what is actually going on in the Antarctic will take some time and a lot of ground truth testing to verify that formula.

[Longeyes]

Hi Marvin
The overall global temperature has risen.
As the NASA guy says don't take expanding ice in the Antarctic to mean global warming isn't happening.
People have suggested the Antarctic is isolated by the storms which circle the Southern Oceans around it. The exact reasons are no doubt very complex. Quite a lot of Antarctic ice flows are speeding up.
That the Arctic has warmed by 6c is not a good sign so is also the cold patch developing off the coast of Greenland it apparently suggests that the deep ocean currents in the Atlantic may about to change.
Without the gulf stream the UK will be as cold as Canada and it may force the Arctic sea ice to get thicker and bigger in the coming winters but globally temperatures will probably continue to rise.

[Marvin]

Where are the models or predictions that show this should occur?

NASA scientists says it best (in a brief moment of honesty), watch from :43 to 1:07;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_WWXGGWZBE


This NASA video freely admits it is a mystery... which basically means they do not have a clue as to what is really happening. But then to dismiss the mystery away as being of no consequences, since the planet is getting hotter (that is the definition of ignorance and junk science).

The Antarctic and its surrounding ocean is a gigantic area of the Earth's surface to affect... and this is even during their summer times and it has been happening for a number of years now.



In short: the report of greater and growing ice being found in the Antarctic could well be a sign of Global Climate Change and warming. Forming an algoryth which can aptly display what is actually going on in the Antarctic will take some time and a lot of ground truth testing to verify that formula.

I get it Majicbar... no one really knows yet. That is why it is still being debated.


But here is the deal;

Hotter planet = the largest Antarctic ice maximum in history? As the heat goes up, so does the ice. Do the math.

What is happening with the Earth's climate is a mystery. We do not understand enough to know the cause of long range climate change much less if it is man made. The Earth's climate has changed many times (there have been at least 5 major Ice Ages). How do we know the current changes do not reflect the normal patterns of change?



M

[Longeyes]

Where are the models or predictions that show this should occur?

What is happening with the Earth's climate is a mystery. We do not understand enough to know the cause of long range climate change much less if it is man made. The Earth's climate has changed many times (there have been at least 5 major Ice Ages). How do we know the current changes do not reflect the normal patterns of change?

M

Science?
There have been many dramatic changes of climate in the past and the more severe the more they have affected life on this planet, causing the biggest mass extinctions the planet has ever known.
No one saying there aren't periods natural climate change that's well documented. What is very clear is that this period of change in global temperatures has happened very fast and in conjunction with our burning fossil fuels. ie We caused it

[Marvin]

Science?
There have been many dramatic changes of climate in the past and the more severe the more they have affected life on this planet, causing the biggest mass extinctions the planet has ever known.
No one saying there aren't periods natural climate change that's well documented. What is very clear is that this period of change in global temperatures has happened very fast and in conjunction with our burning fossil fuels. ie We caused it


Other than take our word for it... where is the evidence?


Do you know what the number one greenhouse gas (causing global warming) is?


M

[Longeyes]

I think you'll find there's a fair bit of evidence here
http://www.ipcc.ch/

I 've hear this from the deniers camp before I know what you're going to say - water. That's correct it is the most significant greenhouse gas but it is not what is driving global warming.
We can't do anything about the amount of water in the atmosphere, and as the amount of co2 increases and it will drive up the temperature and more water will get into the atmosphere further driving up temperature. It's acting as an accelerant.
This doesn't mean we can forget about c02 it means the opposite, it makes it even more dangerous to pump so much co2 into the atmosphere.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

That only makes the effort towards alternative energy more crucial, not less so. We can move away from fossil fuels.

[Marvin]

I think you'll find there's a fair bit of evidence here
http://www.ipcc.ch/

I 've hear this from the deniers camp before I know what you're going to say - water. That's correct it is the most significant greenhouse gas but it is not what is driving global warming.



Well, it is not water... but you are close. It is water vapor. Here is each GHG's contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth:

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/GHGs.png (http://s240.photobucket.com/user/instantmartians/media/GHGs.png.html)


A big red flag goes up for me when science is claimed... but we are told to ignore the science behind the single GHG that creates up to 72% of the Earth's warming. I am beginning to understand why you think there is no debate.

Some day, people will realize (unfortunately, it will be too late)... politicians cannot tax water vapor, but there are billions and billions of dollars to be made from CO2 emissions. Follow the money.

Nowhere in the "Climate change" data is the solar (heat) output even considered (ponder that for a moment). I am still trying to see the science in ignoring the earth's (surface) primary heat source.

I will respect your believes and leave it at that.



M

[Longeyes]

Water vapour is water
Follow the money?!? Are you completely going to ignore the trillions that have been made by oil and gas companies and will be lost to them if they can't carry on? How much they have manipulated the media to create the kind of atmosphere that you are willing to dismiss the best climate scientists in the world? Very few scientifically trained individuals are ignoring what their scientific brethren are saying. It's not down to opinion. We've created this problem, we need to get over it and try to be part of the solution. Follow the money? How can you ignore the centralised power companies and gas companies which funnel your money into massive multinationals. If you are in America buy some solar panels sell the electricity back to them. They have milking us for 50 years you think they want to stop now?
The people demanding change in co2 emissions aren't going to be the ones making money from it. They haven't got enough money and power for one to manipulate us to do that yet. They will do but they don't have enough power. We should be celebrating that the world has come to it senses and actually is maybe going to save itself.
Take a look at the most profitable companies. Two oil companies in the top five? Where are the solar panel companies?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/10/24/24-7-wall-st-most-profitable-companies/74501312/

[Longeyes]

Ice Age don't wait for the next one...
The vital difference between water in the atmosphere and co2, is water vapour turns into rain or snow and can fall out of the sky all the time. It is a very quick process if you remove the driver for the increase in temperature (co2) the amount of water vapour would adjust pretty quickly. The natural processes that remove the amounts of Co2 we've put into the atmosphere will take thousands of years if not millions of years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-co2-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age-by-100000-years-a6810436.html

[Marvin]

Water vapour is water


Longeyes, I like you, but you have a long path to understanding... so I hope you continue to become informed.

While water vapor and water are both forms of H2O... but the key word is (Greenhouse) Gas. Liquid water is not a gas, it is well, a liquid. Water in a vaporous state is considered to be a gas. If you understand how greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, then you will understand the differentiation.

Being side tracked on how much money a company makes has nothing to do with the science of climate change.



The people demanding change in co2 emissions aren't going to be the ones making money from it.

