"Ooops! New NASA study: Antarctica isn’t losing ice mass after all !"

[cvfd1399 0]

We know it's changing. Can we get tha out of the way please. Can we now focus on what percentage is man made, and what percentage is natural. And if it's man made will 500 trillion dollars of some forced emissions on cars, plants, and the world population have any effect on reducing the harm at this point or will cutting even half of it make any noticeable difference compared to the enormous cost.

[turtlespeed 212]

cvfd1399

We know it's changing. Can we get tha out of the way please. Can we now focus on what percentage is man made, and what percentage is natural. And if it's man made will 500 trillion dollars of some forced emissions on cars, plants, and the world population have any effect on reducing the harm at this point or will cutting even half of it make any noticeable difference compared to the enormous cost.

Cost vs benefit means nothing to the devout.
After all, it isn't their money they are spending.

Like welfare, and things of that nature, it doesn't impact the pockets of those that demand everyone else pay for it. With that in mind, you won't usually get a meaningful discussion. There is no motivation to see any other side of the discussion.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cvfd1399 0]

Interesting take. If you are looking for long term trends with methods that are not very sensitive you are likely to miss the sharp spikes that are hidden in the records. In other words over your 100,000 year record you are using as a baseline warming constant it might rise as it is today for 50 years then drop back to the normal rate of rise for 50 years but because it is such a short spike is is hard to find it.

https://www.fau.eu/2015/11/10/news/research/idea-of-slow-climate-change-in-the-earths-past-misleading/

Quote

FAU researchers show that global warming happened just as fast in the past as today

Quote

Climate change is progressing rapidly. It is not the first time in our planet’s history that temperatures have been rising, but it is happening much faster now than it ever has before. Or is it? Researchers at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) have shown in the latest edition of the journal Nature Communications* that the temperature changes millions of years ago probably happened no more slowly than they are happening today.

In order to predict how today’s ecosystems will react to increasing temperatures over the course of global warming, palaeobiologists study how climate change happened in the earth’s history and what the consequences were. In order to compare the events of the past with current changes researchers need data on the scope of the changes. What was the speed with which temperatures increased or decreased? What was the magnitude of the change in temperatures? Until now, the general consensus has been that current climate change is happening more quickly than any previous temperature fluctuations.
Climate change in the earth’s past faster than previously thought

Together with a British colleagues, palaeobiologist Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kießling and geosciences student Kilian Eichenseer, both from FAU, have published a pioneering study in Nature Communications explaining that the idea that environmental changes in the earth’s past happened slowly in comparison to current, rapid climate change is wrong. The reason for this incorrect assumption is the different time periods that are examined in climate research. ‘Today we can measure the smallest fluctuations in climate whenever they occur,’ Kilian Eichenseer explains. ‘Yet when we look at geological history we’re lucky if we can determine a change in climate over a period of ten thousand years.’

Therefore, if we compare global warming over recent decades with the increase in temperature that happened 250 million years ago over the Permian-Triassic boundary, current climate change seems incredibly fast. Between 1960 and 2010, the temperature of the oceans rose at a rate of 0.007 degrees per year. ‘That doesn’t seem like much,’ Prof. Kießling says, ‘but it’s 42 times faster than the temperature increase that we are able to measure over the Permian-Triassic boundary. Back then the temperature of the oceans rose by 10 degrees, but as we are only able to limit the period to 60,000 years, this equates to a seemingly low rate of 0.00017 degrees per year.’
Rapid changes are invisible, not absent

In their study the researchers looked at around two hundred analyses of changes in climate from various periods in geological history. It became clear that the apparent speed of climate change appears slower the longer the time periods over which increases or decreases in temperature are observed. The reason for this is that over long periods rapid changes in climate do not happen constantly in one direction. There are always phases during which the temperatures remain constant or even sink – a phenomenon that has also been observed in the current period of global warming. ‘However, we are unable to prove such fast fluctuations during past periods of climate change with the available methods of analysis. As a consequence, the data leads us to believe that climate change was always much slower in geological history than it is today, even when the greatest catastrophes occurred. However, that is not the case,’ Prof. Kießling says. If we consider these scaling effects, the temperate increase over the Permian-Triassic boundary was no different to current climate change in terms of speed. The increase in temperature during this event is associated with a mass extinction event during which 90 percent of marine animals died out.

[billvon 2,435]

>We know it's changing. Can we get tha out of the way please.

