Climate

The E wrote:Have you talked to anyone from Kiribati recently? I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear that their plans to abandon their islands in the face of climate change related issues are wholly unnecessary.

Just a few days ago here, the news on TV had a report from Yakutsk, largest city built on permafrost ground.

And just how much more trouble with that, that they have started seeing in the last decade especially.

Houses that in some cases have stood literally hundreds of years, with just some minor "fixing" done every few decades, some of them, now they´re suddenly sinking per year what used to be per decade or two, or even three.

An old barn just outside the city was used as a very graphical example. It was probably first built sometime early 17th century(might have been earlier), and because it was light and had been given good and well spread out supports when it was built, as far as anyone knows, it has never once needed any fixing due to sinking into the ground.

Until now.


#####

As I said, the climate changes but can humans mitigate it?

Stupid, irrelevant question. Because we already KNOW that humans CAN change the climate, the only argument is about HOW MUCH.

And from the evidence, so far it seems "how much" equals "pretty darn much".

And as i´ve noted elsewhere before, the sun is the single largest contributor to changing climates, and right now the sun should be making the earth colder. Except that´s not happening.

What a surprise.

Another take on what can be expected from from the treaty, a UK blogger. I am not sure on what to make of many of his posts. Other than I feel I have learned something every time I read one.

He may be a first and get me to contribute to help stay afloat.

http://euanmearns.com/a-state-of-confusion/#more-11632

Hope it helps,
T2M

As a sidenote, i can mention how a couple of days ago, this place was warmer than it was midsummer 2015. 12C vs 10C.

Stockholm the same day had warmer than has ever been recorded since reliable measurements were started in the 19th century.
And probably not since any recordings were started in the 15th century.
According to treering climate record, almost certainly not since the last ice age(before that, obviously there´s no real records to compare with).

So far, December here have had something like 4-5 days with below freezing. Which is just totally absurd, when i´m roughly the latitude of Anchorage.

It's funny that climate change people ignore the facts that the scientists were falsifying data in multiple countries! The climate fanatics ignore the truth. When confronted with different data they normally attack the messenger. Their server was hacked and their emails were released. These scientists own private correspondences showed they were lying. The real funny thing is not one of these people lost their jobs.

As a result, why should I believe them now?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-reyes-campaign-20160313-story.html

Why do they care if their own party members disagree?

Every responsible agency agrees that climate is changing, and that mankind is responsible for a significant proportion of that change.
SMR, you are doing exactly the same for this as you do for UFOs, biblical depictions, and lost civilisations. You walk past the big haystack of logical, verifiable, peer reviewed, tied together data, and pick up a needle of a differing opinion; then claim that it invalidates everything else.
I agree that scientists and the media are human and some individuals do like to quote the extreme end of estimated ranges, to make themselves look important or get more resources. This does not detract from the overall picture.

A tiny example of this mountain of consistent data relates to the sea life on both the west and east coasts of our continent. Every year the tropical variants of studied organisms move their environment south by a similar amount. Every thing from coral, to fish, to micro organisms, to crocodiles is found further south each year. This environment change matches the predictions. As I said there is a veritable mountain of data that consistently hangs together, and this is a tiny part of it.

smr wrote:It's funny that climate change people ignore the facts that the scientists were falsifying data in multiple countries! The climate fanatics ignore the truth. When confronted with different data they normally attack the messenger. Their server was hacked and their emails were released. These scientists own private correspondences showed they were lying. The real funny thing is not one of these people lost their jobs.

As a result, why should I believe them now?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-reyes-campaign-20160313-story.html

Why do they care if their own party members disagree?

smr wrote:It's funny that climate change people ignore the facts that the scientists were falsifying data in multiple countries! The climate fanatics ignore the truth. When confronted with different data they normally attack the messenger. Their server was hacked and their emails were released. These scientists own private correspondences showed they were lying. The real funny thing is not one of these people lost their jobs.

As a result, why should I believe them now?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-reyes-campaign-20160313-story.html

Why do they care if their own party members disagree?

Yes because a dozen people making idiots of themselves are sooo much more reliable than the several thousands that DIDNT falsify anything, not to mention the tens of thousands of reports supported by evidence.

Tenshinai wrote:

smr wrote:It's funny that climate change people ignore the facts that the scientists were falsifying data in multiple countries! The climate fanatics ignore the truth. When confronted with different data they normally attack the messenger. Their server was hacked and their emails were released. These scientists own private correspondences showed they were lying. The real funny thing is not one of these people lost their jobs.

As a result, why should I believe them now?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-reyes-campaign-20160313-story.html

Why do they care if their own party members disagree?

Yes because a dozen people making idiots of themselves are sooo much more reliable than the several thousands that DIDNT falsify anything, not to mention the tens of thousands of reports supported by evidence.

Those are the ones that are are the news and who testify in front of congress etc. The scientists making boring careful nuanced predictions are ignored.