Do Al Gore and Barack Obama demand change?

Have you ever heard of CCX (Chicago Carbon Exchange)? Al Gore is/was very invested (financially) in the carbon credit scheme at CCX and Obama once sat on their board of directors. Do some digging, I think you will find there are billions to be made if carbon credits can be placed into law (thus the political drive behind it). You do not want to get me stated on IPCC... Al Gore is very connected there as well.

I will agree, the average Joe will be taxed into oblivion because of it... while others will become richer than their wildest dreams.


I think the debate really should be about the science and evidence of man made global warming, but that is just my opinion.



M

[Longeyes]

Well I can see there will be no end to this argument. I have these arguments with another very good friend of mine who I also think should know better :biggrin2:

I know there are some very intelligent people on your side of the argument, but if you think the science is on your side you are very wrong. It just isn't.
The weather has changed it has here in the UK in my lifetime, the floods this year were an example, it was also very mild. Extreme weather events are getting more frequent due almost certainly to climate change caused by mankind.

Water = ice solid/ water liquid / water vapour gas - they are all water. The point about it being a green house gas is valid. But that's not the issue the issue is why is there so much more water vapour in the atmosphere at present, warming it up? The reason is because there is more Co2 in the atmosphere. It's a feedback loop. Not only does co2 increase the global temperature, as the global temperature rises the atmosphere can hold more water vapour increasing the temperature still further ect.

I know people on the right seem to have a problem with any motivation that isn't money orientated. They tend see that as the only value in a system
People are genuinely worried about our impact on the planet and that's why they are motivated to do something.

And this has always been about the science and it's a miracle in my book that the politicians for once actually listened to scientists and also the general population who put pressure on them leading up to the Paris Agreement.
It wasn't powerful businesses that one out that day it was hard lobbying by groups like Avaaz (people power)
https://avaaz.org/en/highlights.php
The Koch brothers and their cronnies did there best to derail it but fortunately even China has realised it can't carry on with fossil fuels. China is just covered in smog. They can implement change without having to argue it out so they are now going greener faster than anyone else in the world.

The people in the organizations you quote need big hitters like Gore and Obama to lobby for them they're not going to ask George Bush.

Don't you think we'd all be better off with a zero point energy device in each of our homes? Free power?
The best way of making money from people is to get them to pay monthly for whatever it is you are selling. That's why all the software companies are starting to ask for monthly subscriptions. (Abode the next Windows will be the same)

[majicbar]

"The natural processes that remove the amounts of Co2 we've put into the atmosphere will take thousands of years if not millions of years." We can boost these processes quite a bit with technological implimentation. For instance, carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans, putting free iron into the oceans will precipitate the CO2 as calcium carbonate, which can be done within a century or less. It boils down to costs and dedication to get the job done.

[epo333]

Global Warming's Judgment Day Arrives

http://wyliberty.org/policy-papers/global-warming-s-judgment-day-arrives

Global Warming’s Judgment Day Arrives is an article published in 2009 and reprinted with permission of the author. It discusses trends that in 2014 have become even more obvious: global warming has stalled for the past 17 years, there is no consensus, and warming is much preferred to cooling when it comes to human survival on this earth.

The Common Core Standards includes the teaching of man-made carbon dioxide as a driver of temperature increases since the Industrial Revolution and the need for people to do lower carbon dioxide emissions before bad things happen. However, even the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its Fifth Assessment Report published in April 2014 has toned down or eliminated most of its more alarmist claims, such as the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and that hurricanes are becoming more intense. Needless to say, the 50 million climate refugees expected in 2010 never arrived (a claim made by the IPCC in 2005).

Yes, the climate changes, it always has and it always will, and most people seem to be OK with that. In a Gallup Poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/167960/americans-likely-say-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx) released in March 2014, only 34 percent of respondents said they worried “a great deal” about global warming, about the same as last year. In fact, 68 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of independents say the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated, while only 18 percent of democrats said so.

http://wyliberty.org/images/download_files/Global%20Warmings%20Judgment%20Day-web.pdf

And of coarse it is mostly about the $money$, here is an example . . .

http://www.globalwarming.org/

[whoknows]

I think it's a dangerous thing to say "oh it's just totally natural fluctuation of climate." Thing is, there has always been talk of governments with climate modification programs. Nevertheless whether true or not I still think it would be wise to err on the side of caution. To think the weight of human interaction with our environment has no impact is the real folly!

Marvin there always two sides to a story and unfortunately there are always people that will to try and take advantage and profit from fear. The real profit to all of human kind would be to act in such a way that would profit all, not only now but in the far distant future. To do otherwise is hubris!

[Longeyes]

Hi epo
Not exactly balanced reporting in the last two links. When people talk about cherry picking the data. That is exactly what this lady (judgement day art) has done. In 2005 and 2006 it was actually colder so what? We all know it's a trend you cannot use individual events either side of the argument to prove to prove or disprove a theory as complicated as this.
There will be no more tornados due to climate change ...because in Canada are there hardly any on to start with! Pointless knit picking, portraying facts to give the illusion of a decent argument.
If you want to understand the science read a proper science magazine - New Scientist , Scientific American ect.
Ignore National Geographic Murdoch had bought that, first thing he did - sack all the fact checkers, cause if you want to propagate an agenda you don't want facts to get in the way. 'Dont let the truth get in the way of a good story' as they say in the gutter press. Vile man has far too much power the sooner his reign ends the better.

[epo333]

Hi epo
Not exactly balanced reporting in the last two links. When people talk about cherry picking the data. That is exactly what this lady (judgement day art) has done. In 2005 and 2006 it was actually colder so what? We all know it's a trend you cannot use individual events either side of the argument to prove to prove or disprove a theory as complicated as this.
There will be no more tornados due to climate change ...because in Canada are there hardly any on to start with! Pointless knit picking, portraying facts to give the illusion of a decent argument.
If you want to understand the science read a proper science magazine - New Scientist , Scientific American ect.
Ignore National Geographic Murdoch had bought that, first thing he did - sack all the fact checkers, cause if you want to propagate an agenda you don't want facts to get in the way. 'Dont let the truth get in the way of a good story' as they say in the gutter press. Vile man has far too much power the sooner his reign ends the better.

Yup, there is a very good chance humanity will do its self in by greed, war, and other foolishness, long before climate changes. The climate is going to extremes, but, a proof positive cause won't be nailed down IMHO.

[Edward]

Yup, there is a very good chance humanity will do its self in by greed, war, and other foolishness, long before climate changes. The climate is going to extremes, but, a proof positive cause won't be nailed down IMHO.