That's a fight you'll have to have with RushMC. At every opportunity he denies the data that shows us that the climate is changing.

But OK, great. The climate is changing.

>And if it's man made will 500 trillion dollars of some forced emissions on cars,
>plants, and the world population have any effect on reducing the harm at this
>point or will cutting even half of it make any noticeable difference compared to
>the enormous cost.

THAT is the right question to be asking!

One question is the financial equation. What will climate change cost us, how much will the mitigations cost us, and when will the benefits and costs accrue? One of the biggest problems in quantifying that is that the worst effects will happen decades from now; similarly, minor changes we make now will have a significant effect in decades, but lesser effects today.

To take some sample numbers, a recent report by Citigroup produced the following numbers:

Amount we will spend on energy between now and 2040
If we take no action on climate change: $190 trillion
If we take moderate action on climate change: $192 trillion

If we take moderate action, return on investment becomes positive in 2035 ($2 trillion savings via moderate action)

The second question is moral; how much are we willing to spend to preserve a village by the ocean? What value should we put on that? We can certainly put a value of zero, and just say "well, they have to move or drown." Or we can say that it's worth $X per person to save their towns. That's going to have to be a more arbitrary decision by each government.

Note that most governments do not go the route of "just let them drown" - they tend to try to save their people. In that case you have three choices:

1. Mitigation up front to reduce the underlying problem
2 .Preventative measures before it becomes an emergency (i.e. move them or build bigger levees)
3. Emergency measures (i.e. rescue them after the levees break)

3 is ALWAYS more expensive than 2. Is 2 more expensive than 1? Per an analysis like Citigroup, in the long term it is - but the payoff period might be 30 years.

[rushmc 18]

I have stated multiple times
The climate changes
That is what climate does

But you need to cloud the discussion because you are loosing the debate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>We know it's changing. Can we get tha out of the way please.

That's a fight you'll have to have with RushMC. At every opportunity he denies the data that shows us that the climate is changing.

But OK, great. The climate is changing.

>And if it's man made will 500 trillion dollars of some forced emissions on cars,
>plants, and the world population have any effect on reducing the harm at this
>point or will cutting even half of it make any noticeable difference compared to
>the enormous cost.

THAT is the right question to be asking!

One question is the financial equation. What will climate change cost us, how much will the mitigations cost us, and when will the benefits and costs accrue? One of the biggest problems in quantifying that is that the worst effects will happen decades from now; similarly, minor changes we make now will have a significant effect in decades, but lesser effects today.

To take some sample numbers, a recent report by Citigroup produced the following numbers:

Amount we will spend on energy between now and 2040
If we take no action on climate change: $190 trillion
If we take moderate action on climate change: $192 trillion

If we take moderate action, return on investment becomes positive in 2035 ($2 trillion savings via moderate action)

The second question is moral; how much are we willing to spend to preserve a village by the ocean? What value should we put on that? We can certainly put a value of zero, and just say "well, they have to move or drown." Or we can say that it's worth $X per person to save their towns. That's going to have to be a more arbitrary decision by each government.

Note that most governments do not go the route of "just let them drown" - they tend to try to save their people. In that case you have three choices:

1. Mitigation up front to reduce the underlying problem
2 .Preventative measures before it becomes an emergency (i.e. move them or build bigger levees)
3. Emergency measures (i.e. rescue them after the levees break)

3 is ALWAYS more expensive than 2. Is 2 more expensive than 1? Per an analysis like Citigroup, in the long term it is - but the payoff period might be 30 years.

the most expensive thing we can do is follow a climate alarmist down the rabbit hole

Sorry Bill
I will not follow you there

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

As I said
The alarmist try to cloud the discussion because they are loosing the debate

Thankfully people are paying attention

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/little_support_for_punishing_global_warming_foes

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cvfd1399 0]

billvon

>We know it's changing. Can we get tha out of the way please.

That's a fight you'll have to have with RushMC. At every opportunity he denies the data that shows us that the climate is changing.

But OK, great. The climate is changing.

>And if it's man made will 500 trillion dollars of some forced emissions on cars,
>plants, and the world population have any effect on reducing the harm at this
>point or will cutting even half of it make any noticeable difference compared to
>the enormous cost.

THAT is the right question to be asking!

One question is the financial equation. What will climate change cost us, how much will the mitigations cost us, and when will the benefits and costs accrue? One of the biggest problems in quantifying that is that the worst effects will happen decades from now; similarly, minor changes we make now will have a significant effect in decades, but lesser effects today.