@Daryl--Attacking the messenger rather than the arguements. By the way, quit to trying to marginalize the person rather than the topic. Their are thousands to millions of factors that determine climate change. The Scientists had to redress their subject from Global warming to Climate Change. Personally, I find the fact very odd that the climate scientists choose one issue of carbon production to justify their position. That same single issue is used by political parties to justify their regulations and control. These same political powers wish to justify a creation of a global government and to pay for that global government by a carbon tax upon every person in the world. What about all the radiation being released everyday from Japan? Methane gas being release into the atmosphere...etc...etc...etc
How about the polution being created?
Oh how some of us are so easily led into enslavement. This issue was the justification for the biggest wealth exchange in the world from America to China and India. Our carbon emission levels are below that of 1980 levels. While India and China emission levels have gone through the roof, America's carbon foot print has been more than halved.

Daryl wrote:Every responsible agency agrees that climate is changing, and that mankind is responsible for a significant proportion of that change.
SMR, you are doing exactly the same for this as you do for UFOs, biblical depictions, and lost civilisations. You walk past the big haystack of logical, verifiable, peer reviewed, tied together data, and pick up a needle of a differing opinion; then claim that it invalidates everything else.
I agree that scientists and the media are human and some individuals do like to quote the extreme end of estimated ranges, to make themselves look important or get more resources. This does not detract from the overall picture.

A tiny example of this mountain of consistent data relates to the sea life on both the west and east coasts of our continent. Every year the tropical variants of studied organisms move their environment south by a similar amount. Every thing from coral, to fish, to micro organisms, to crocodiles is found further south each year. This environment change matches the predictions. As I said there is a veritable mountain of data that consistently hangs together, and this is a tiny part of it.

smr wrote:It's funny that climate change people ignore the facts that the scientists were falsifying data in multiple countries! The climate fanatics ignore the truth. When confronted with different data they normally attack the messenger. Their server was hacked and their emails were released. These scientists own private correspondences showed they were lying. The real funny thing is not one of these people lost their jobs.

As a result, why should I believe them now?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-reyes-campaign-20160313-story.html

Why do they care if their own party members disagree?

[quote="smr"]@Daryl--Attacking the messenger rather than the arguements. By the way, quit to trying to marginalize the person rather than the topic. Their are thousands to millions of factors that determine climate change. The Scientists had to redress their subject from Global warming to Climate Change. Personally, I find the fact very odd that the climate scientists choose one issue of carbon production to justify their position. That same single issue is used by political parties to justify their regulations and control. These same political powers wish to justify a creation of a global government and to pay for that global government by a carbon tax upon every person in the world. What about all the radiation being released everyday from Japan? Methane gas being release into the atmosphere...etc...etc...etc
How about the polution being created?
Oh how some of us are so easily led into enslavement. This issue was the justification for the biggest wealth exchange in the world from America to China and India. Our carbon emission levels are below that of 1980 levels. While India and China emission levels have gone through the roof, America's carbon foot print has been more than halved.

I will get personal here and shoot at a messenger who is so tied up in his own certainty of nonsense that he refuses to see any possibility he is being an ass as well as a troll. Calling it "Climate change" is just a more politically acceptable and more all encompassing version of "global warming. The historical record is indisputable that it is real. Just because the coal industry has provided a lot of jobs as well as a lot of black lung disease, is not a reason to permit people to try to give me black lung disease and acid rain by not regulating it. The rant on India and China would be a reasonable point if their much larger populations didn't still provide a lower carbon footprint than the US. Smog in Beijing is worse than in LA, but they do recognize the need to regulate that as well. And LA is only better because all that regulation forced us to clean up our act before we got to the point of Beijing.

It is true that the methane from cows (and people) is a significant contributor, but not nearly so much as the methane released by the ruptured well of SC Gas Company, or that burned off from drilling efforts in areas that have no way yet to get the gas to market cheaply.

My primary conspiracy theory is that the PT Barnums of the world have found enough "Suckers every minute" among the deliberately ignorant to hi jack this country with nonsense like yours.

I acknowledge that this should have been sent as a private post, but trolling demands a public excoriation.

SMR, there are no cogent arguments on your side; as to attacking the messenger I respect you, your well written comments and integrity. There is a common thread across all the topics you espose, of seeking out minor anomalies and believing they invalidate accepted wisdom.
Your conspiracy theory about how reducing the use of fossil fuel is an international plan to enslave the world under a global government is an example of this mind set.

Most times if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. The simplist explanations are usually the right ones.

I imagine that if a large flock of brightly coloured parrots flew by, and there is an albino one among them, you would claim that they are really all white and someone has dyed them.
To me (and to 95% of educated people), there is such an enormous amount of consistent data regarding man's contribution to climate change that the only argument is about the degree.
I see examples of great benefit coming from the carbon minimalisation research all around us. My solar panels mean that I haven't had an electricity bill for 8 years. My 5 seat car is quicker than most old muscle cars but uses very little fuel.