Here is a little help, all of the known planets in our solar system are themselves having climate change. What's causing that? Well it's gotta do something not entirely man made I would assume, Is the sun and solar system having an affect? Are other stars having an affect? What about the larger galaxy of the Milkyway perhaps having an effect on our solar system? Could be all or some but what we do know that humans as we know it are not contributing to the other planets warming up and having atmospheric changes. So what is? Good question.


With regards to our planet, man is definitely raping and pillage the planet and it is definitely having an affect on the eco-systems with it's pollution of many forms, garbage, air quality, farming water/land(involves hunting there too) various wastes in the water and ground. Not to fail to mention all the nuclear stuff that has happened in the world with testing and accidents. Plus tons of more stuff but you all get the Idea. Now does all this and more contribute sure. Is it the sole reason? No. But the way we are doing things here is certainly not helping at all and is only hurting us and the planet.

Edward

[majicbar]

"all of the known planets in our solar system are themselves having climate change", this widely circulated claim does not seem to any actual scientific evidence in support of it. I have not been able to find a source which shows actual measurements, not only that there would have to be a history of such measurements on which to make a scientific claim.

[majicbar]

"all of the known planets in our solar system are themselves having climate change", this widely circulated claim does not seem to any actual scientific evidence in support of it. I have not been able to find a source which shows actual measurements, not only that there would have to be a history of such measurements on which to make a scientific claim.The Challenger Space Shuttle carried the only calibrator used for the direct measurement of the investigation of the Solar Flux, and it was destroyed in its destruction. It would be nice to know that actual scientific measures have been made in this question.

[epo333]

Here is a little help, all of the known planets in our solar system are themselves having climate change. What's causing that? Well it's gotta do something not entirely man made I would assume, Is the sun and solar system having an affect? Are other stars having an affect? What about the larger galaxy of the Milkyway perhaps having an effect on our solar system? Could be all or some but what we do know that humans as we know it are not contributing to the other planets warming up and having atmospheric changes. So what is? Good question.


With regards to our planet, man is definitely raping and pillage the planet and it is definitely having an affect on the eco-systems with it's pollution of many forms, garbage, air quality, farming water/land(involves hunting there too) various wastes in the water and ground. Not to fail to mention all the nuclear stuff that has happened in the world with testing and accidents. Plus tons of more stuff but you all get the Idea. Now does all this and more contribute sure. Is it the sole reason? No. But the way we are doing things here is certainly not helping at all and is only hurting us and the planet.

Edward


Supposedly we are crossing the Galactic Plain, this is a slow process taking who knows how long. Perhaps this adds to our weather woes in ways we are unaware of.



One of the most bizarre theories about 2012 has built up with very little attention to facts. This idea holds that a cosmic alignment of the sun, Earth, the center of our galaxy - or perhaps the galaxy's thick dust clouds - on the winter solstice could for some unknown reason lead to destruction. Such alignments can occur but these are a regular occurrence and can cause no harm (and, indeed, will not even be at its closest alignment during the 2012 solstice.)

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-alignment.html

No doubt the sheeple are in the dark wrt all the goings on of our world(s)

[Edward]

"all of the known planets in our solar system are themselves having climate change", this widely circulated claim does not seem to any actual scientific evidence in support of it. I have not been able to find a source which shows actual measurements, not only that there would have to be a history of such measurements on which to make a scientific claim.

This is what I found from reputable sources in 5 mins of searching. I say reputable because any other anecdotal evidence would just be dismissed.

On a personal note. I know for one the sun is getting hotter and brighter(I have noticed it in the last ten years) and I've been asking people from all over the world since I started cab driving in Las vegas and people have remarked the same thing once they really thought about it.


http://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html



Edward

[majicbar]

This is what I found from reputable sources in 5 mins of searching. I say reputable because any other anecdotal evidence would just be dismissed.

On a personal note. I know for one the sun is getting hotter and brighter(I have noticed it in the last ten years) and I've been asking people from all over the world since I started cab driving in Las vegas and people have remarked the same thing once they really thought about it.


http://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html



Edward

The complexities involved in the observations of exowarming are so large and hard to pin down, that it becomes dangerous at this time to attempt to fit them into an overall picture ow what is actually happening. Pluto large eliptical orbit brings it in toward the Sun, so its warming could easily be only the phase change in its nitrogen atmosphere as it gets closer to the Sun. At one point the Earth's oceans were all ice and then the orbit changed shape and took on its current shape, melting the oceans. We need a lot more hard science before we can say with certainty how rhings are evolving.

[Longeyes]

More gloom

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/

Rate Of Climate Change To Soar By 2020s, With Arctic Warming 1°F Per Decade

New research from a major national lab projects that the rate of climate change, which has risen sharply in recent decades, will soar by the 2020s. This worrisome projection — which has implications for extreme weather, sea level rise, and permafrost melt — is consistent with several recent studies.

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” finds that by 2020, human-caused warming will move the Earth’s climate system “into a regime in terms of multi-decadal rates of change that are unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years.”

In the best-case scenario PNNL modeled, with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations stabilizing at about 525 parts per million (the RCP4.5 scenario), the four-decade warming trend hits 0.45°F (0.25°C) per decade. That means over a 4-decade period, the Earth would warm 1.8°F (4 x 0.45) or 1°C (4 x 0.25). This is a faster multi-decadal rate than the Earth has seen in at least a millennium...

[majicbar]

The complexities involved in the observations of exowarming are so large and hard to pin down, that it becomes dangerous at this time to attempt to fit them into an overall picture ow what is actually happening. Pluto large eliptical orbit brings it in toward the Sun, so its warming could easily be only the phase change in its nitrogen atmosphere as it gets closer to the Sun. At one point the Earth's oceans were all ice and then the orbit changed shape and took on its current shape, melting the oceans. We need a lot more hard science before we can say with certainty how things are evolving.

I found a couple of webpages which seem to indicate the Sun is warmer today than in the past. :

http://www.solen.info/solar/history/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux

1954 average 65 to 70, 2006 average 85 to 100. That is just a first look, complete analysis should be more enlightening.

[Longeyes]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/21/what-were-doing-to-the-earth-has-no-parallel-in-66-million-years-scientists-say/

[majicbar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/21/what-were-doing-to-the-earth-has-no-parallel-in-66-million-years-scientists-say/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-hansen-sea-level-rise_us_56effb51e4b084c67220c630 It is pretty clear where this group of climate scientists fall.

[Longeyes]

March hottest month in 100yrs
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record

[CasperParks]

Is it a race toward extinction?


