Myth of Arctic Meltdown

"Liberal readers of the Alamanac (sic) just a few months ago were warning of ice-free summers by 2014."

Links?

Please provide the links of these "liberal readers" of the "Alamanac", and also respond to this:

"The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. ...... This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010... Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."

Web Link



9 of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century

Bust this "myth", please.

9 of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century

The Global Warming Alarmists won't quit. I remember when President Eisenhower said in his farewell speech "Beware of the Military Industrial Complex". Now people should beware of the Government Academia Complex with research scientists lining up like Pavlov's dogs upon hearing the words "Global Warming" instantly driving them into throws of ecstasy as they eagerly apply for research grants to "validate" what the grantors want to hear without regard for the facts.

Newsweek led the charge for global cooling in 1975. The facts are simple: The earth goes through natural periods of global warming and global cooling. Man does effect global warming to a small degree. But when compared to the Sunspots, the earth's orbit, and natural geologic activity such as volcanic eruptions the influence that man has will remain relatively small. And unless there is a thermonuclear war man's contribution to global warming will remain that way. Please read this Newsweek article about Global Cooling published on April 28, 1975.

Web Link

@ChillOut - Any comments on facts, or are you going with hyperbole "into throws (sic) of ecstasy" ? Beyond your odd hyperbole, are you just relying on a magazine writer from four decades ago?


>> 9 of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century

Please address this.

>> 9 of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century

According to the Lawrence Livermore Labs "More than 2.5 million years ago Greenland looked like the green Alaskan tundra, before it was covered by the second largest body of ice on Earth."

So you want people to believe your malarkey that 9 of the 10 warmest years occurred in the 21st century.

Also since the warmest years the earth has ever experienced was before there was mankind which explodes the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. Yes there is AGW. But how much? Liberals don't know. Neither do conservatives for that matter. But it is only liberals who have the audacity to pretend that they know.

When Greenland was verdant 2.5 million years ago, what was the level of the seas?

We do agree on something... "Liberals don't know. Neither do conservatives for that matter."

That's why we have a group that DOES know. They are called "scientists". They are employed by NOAA - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

What you call "malarkey", science calls fact: "9 of the 10 warmest years ... have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."

Web Link


>> 9 of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century

You are looking at a very small snapshot of time. Given the history of the planet Earth there have been many periods where the Earth was substantially warmer than it is now. To concentrate on 1880 to the present is absurd. But they are doing that because they know there was no AGW during most of the Earth's history and that makes it difficult to support their AGW theory much less quantify it. Please provide facts and not guesstimates as to how much of the Earth;s warming is due to man. You can not because there are too many variables.

And to trust scientists whose future grants are dependent upon them giving the politically correct answers to their sponsors skews their objectivity.

Poster Chill Out,

Why don't you post under your real name so your children and grandchildren will.know that grandpa was one of the troglodytes that did nothing while we still can have a positive impact on our environment?

Last year, worldwide, clean energy was 22 percent of the total. 5 years before it was 18 percent. Get rid of 18th century attitudes like yours and we could double that number in a decade. More jobs, less dangerous coal and oil.

Quite trolling behind a mask if you believe your noise.

I prefer not get into the merits of either side of this argument, that is, the role of man in climate change.

But I do have (hopefully) a serious question. Why is today's mean temperature so critical that we have to maintain it at such a high cost? Hasn't the earth survived warmer and colder periods before? So what if the climate warms and our shoreline recedes? Won't we just retreat further inland?

Of the various petitions questioning significant anthropogenic global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, CA, has the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

@ChilledOut:

The OISM Petition Project is a joke, and has been debunked as such. Given the low criteria set by OISM for signatories, they have frightfully low support, that is, 32,000 is almost nothing - one third of one percent of those qualified to sign.

0.3% is significantly less than the 3 of 100 scientists that hold Chilled Out's position.

>>According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

So let's talk about the 97 out of 100 scientists that agree that man is causing change:

>>Many studies (such as Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.

ChillOut's Petition Project (OISM) is a joke.



