I follow the science very closely. We know way too little about the oceans to even be able to begin to draw any conclusions over the effect you are describing. Until we get consistent records over at least one if not 2 ocean cycles PDO/AMO we are only guessing at best.
So TL:dr - conspiracy theory.
I can't help that you have the attention span of a gnat. Maybe there's medication that could help with your condition?
Yes coal is dirty, but you don't have to push the transition and risk the grid.
Nor should you crash into anything with your lightweight crumple car. Calling them safe is ridiculous.
Supposedly it went into the ocean. That makes no utterly no sense at all. Anybody with basic science knowledge can see that. IF IT WENT INTO THE OCEAN WHY DIDN'T THE RATE OF OCEAN RISE ACCELERATE? Jesus Christ are you really unaware that water EXPANDS when warmed?!?!! Now that is a trick.... the heat went into the ocean and the water did not expand. Dumb as box of fucking rocks.
These climate scientists are real fucking good at explaining why their predictions miss so badly. What they aren't so good at is actually predicting anything close to reality.
that is one of the problems with that explanation for the current pause in warming. The rate of sea level rise has not changed in the last century and there are even some indications it may be slowing.
I think it is another example of how little we understand climate and how much more work there is yet to do.
originally posted by:NASA
http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page5.php
Rising sea level is one of the most serious consequences of global warming. In the past 50 years, sea level rose about 1.8 (plus or minus 0.3) millimeters a year. Satellite observations since 1993 indicate the pace has accelerated to about 3 millimeters per year. What’s driving the acceleration? How much and how fast will sea level rise in the future? In trying to answer these questions, scientists repeatedly tried to balance the sea level budget, and they repeatedly came up short.
Underestimating ocean warming
“Susan Wijffels and her colleagues from here at CSIRO, along with Josh Willis, provided a way to correct the XBT data, and so we took those corrections and made the first revised estimates of sea level rise due to ocean warming for the period 1961 to 2003. What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.”
It seems that the main reason the sea level budget between 1961 and 2003 would not add up before is that scientists were underestimating just how much warming and expanding the ocean was experiencing. But what about more recent changes in sea level?
And as I already asked, what action? All the same questions I asked Norse apply. I'm all for taking action, but no one has ever said what that action is. Reducing CO2 emissions isn't a plan, it's a response. It's like your doctor telling you have a terminal illness and you ask what to do, and he responds with "try to live longer".
So what's the plan? What specifically are the steps to reversing climate change? Do we need to build ten thousand nuclear power plants and build a damn on every river on earth? Is solar energy the answer, and can we produce enough of it to matter?
I don't know what "action" means in this circumstance. Running in circles with our hands in the air may be emotionally rewarding, but it's not going to help.
Why give a lot of money and power to bureaucrats of course. You know, the same ones that manage healthcare, the economy, public schools, govt contracts\projects, and war so well. Dont worry, I'm sure they will get this one right.
His uncertainty is ridiculous. He is basically arguing that because the damage could be anywhere from really bad to utterly catastrophic that we should not act. There is no non-terrible band in his uncertainty. Therefore the way forward is clear.
This is simply another step in the steady retreat of climate denialists. In and of itself this is a good step forward though.
Al Gore claimed in 2007 we'd have no polar ice at all this year and yet we actually have more ice. Enter the picture of the polar bear and her cub "adrift" on a mini-iceberg, etc. That is the kind of alarmist (and false) bullshit that isn't needed in the climate debate.
What is the way forward? I haven't seen or heard of any plan.
sigh ...
Lower emissions?
By a miniscule amount that changes nothing? Your position makes that seem as ridiculous as doing nothing. After all, you're saving the world. You've got to stop at nothing. My position is for moderate action, and research into alternatives. Because I do not think the effects of CO2 have been proven to be as bad as short term speculation would claim. I think we have time to do things reasonably, and not attack our own industry / economy. That means CO2 will easily reach 600ppm, likely go over 1,000ppm before we have the means to quit major emissions of it. So when you say you've got a plan to "lower emissions", you may want to spell out how it's going to go faster and avoid those milestones without major damage to our economy.
Because obviously there is no lack of summer sea ice in the arctic right now.
There are ways to dramatically lower emissions while not breaking our overall economy. You are ignorantly ignoring that specific business interests value the revenue of their specific economies over the general economy.
It isn't all gone. It isn't as much as it used to average, and it rebounded from 2011-2012 levels during the same period, but the Antarctic sea ice is setting record levels.
Supposedly it went into the ocean. That makes no utterly no sense at all. Anybody with basic science knowledge can see that. IF IT WENT INTO THE OCEAN WHY DIDN'T THE RATE OF OCEAN RISE ACCELERATE? Jesus Christ are you really unaware that water EXPANDS when warmed?!?!! Now that is a trick.... the heat went into the ocean and the water did not expand. Dumb as box of fucking rocks.
These climate scientists are real fucking good at explaining why their predictions miss so badly. What they aren't so good at is actually predicting anything close to reality.
Would one of those be natural gas?
Thorium reactors and large solar plants need to cover the nation before we find meaningful reductions.
I like that one. Antarctic is melting into the sea, causing record sea ice.And what is the current data on Antarctic glacial ice?
I like that one. Antarctic is melting into the sea, causing record sea ice.
I like that one. Antarctic is melting into the sea, causing record sea ice.
Al Gore claimed in 2007 we'd have no polar ice at all this year and yet we actually have more ice. Enter the picture of the polar bear and her cub "adrift" on a mini-iceberg, etc.
That is the kind of alarmist (and false) bullshit that isn't needed in the climate debate.
The melting of ice on the Antarctic mainland may also be creating more sea ice, by dumping easily frozen fresh water into the ocean, says Nerilie Abram of the Australian National University in Canberra.
How about we reduce CO2 in the air by reducing long term demand for fossil fuels by reducing the global population. The ethical way to reduce global population is to increase the third worlds standard of living. First world standards of living cause negative population growth.
So we take a shorter term environmental hit to increase the power available to third world. We try and use solar, wind and nuclear instead of coal and oil to offset CO2. Even natural gas would be better than coal.
If we were smart we could sell the third world US solar panels, GE wind turbines, Westinghouse advanced nuclear reactors and US natural gas, (yay business).
Further research can give a us narrower band of changes we'll have to adapt to while we try and get the population to peak.
How's that for a start?