ABC News: Third of North American Birds Said to Face Extinction Due to Climate Change, Other Man-Made Factors - click here for entire article. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-american-birds-face-extinction-due-climate-change/story?id=39292140)

A new report published by North American Bird Conservation Initiative says that 37 percent of all migratory bird species on the continent are at risk of extinction due to a myriad of harmful environmental factors including climate change, sea-level rise, land development and oil spills.

The report includes a section called the Species Assessment Summary and Watch List, a chart that ranks the 1,154 native species of birds in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico by level of concern.

[Longeyes]

Climate Catastrophe Will Hit Tropics Around 2020, Rest Of World Around 2047, Study Says

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/climate-catastrophe-to-hi_b_4089746.html

Not good news especially worrying to see an article this blatant in Nature

And Norenrad
This is what is happening to the oceans as a consequence of absorbing extra CO2
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/

[Wally]

Today we had 2 days of weather over 100 degrees, however last year we had one day where it went to 110. While this might not be that extreme for states in the southern regions, I live in Oregon.
The only reason the corporations would still be in denial about climate change would probably be money. Making things environmentally friendly would likely cost more.

A related link about July 2016 being the hottest month on record.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/energy/2016/08/another-climate-change-record-july-2016-goes-down-hottest-month-recorded

[aquila]

hot air

carbon emission is just one of the reason for runaway global warming

human being produce a lot of hot air

autos

power plants

aircraft

humans produce hot air

autos need to go electric - relying more on stored solar energy

power plants need to be fine tuned - cooling tower is a relic of the culprit

aircraft need to cruise at speeds which will reduce fuel consumption

- - -

an example of a circuit breaker design may be found in the home - the consumer refrigerator - notice how the elastic lining on frig door is hot - supposedly heating the elastic lining keeps it supple and flexible in cold temperature - this consumes enormous amounts of electricity - overworks the frig cooling mechanism - whoever designed this mad scheme was not an engineer or materials scientist - imagine the energy in the form of coal fields and uranium ore that was wasted to operate this perverted scheme - elastic lining of refrigerator door may be designed to function without input of heat given proper physical design and choice of materials - elastic material may be designed to function at lower temperatures or gain heat from ambient environment - a heat free elastic lining on refrigerator door may substantially reduce the burden on power plants - entire nuke plants may be shut down - fine tuning consumer items such as the refrigerator will make the solar energy initiative more effective

eventually human being will find a means of connecting their machines to the wheel work of nature - as nikola tesla predicted a century ago - but the notorious heat producing power consuming lining on the frig door will have to go

[aquila]

hot air - continued

nasa produces a lot of hot air

esa produces hot air

rocket launches and rocketry take their toll on the environment

and now, with every developing country vying for puffed up space program, the pilferage is becoming epidemic

example

india is boasting a national space program with plans to launch probes to mars in search of water and signs of life

little knowing that ancient sanskrit text recorded interstellar space travel

space programs may not be made national goals for this very reason

the debilitating effects of national space program are taking their toll on the environment

through the hot air they produce

and the precious materials they consume

nasa and esa have been visiting mars for years in search of water and signs of life

may be its time to take a break in the space race and think this thru

- - -

the dawn space probe consumed 800 kg of xenon as propellant

xenon does not grow on trees

it cannot be renewed or even recycled once it is used

and yet, space agencies regard it as a space race item

xenon is ok as a propellant if you have the means to collect it from gas giant planets such as jupiter

xenon of earth origin may not be used to fuel any space race

genesis of the earth relied on the binding property of xenon

- - -

genesis of the earth relied on the binding property of xenon

[calikid]

Of course you are right Aquila. Global warming is a problem, and mankind should do what it can to reduce emissions that contribute.
But when I think of the dozens of volcanic eruptions that occur each year, tossing carbon into the atmosphere in quantities that dwarf man's emissions, I wonder how big an impact we can have on the problem. I do see that we should try, but the problems are complex and multi faceted.

[whoknows]

Truly the prob is multi faceted! And we need to become cognoscente of the whole. I personally have more worries about what we're doing to our fresh water systems, not leaving out the land and oceans. I remember as a kid they used to say the oceans were so rich that they could feed mankind for hundreds of years no sweat. That no longer seem as certain.

We no so little about these systems and their interaction. As much as we can we need to take a step back and look at the macrocosm and our part in it.

[Longeyes]

Volcanoes co2 emissions don't dwarf human co2 emissions Calikid.
Yeah we are massively overfishing the oceans there are just too many humans on the planet.
Sharks are declining fast tuna is really struggling anywhere where they aren't strickly controls fishing limits are being far too heavily exploited ie oceans off the coast of Africa. water is going to become a problem too.
The oceans are getting more acidic, it's the worst coral bleach in years.
Read somewhere this maybe the hottest year for 125,000 yrs not good

[calikid]

Volcanoes co2 emissions don't dwarf human co2 emissions Calikid.
Yeah we are massively overfishing the oceans there are just too many humans on the planet.
Sharks are declining fast tuna is really struggling anywhere where they aren't strickly controls fishing limits are being far too heavily exploited ie oceans off the coast of Africa. water is going to become a problem too.
The oceans are getting more acidic, it's the worst coral bleach in years.
Read somewhere this maybe the hottest year for 125,000 yrs not good

Been some number of years since I researched the CO2 statistics.
Need to review more current data.
Thanks for alerting me Longeyes (and everyone else who spoke up in PM), I'll take a look at more current numbers.

[Longeyes]

Apparently it's as little as 1% the amount of human emissions.
Massive volcanoes can have a cooling effect but they tend to last a few years as they can project stuff ( dust suflur dioxide etc ) right up into the upper atmosphere but haven't had one big enough for a while.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

[Longeyes]

Here is a new scientist article, it's actually about surface temperatures not air temperatures but still hottest in 125,000 yrs
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101269-scorchio-earths-surface-is-the-hottest-it-has-been-in-history/

[calikid]

Here is a new scientist article, it's actually about surface temperatures not air temperatures but still hottest in 125,000 yrs
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101269-scorchio-earths-surface-is-the-hottest-it-has-been-in-history/

Thanks for the link Longeyes, I'll review. Another member also shared a good Scientific American article.

In the past I've read conflicting reports.
But the "blame-it-on-nature" reports were funded by Oil companies. Those reports seemed to make good points but considering the "independent source" :rolleyes:, probably not the most reliable. Vested interests and all.
Kind of like back in the day when the tobacco companies, and their battery of experts/studies, claimed cigarettes didn't cause cancer.
You going to believe me, or your lying eyes? Time marches on, and the truth emerges.