Pogo: So what if the climate warms and our shoreline recedes?

One assumes you didn't mean 'recede' and that's a typo.

Globally, hundreds of millions of refugees and the instability and human suffering that rising oceans will bring is a bit more than a "so what". Ask the Pentagon, they've been doing studies on this for years now. When massive instability occurs, they're the frequently the first "in", aren't they?

Locally? Ask San Franciscans how rising SF Bay waters effect them. Foster City? SFO? Go around the Bay. Okay, okay, we all agree losing Pier 39 isn't much of a loss personally, or culturally, for that matter.

But, economically?

Warmer temperatures effect agriculture. While I don't claim they are directly related, look up the drought in Oklahoma drought Web Link or any of the rest of the Western US. It's not much of a stretch to say that warming temperatures will bring some areas more drought and some areas will get more devastating weather. What did Superstorm Sandy cost us? Just look at how much that hug cost Christie. (answer: it cost him New Hampshire and South Carolina.)

It isn't the slow gradual warming over many millenniums that is the worry, it's the rapid change that will affect humanity this century.

As Arthur pointed out, our kids and grandkids that will pay a huge cost, not 50, 100 or 250 generations down the line.

Earth will survive. Many species will. Humans will survive as well (my opinion.)

But Man will pay great costs.

Great costs, that make solar panels, mass transit, wind turbines, etc.. quite cheap by comparison.

So as Arthur alludes to: what will my grandkids say about me if I don't fight to save their generations from drought, war, refugees, massive military costs, etc..?

I can be like Chill Out, and say: "big deal, I'll be 6 feet under. Not my problem. It's their problem."


>> 9 of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century

myth buster - thank you for the answer. Yes, recede was was a typo. I obviously meant to indicate the water would rise and you certainly understood my point.

And you make my point quite well, so I thank you for that as well. This is an issue of displacement. If the impacts of global warming are as gradual as predicted by scientists, people will certainly move from Myrtle Beach to Florence. What's bad for Corpus Christi is good for Austin. What's bad for Coronado is good for Rancho Bernardo.

While incredibly inconvenient and costly, this type of displacement is hardly the end of mankind. It happens when a monsoon or hurricane hits. It happens when a tsunami or earthquake hits.

I question whether the cost of avoidance is worth it. I don't pretend to have the answer. We can spend trillions of dollars on carbon taxes without any guarantees (and hardly any predictions) that it will impact this problem a bit. Why not spend that kind of money on relocating cities now?

"Why not spend that kind of money on relocating cities now?"

That's funny. We can't get solar and wind subsidized without Chill Out and the fringe right screaming, and instead we should relocate little hamlets like MIAMI BEACH.

I looked up Arthur's numbers (claimed 22% of global energy was 'clean', it is almost 22% renewables not including semi-carbon "green" NG and nuclear) because I was a little surprised. Green energy creates jobs, just the way fracking created lots of jobs while killing some coal jobs. It pays to go renewable for so many reasons today, not just for our kids and the devastation of flooding entire countries (Bangladesh?) and moving fricking MIAMI BEACH.

And how about moving New York?

You are such a serious poster, I expected a little emoticon after the moving cities comment.... ;-)

renewables:

"In 2013, renewable power capacity expanded at its fastest pace to date. Renewable power generation continued to grow strongly, reaching almost 22% of the global mix, compared with 21% in 2012 and 18% in 2007. Globally, renewable electricity generation is now on par with that of natural gas, which remained relatively stable in 2013. Investment in new renewable power capacity topped USD 250 billion globally in 2013 and is likely to remain at high levels." Web Link

Arthur: "Get rid of 18th century attitudes like yours and we could double that number in a decade. More jobs, less dangerous coal and oil."

Unless you like coal smoke and OPEC. Seems like a slam dunk to me, unless one's 401k is in extraction industries.

btw: notice solar panels up on new gas stations?

We can't spend a billion to build.a wall across the Mexican border, and now we're going to build dikes around cities or move them to higher ground.