[atmjjc]

Hi guys,

To me anything the power brokers of the planet (elitists) push I immediately mistrust and look for the reasons of why their urgency.

The planet has been around long b4 humans walked the earth and it will be around long after we vanish.

My particular worry concerning the planet is pollution over climate warming. It appears we will need something very soon to filter the ocean for drinking water to our major populations. I can’t figure why we are so lax on this. It may be somewhat expensive presently to filter the salt from the sea to get clean water to cities but the payoff will be huge.

I found this link ‘30 Myths vs. Facts on Global Warming’ quite interesting to get through a lot of the pro’s and con’s of global warming claims.

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/30-global-warming-myths-facts.php

[Longeyes]

That link atmjc some good stuff in there but most of those are either plain wrong or saying 'truths which only err on the side of skepticism.
Other myths I never heard of and seem slightly ludicrous.
97 % of climate scientists believe that global warming is real that is not an exageration. Global warming is happening it's real. It's not a conspiracy it just unfortunate byproduct of our reliance on fossil fuels.
There are statistically more likely to be extreme weather events so droughts and flood and storms will become more frequent and more extreme but you can not blame any one individual event on claim on climate change, but it is possible to see increasing trends and the science is solid more energy in the system = bigger storms. The damage to coral reefs is almost certainly linked to global warming as it is linked to El Niño which is happening more frequently because of climate change. Coral bleaching is linked directly to sea temperatures the higher the sea temperature and it doesn't have to be very much at all decimates the coral.
Animal migration patterns are already changing, birds and fish species are moving north, plants thrive on more co2 but unfortunately not fast enough to redress the balance. Why would global warming reduce the amount of fresh water?
In fact increasing temperatures cause more cloud and precipitation, although that is not true for everywhere.

California could surely power those desalination plants with solar power?

[calikid]

That link atmjc some good stuff in there but most of those are either plain wrong or saying 'truths which only err on the side of skepticism.
Other myths I never heard of and seem slightly ludicrous.
97 % of climate scientists believe that global warming is real that is not an exageration. Global warming is happening it's real. It's not a conspiracy it just unfortunate byproduct of our reliance on fossil fuels.
There are statistically more likely to be extreme weather events so droughts and flood and storms will become more frequent and more extreme but you can not blame any one individual event on claim on climate change, but it is possible to see increasing trends and the science is solid more energy in the system = bigger storms. The damage to coral reefs is almost certainly linked to global warming as it is linked to El Niño which is happening more frequently because of climate change. Coral bleaching is linked directly to sea temperatures the higher the sea temperature and it doesn't have to be very much at all decimates the coral.
Animal migration patterns are already changing, birds and fish species are moving north, plants thrive on more co2 but unfortunately not fast enough to redress the balance. Why would global warming reduce the amount of fresh water?
In fact increasing temperatures cause more cloud and precipitation, although that is not true for everywhere.

California could surely power those desalination plants with solar power?

Glad you stuck with a single statistic. Easy to throw a LOT numbers around with the topic.
Atmjjc does have a point as well. Maybe unpopular, but there are people with alternate theories, and they have the right to voice their opinions.
Longeyes, I appreciate your restraint in sticking to data and not devolving to an emotional response.

I can speak to the desalination plants.
Bottom line is $$$
Even based on cheap fossil fuel, it is MUCH cheaper to pump water out of the ground than it is to run sea water through mico-filters to remove saline.
It is an occasional local (to Cali) news item.
Not long ago, a city near San Diego funded bonds to build a De-sal plant. It was either scaled way back, or abandoned due to operating cost.
The cost per gallon of potable water (energy to run the plant, cost of replacement filters, monitoring the effects on marine life from discharge, etc.) FAR exceeded existing means of production.
What would you chose? Monthly water bills for a tract of home that run $20 or $120?
They determined the $$$ was better spent on water reclamation (ie sewage plants) than on de-sal.
Energy was a part of the expense, but from the amount of energy consumed I'd guess a HUGH solar farm (no small expense to build, less so to maintain) would be required to run a small de-sal plant.

[whoknows]

$$$ and control.

calikid, one thing that could be done, as has been done with independent production of electricity, would be for people with the wherewithal could buy their own de sal plants (http://www.pureaqua.com/commercial-seawater-reverse-osmosis-swro-systems-380-7600-gpd/?gclid=CIXusd_S384CFddZhgodamUKPw) or for that matter build their own osmosis systems and pump what they don't use or store back into the system.

QC could be a possible problem area but one I'm sure could be dealt with. There are always possibilities, but, that's would really get up the nose of TPTB. I'm sure they would love to remove such annoyances, it so interferes with the virtual nose ring they want in the nose of all.... That kind of thought always makes me wonder at the number of young who love their nose ring, but then that's probably just me showing my age.

[calikid]

$$$ and control.

calikid, one thing that could be done, as has been done with independent production of electricity, would be for people with the wherewithal could buy their own de sal plants (http://www.pureaqua.com/commercial-seawater-reverse-osmosis-swro-systems-380-7600-gpd/?gclid=CIXusd_S384CFddZhgodamUKPw) or for that matter build their own osmosis systems and pump what they don't use or store back into the system.

QC could be a possible problem area but one I'm sure could be dealt with. There are always possibilities, but, that's would really get up the nose of TPTB. I'm sure they would love to remove such annoyances, it so interferes with the virtual nose ring they want in the nose of all.... That kind of thought always makes me wonder at the number of young who love their nose ring, but then that's probably just me showing my age.
Seems like the $price$ per gallon must be somewhere near conventional production costs, before there is a chance of implementation and sustainability.
Even independent producers must demonstrate economic viability.
Maybe some day in the future,
but as of today, $$$ not even close.

Have to be rich and desperate.
Like in Saudi Arabia.
Turn desert into an Oasis by converting petrol $$$ into de-sal water.
Expensive, but few alternatives in the immediate area.

[whoknows]

Seems like the $price$ per gallon must be somewhere near conventional production costs, before there is a chance of implementation and sustainability.
Even independent producers must demonstrate economic viability.
Maybe some day in the future,
but as of today, $$$ not even close.

Have to be rich and desperate.
Like in Saudi Arabia.
Turn desert into an Oasis by converting petrol $$$ into de-sal water.
Expensive, but few alternatives in the immediate area.

Just thinking out loud here calikid, Wonder what it would cost to make our fresh water really safe, that is, if, what they say about the contaminants is only partly true. I think Flint was just an iceberg, we are seeing only a third of the problem. I.E, what are the effects of say, drugs or plastic residues, and other pollutants some few have raised red flags on?

I really don't know. It is getting to be problematic with my being of an age and not having any kids or grand kids. I don't have personal concern, though I do have empathy and compassion for those to come... And they are coming at a greater rate which in it's self is problematic. I just can't get past the thought that we need to start thinking about ways to ameliorate the future.

Are we really coming to the end of the Anthropocene? Honestly, I'm getting really tired of seeing picture like the one of the little boy in Syria. I guess it's like the Emperor Asoka supposedly said "It's not easy to convince people to do good."

[calikid]

Just thinking out loud here calikid, Wonder what it would cost to make our fresh water really safe, that is, if, what they say about the contaminants is only partly true. I think Flint was just an iceberg, we are seeing only a third of the problem. I.E, what are the effects of say, drugs or plastic residues, and other pollutants some few have raised red flags on?

I really don't know. It is getting to be problematic with my being of an age and not having any kids or grand kids. I don't have personal concern, though I do have empathy and compassion for those to come... And they are coming at a greater rate which in it's self is problematic. I just can't get past the thought that we need to start thinking about ways to ameliorate the future.

Are we really coming to the end of the Anthropocene? Honestly, I'm getting really tired of seeing picture like the one of the little boy in Syria. I guess it's like the Emperor Asoka supposedly said "It's not easy to convince people to do good."
I'd say the most obvious solution is for mankind to clean up after himself.
Can't expect to foul the nest and have a clean home.
If the governments of the world can further regulate industry to prevent chemical dumping, that would be a good start.
Stop using the oceans for plastic disposal, another step in the right direction.
On the local level. Paper or plastic? Paper please. Use the recycle bins, sort green/yard waste and solid garbage.

As a home owner, in my region, we receive an annual tap water report.
A few years ago, a parasite popped up and they began periodic chlorination to ensure potability.
This year a neighboring community has noted problems with galvanized pipe corrosion resulting in discolored (brown) water. An issue they are dealing with right now.
A trip to a monthly City Council or County Supervisors meetings allows the voice of the people an opportunity to be heard.
If enough public outcry occurs, the issue becomes a priority and tax funds are direct at problem resolution.
This is an election year, if enough people address the problem to the candidates the winner can claim a "public mandate" and use the political capital to push through legislation. We the people are not helpless, there is a system in place but it takes resolve.

We can complaint all we want, but to do something we must think global, and act local.

[whoknows]

Yes! In the end we are our on arbiters. Can't hope to change others really. Even being an example is still only something people, already know, being put into action.

[aquila]

fracking has to stop

fracking hurts the datum in a multitude of ways

one of which is contamination of ground water

[whoknows]

fracking has to stop

fracking hurts the datum in a multitude of ways

one of which is contamination of ground water

That was some what prescient post there aquila, considering what took place in OK. a week later.
Form what I understand the geologist at the USGS can't say definitively the quake was caused by fracking, the felling I got from their statement was that it, was, the likely cause.
If nothing else that earthquake should be a wake up call.

[whoknows]

something else to ponder.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CPsGanO_U

[Longeyes]

This is not good

Temperatures near the North Pole have risen above freezing in the latest sign of the “sudden” and “very serious” changes to the Earth’s climate.

The US Weather Channel reported that at least five buoys near the pole had recorded temperatures between zero and 1.2C on Tuesday this week...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-north-pole-above-freeze-global-warming-a7424446.html

[Wally]

Today the temperature went up to 106 where I live. Not quite as bad as the one day when it reached 110 but it still is looking like it's going to be a hot week.

[A99]

Wonder what the surface temperature was. Whenever I check on the temp. in my area, I always know that it only tells part of story. Surface temp. and humidity can jack up the real temp. (what it really feels like) up another 5 degree's... or even more wrt what it really feels like when you're walking out there.

[Wansen]

Wonder what the surface temperature was. Whenever I check on the temp. in my area, I always know that it only tells part of story. Surface temp. and humidity can jack up the real temp. (what it really feels like) up another 5 degree's... or even more wrt what it really feels like when you're walking out there.

Excellent point!

During the recent heatwave in Phoenix, it was reported that for a brief time, certain aircraft could not take off due to the high heat. While the temperature was reported around 120, I personally witnessed a news reporter take a digital thermometer reading (while live on the air) of close to 140 at ground level.

Just yesterday, Portland was reportedly in the 100+ range but again, a (CBS) reporter took a far higher reading with a personal digital thermometer downtown while broadcasting.

A more sobering weather scenario is playing out in Europe as well.

I could write a page on what Hawaii is going through. They have even come up with a brand-new, never before heard here term for the flooding that has been occurring...

This new flooding condition is called a "King Tide".

[Wansen]

something else to ponder.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CPsGanO_U

Nye has my eternal enmity for his obtuse attitude, closed mind, and generally boorish display of distrust towards the Disclosure Project's USAF whistle-blowers on Larry King Live.

Conversely, Lieutenant Jacobs has my eternal gratitude and respect for putting Nye in his place!

[A99]

Dr. Jacobs is a research scientist and university professor. He absolutely CLOBBERED Nye in that debate. lol. A real fun watch even though I felt a little sorry for him... but only a little.

[M-Albion-3D]

Nye has my eternal enmity for his obtuse attitude, closed mind, and generally boorish display of distrust towards the Disclosure Project's USAF whistle-blowers on Larry King Live.

Conversely, Lieutenant Jacobs has my eternal gratitude and respect for putting Nye in his place!

Dito, could not agree more, thanks!

[Wally]

Today it only went up to 102. Not as bad as yesterday, but still pretty hot.

[CasperParks]

Climate Change affects crops.

The global coffee crisis is coming from Vox (https://www.vox.com/)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IN4ZcZAUbA

[CasperParks]

CBS This Morning:
Lake Mead’s low water level prompts feds to consider declaration of Colorado River water shortage. (https://www.cbsnews.com/cbs-this-morning/)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4k9Fm_OG8s

[Wally]

Today the temperature went up to 109 - almost as hot as that one year it went up to 110, And this is just the first month of summer. Hopefully for all our sakes there won't be any more heat waves.

[CasperParks]

Article at Rolling Stone "Can We survive Extreme Heat" dated August 2019. (https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/climate-crisis-goodell-survive-extreme-heat-875198/)

Article at NPR "The West Coast Heat Has Killed Dozens And Hospitalized More In Canada And The U.S." dated June 30th, 2021. (https://www.npr.org/2021/06/30/1011622492/the-west-coast-heat-has-killed-dozens-and-hospitalized-more-in-canada-and-the-u-)

[CasperParks]

News article at Salon: A major Pacific current system is poised to heat up — with potentially devastating repercussions, click here to read at their website. (https://www.salon.com/2021/09/30/kuroshio-current-extension-heating/)

Climate Change is accelerating faster than expected... Massive storms, more hurricanes, long lasting droughts, polar vortexes, floods, and so-on are just beginning... What young people will have to face within their lifetime is horrific... The best we can hope for; is to slow it down and minimize damage...