Who said anything about subsiding?

Your favorite strategy is to make up a false argument and then argue against it. Doesn't work, I never said it or suggested it.

"Who said anything about subsiding?"

Given the massive economic impact (not counting human misery) sea level rise will have on our and the global economy, shouldn't renewables (as probably the solution to preventing rise) be subsidized to at least the same level as big oil is subsidized? To the same level that nuclear is subsidized?

Or are you referring to subsidies to help move New York, or build a sea wall around it? Or no subsidies - sell the property now and move Wall St to the Hamptons?

Works for you and I, we're well above sea level. For the economy we live in - not so much.

Perhaps English isn't your first language. I've not proposed subsidies for anything. Try reading my posts before you re-write them to conveniently fit your narrative's argument.

I am asking if it would be more useful to spend money moving to safer places (perhaps by having "market rate" flood insurance INSTEAD of subsidizing these very dangerous and now apparently unsustainable locales) than imposing a carbon tax that will, by most accounts, have almost no impact on the rising sea?

Just a thought.

Perhaps English isn't your first language. I've not proposed subsidies for anything. You should try to read my post before you re-write them to conveniently fit your narrative's argument.

I am asking if it would be more useful to spend money moving to safer places (perhaps by having "market rate" flood insurance INSTEAD of subsidizing these very dangerous and now apparently unsustainable locales) than imposing a carbon tax that will, by most accounts, have almost no impact on the rising sea?

Just a thought.

Pogo - "We can spend trillions of dollars... Why not spend that kind of money on relocating cities now?"

You didn't specify market rate flood insurance when you first wrote it. I'm confused where your trillions are coming from.

How is insurance, and not some form of subsidy, going to move "these very dangerous and now apparently unsustainable locales"? Or move Miami Beach and the SF financial district?

Whether in twenty years, fifty years, or one hundred?

Just curious.

It's funny how your first instinct is taxes and government. Why don't PEOPLE spend their own money to move to safer places? They have about a century to prepare.

I only suggested market rate flood insurance as one very way to encourage this change - we should stop subsidizing such dangerous locales. You and I are paying for them to live on a property that may be underwater a century from now.

As I said, displacement happens all the time - for deaths, for jobs, for hurricanes, for changing economies, for droughts. Rather than forcing people to pay exorbitant taxes that will have little or no impact on this, how about encouraging them to spend their own money to move?

Yes, Atlanta may very well become a coastal city. Not so long ago, they grew grapes in Greenland. Change happens.

As I said, what makes today's mean temperature so sacred that must be maintained at all costs?

"what makes today's mean temperature so sacred that must be maintained at all costs?"

Some semblance of economic equilibrium.

Or we can use "market rate flood insurance as one very way to encourage this change" -- change defined as moving New York City, Miami Beach, chunks of SF, and countries like Bangladesh, etc..

How can moving Miami be cheaper than, for example, putting solar on half the rooftops in America? All the rooftops? Cost of moving Miami may be more than putting solar on rooftops across several continents.

How can putting a dam across the Golden Gate strait be cheaper than putting windmills across Oklahoma, probably the windiest state in the nation?

Maybe/probably helps alleviate warming, certainly leads to cleaner air (no coal), no more Arab oil, less BP-type spills, probably lowers the cost of gas, be a huge boost to the economy, etc..

Myth Buster, Ice at Both poles has increased. The Antarctic is at record high amount according to NASA. Mother Earth is denying the warming.

Web Link
Web Link

Myth Buster,

9 of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century

I guess you are not aware that NASA was caught adjusting it's temperature data to make previous hot years colder and recent years hotter. Please read some information and stop using that bogus claim...it's simply not true.

Web Link


Web Link

Web Link

Gilbert: are you denying global climate change?

Your links:
..one is from 2007
..another is also from 2007
..the third is from last year "showing that the 1930s was by far the warmest decade in the US"

Climate Change is global. If you want to talk about WEATHER, as opposed to CLIMATE, start a new thread.