Can some of it be reversed?

Article at Yahoo News: What Iceland's landmark carbon removal project means for the fight against climate change, click here to read at their website. (https://news.yahoo.com/what-icelands-landmark-carbon-removal-project-means-for-the-fight-against-climate-change-201900746.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr)

Food for thought: In science fiction humans create breathable atmospheres on other planets and moons... In real life, humans are now trying to remove carbon from Earth's atmosphere...

[epo333]

Ben Davidson, nobody's fool, has gone out on a very long limb and (among much else) published this video.

And as he points out, as have hundreds of others, the DUMBs (Deep Underground Military Bases) that have been built since WW II — not only in the US — have been the product of trillions of dollars of sophisticated engineering for some good reason.

The Most Important Items Combined Into One Video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihwoIlxHI3Q

[epo333]

In case you didn't know . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA

[CasperParks]

News Article at CNN: Wells are running dry in drought-weary Southwest as foreign-owned farms guzzle water to feed cattle overseas," click here to read article at CNN. (https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/05/us/arizona-water-foreign-owned-farms-climate/index.html)

Groundwater is drying-up around the planet. Over-usage is a problem. Climate Change is another issue. In some places, groundwater is testing positive for contamination caused by Forever Chemicals from decades of industrial manufacturing.

[CasperParks]

NASA video
"Global Warming from 1880 to 2022" (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3246/nasa-says-2022-fifth-warmest-year-on-record-warming-trend-continues/)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwRTw_7NNJs

"NASA Says 2022 Fifth Warmest Year on Record, Warming Trend Continues"
For NASA article click here (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3246/nasa-says-2022-fifth-warmest-year-on-record-warming-trend-continues/)

[CasperParks]

Oceans

Click to read, BBC News article: Will the Gulf Stream really collapse by 2025? (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289494)

Click to read, Now This News article: Florida Keys Coral Reefs Are Already Bleaching As Water Temperatures Hit Record Highs. (https://nowthisnews.com/news/florida-keys-coral-reefs-are-already-bleaching-as-water-temperatures-hit-record-highs)

Click to read, Salon article: Greener oceans due to climate change, new study suggests. (https://www.salon.com/2023/07/14/greener-oceans-due-to-climate-change-new-study-suggests/)

From article at Salon: Two decades of satellite data show that 56% of the ocean surface is changing in color.

[Longeyes]

Global temperatures for sept 2023 have broken many records, one climate scientist says they are 'Gobsmackingly Bananas' :/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/05/gobsmackingly-bananas-scientists-stunned-by-planets-record-september-heat

[Garuda]

Yeah, I read that, too.

It's October and they're having temperatures close to 40 degrees C in Spain...

[Longeyes]

Yep it's 23 degrees C in the UK :/

Nice but scary

[epo333]

So here is some reports for September.

3.6K views 20 hours ago


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1ngDbgH6D0&t=8s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1ngDbgH6D0&t=8s

[CasperParks]

Permafrost frozen for tens of thousands of years is thawing. Bacteria, spores and viruses are emerging from suspended animation...

"Zombie Viruses Are Waking Up After 50,000 Years as Planet Warms" article at Yahoo News, click here to read. (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientist-sounded-alarm-50-000-080005420.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr)

[Garuda]

Permafrost frozen for tens of thousands of years is thawing. Bacteria, spores and viruses are emerging from suspended animation...

"Zombie Viruses Are Waking Up After 50,000 Years as Planet Warms" article at Yahoo News, click here to read. (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientist-sounded-alarm-50-000-080005420.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr)

I recently saw a video clip of worms that were still alive after the permafrost thawed, after thousands of years.

[epo333]

So I think there are a few facts to be figured out before going Green by 2050!!!

Hopefully you have 25 minutes to view this video . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFWo2CDJoX4&t=1388s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFWo2CDJoX4&t=1388s

[Longeyes]

Hi Epo

How stupid this guy? Don't know how he got a phd. This is why you shouldn't listen to 'experts' on the internet.
He's equating reduced co2 emissions with reducing available power for industry?!?. No one is suggesting reducing the power available for countries that would be madness.
All the power supplied by fossil fuels needs be changed for green energy sources, ie solar wind etc. Therefore there would be NO REDUCTION in available energy!

On the cheapness of windfarms - yep they are still cheap. In the UK Sunak screwed the bids for the North Sea, there's been something like 10% inflation in the UK and the buy in tariffs were too low and didn't reflect the rising costs faced by the turbine producers. They same inflation would likewise affect building new power plants as well.
Oil/gas industry has had huge subsides for years and massive tax breaks.

If you look at the demographics of take up of wind and solar it is happening pretty fast because it is cheaper. Why is someone looking at a few article and seeing a few of companies going bankrupt evidence??

Energy for renewables is intermittent I'll give him that that's why countries are backing up with nuclear. Another solution could surely be worked out? Molten salts? Pressured air? Nothings made it yet.

What they need to do is release the free energy devices they cracked and then we'd have resources to reverse global warming

[CasperParks]

Article at Science Alert: "Arctic Permafrost Hides Migrating Methane That Could Skyrocket Emissions" click to read... (https://www.sciencealert.com/arctic-permafrost-hides-migrating-methane-that-could-skyrocket-emissions)
(Article date, December 14th 2023)

As permafrost continues to thaw, a number of unknowns come to play.

Something never before encountered by modern day humans?

Types of gases that are unlike anything humans have seen?

Is it possible that precious metals are discovered?

Will humans add new elements to the periodic table of elements?

Will ancient bacteria and viruses effect humanity?

Will ancient bacteria and viruses effect plant-life, crops, insects, pets, live stock, wild life, and fish.

Will gases, bacteria and viruses effect the soil, rain, snow, ice and water?

Will thawed roots and seeds from unknown plants start sprouting?

Will it alert the atmosphere?

Scientific speculation is required. Speculations are possibilities that may or may not occur. Graft charts that reflect the probability of occurring would be helpful.

A lot of unknowns...

[CasperParks]

Video from Real Life Lore (https://www.youtube.com/c/RealLifeLore)
Why the Panama Canal is Dying?


https://youtu.be/glR7lvtrGRI?feature=shared

Real Life Lore examines the complexity of global trade.
For one minute, the video starts by touching on military conflict.
Then it quickly moves to climate change.
A number of alternatives to the Panama Canal are discussed.
Climate Change is effecting global trade.
Video is informative.

[CasperParks]

Article Newsweek:
Atlantic Ocean's Circulation Could Collapse.
Click here to read at their website. (https://www.newsweek.com/atlantic-ocean-circulation-collapse-1868663)
Article published February 9th, 2024

[CasperParks]

CBS 60 Minutes:
Earth currently experiencing a sixth mass extinction, according to scientists (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqhcZsxrPA)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqhcZsxrPA
Video published Youtube, 2023

[CasperParks]

Second Thought:
How Capitalism Is Causing A Sixth Mass Extinction (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeWyARGkFDc)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeWyARGkFDc
Video published Youtube on February 9th, 2024

[CasperParks]

Article regarding recycling of plastics:

‘They lied’: Plastics producers deceived public about recycling, report reveals."
Click here to read article at The Guardian. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report)


Quote from article at The Guardian: Companies knew for decades recycling was not viable but promoted it regardless, Center for Climate Integrity study finds.

People aren't sure what can and cannot be easily recycled. As a result, many products end-up in recycling bins that don't belong. Employees at recycling centers sort through the mess, making it costly. Smaller items often jam conveyor belts, forcing employees to shut down the line and unjam the belt. Another issue, companies place that "recycling symbol" on products to make themselves look good. Not every product should have a recycling symbol on it. Governments should alter how that symbol is used. Example, a symbol that reflects was made from recycled materials. Another symbol for this product container is recyclable.

Answers are not easy. Usable cloth grocery bags is something that helps.

Making plastics from Hemp is another option.

Cannabis and Hemp are related plants, however there is a difference. Cannabis has TCH that causes the "high". Hemp does not contain significant levels of THC. Cannabis and Hemp look almost alike, making it difficult for law enforcement. As Cannabis becomes legalized in more US States and other countries, perhaps products made from Hemp will become widely available. At this time, legalized Cannabis growers are regulated. If farmers placed Hemp into crop rotations it would likely include licensing, regulations and random testing to ensure it isn't Cannabis.

EV batteries from Hemp are being developed for electric vehicles. How will Hemp batteries hold-up to cold weather? What is the lifespan of Hemp batteries?

At this point, it is unknow if Hemp batteries are a viable option. If Hemp batteries are proven to work over the long term, will the mining industry fight-back?

Oil and natural gas are used to create polymers for making plastics. Will the mining industry fight-back against using Hemp to make plastics?

Attempts to allow fields of Hemp grown by farmers could face opposite from political lobbyists working for mining corporations.

[CasperParks]

Forever Chemicals in Groundwater

Decades ago, environmentalists warned everyone that corporations were dumping chemicals into streams, rivers, lakes, and burying chemicals at dumpsites. Corporations and governments assured us those chemicals would dissipate it traveled through sand, rocks and pebbles. Everything was fine and not to worry...

Oops, they were wrong!

Groundwater did not filter those chemicals as it traveled through sand, rocks and pebbles.

I live in a rural area. Everyone uses groundwater. Local grade school's water tested positive for Forever Chemicals. State tested our water-well. It was positive. The State assured us "levels are low, so it's not harmful." The State offered us a free filter to install under the kitchen sink.

We're taking showers and washing clothing with groundwater that is contaminated with Forever Chemicals.

Farmers use groundwater for irrigating crops and drinking water for livestock...

Are those Forever Chemicals being absorbed by plants? What about meat products from livestock?

Are those low levels of Forever Chemicals entering our food supply?

Are low levels of Forever Chemicals really safe?

Over time, will those low levels of Forever Chemicals build-up in our bodies?

Basically we're being told, " Levels of Forever Chemicals in the water are low, so it's not harmful."

More-or-less the same thing they told us decades ago, "Everything is fine and not to worry."

[epo333]

Kim Iverson interviews Jimmy Corsetti, the host of the YouTube channel Bright Insight. The full hour and a half interview is on Rumble below, but this 18 minute YouTube extract is a good summary of the global warming vs cooling issue.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PfEMlSnQEc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PfEMlSnQEc

The graph which Corsetti references is this one

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/Glacial_cycles.jpg

Rumble link:

https://rumble.com/embed/v4dgpau/

[CasperParks]

Article Salon, click here to read at their website:
Earth's ice caps are in serious trouble. Three new studies reveal how bad the damage is.
One study projects that the Arctic could see summer days without sea ice within the next decade. (https://www.salon.com/2024/03/11/earths-ice-caps-are-in-serious-trouble-three-new-studies-reveal-how-the-damage-is/)

[CasperParks]

NBC News article, click here to read at their website.
"12 months of record ocean heat has scientists puzzled and concerned" (https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/oceans-record-hot-rcna143179)
March 15th, 2024

Quotes from article:


Human-caused climate change is likely playing a role, researchers said, but is probably not the only factor. Climate models predict a steady rise in sea surface temperatures, but not this quickly, and ocean surface temperatures also fluctuate and can be affected by natural climate variability, including patterns such as El Ni?o and La Ni?a.


?What we see now driving high temperatures is something in addition to El Ni?o and can?t be explained by the arguments being given six months ago or 12 months ago,? Abraham said. ?Sea surface temperatures are higher elsewhere and very far from El Ni?o locations.?


Among ocean scientists, he added: ?We?re kind of all just observing something strange happening. At some point, someone will come up with an answer, but I haven?t seen that answer yet.?

[CasperParks]

Mainstream News: "Global Water Crises"

Article CNN, August 2023: Click here to read at their website.
"A quarter of humanity faces extreme water stress - and it's poised to get worse, new report finds." (https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/world/water-stress-scarcity-climate-crisis-scn-intl)

Article CNN, March 2024: Click here to read at their website.
"Tens of millions of people in this country drink arsenic-contaminated water. It could get a lot worse."
(Country is Bangladesh) (https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/21/climate/arsenic-contaminated-water-bangladesh-climate-intl/index.html)

Article CNN, March 2024: Click here to read at their website.
"Nearly half of the tap water in the US is contaminated with 'forever chemicals' government study finds." (https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/05/health/pfas-nearly-half-us-tap-water-wellness/index.html)

[Longeyes]

This is pretty scary…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/06/simply-mind-boggling-world-record-temperature-jump-in-antarctic-raises-fears-of-catastrophe

[Garuda]

Imagine that happening anywhere else...