To take some sample numbers, a recent report by Citigroup produced the following numbers:

Amount we will spend on energy between now and 2040
If we take no action on climate change: $190 trillion
If we take moderate action on climate change: $192 trillion

If we take moderate action, return on investment becomes positive in 2035 ($2 trillion savings via moderate action)

The second question is moral; how much are we willing to spend to preserve a village by the ocean? What value should we put on that? We can certainly put a value of zero, and just say "well, they have to move or drown." Or we can say that it's worth $X per person to save their towns. That's going to have to be a more arbitrary decision by each government.

Note that most governments do not go the route of "just let them drown" - they tend to try to save their people. In that case you have three choices:

1. Mitigation up front to reduce the underlying problem
2 .Preventative measures before it becomes an emergency (i.e. move them or build bigger levees)
3. Emergency measures (i.e. rescue them after the levees break)

3 is ALWAYS more expensive than 2. Is 2 more expensive than 1? Per an analysis like Citigroup, in the long term it is - but the payoff period might be 30 years.

No the first question was is it changing. We have answered yes.

You skipped the second question/answer and that is what is causing it and why. Which there is no valid answer yet only new research and differing opinions as the one I posted.

You have already fucked up and skipped question two and went to action three of let's go ahead and take action for what we have no clear cause and course of effective change.

This is your number ONE reason why people are stonewalling this is you can't get your shit together and come together and say WHAT exactly is going on. We all know it's warming, but you are automatically going its man, let's spend money.

[billvon 2,435]

>You skipped the second question/answer and that is what is causing it and why.

What's causing the positive forcing we are currently seeing is:
AG CO2 45%
AG CH4 16%
AG CFC 8%
AG N2O 5%
AG tropospheric ozone 13%
Sun output changes 13%

Why it's causing it - because the above AG (anthropogenic) gases are greenhouse gases, and they retain heat.

> Which there is no valid answer yet . . . .

97% of climate scientists in fact agree that the answer we have is valid. Half of politicians do not. Who would you rather heed?

[rushmc 18]

Here is the jist of his 97% claim

Quote

Speaking of a minuscule number of “scientists who refute global warming” perhaps lead author Diego Román might benefit from an actual analysis of the famous “97% agree” meme:

Why do at least 97 percent, and perhaps as high as 99.9 percent of climate scientists say it’s [Anthropogenic GW] real?
-10,257 Earth Scientists were sent an invitation
– 7,054 scientists did not reply to the survey
– 567 scientists surveyed did not believe man is responsible for climate change
– Only 157 of the remainder were climate scientists
– The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 subjectively identified “specialists” or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 invited. What’s interesting is that 3% of the invitees didn’t think the earth had warmed since the Little Ice Age.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>You skipped the second question/answer and that is what is causing it and why.

What's causing the positive forcing we are currently seeing is:
AG CO2 45%
AG CH4 16%
AG CFC 8%
AG N2O 5%
AG tropospheric ozone 13%
Sun output changes 13%

Why it's causing it - because the above AG (anthropogenic) gases are greenhouse gases, and they retain heat.

> Which there is no valid answer yet . . . .

97% of climate scientists in fact agree that the answer we have is valid. Half of politicians do not. Who would you rather heed?

And yet there has been no significant warming for nearly 2 decades!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,435]

>And yet there has been no significant warming for nearly 2 decades!

And - BAM! - RushMC is back to a type 1 denier, who denies that it is getting warmer.

But meanwhile back in reality:

Warmest years on record:
1 2014 0.69C above average
2 2010 0.65
3 2005 0.65
4 1998 0.63
5 2013 0.62
6 2003 0.62
7 2002 0.61
8 2006 0.60
9 2009 0.59

Warmest decades on record:
2000-2009 .513C above average
1990-1999 .313C
1980-1989 .176C

[rushmc 18]

You lied
Here is the proof

Quote

no significant warming for nearly 2 decades

Where do I say it is NOT getting warmer??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

A great read

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/08/the-pause-is-driving-down-the-long-term-warming-trend/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,651]

rushmc

A great read

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/08/the-pause-is-driving-down-the-long-term-warming-trend/

This site is more credible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[headoverheels 291]

rushmc

A great read

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/08/the-pause-is-driving-down-the-long-term-warming-trend/

You can draw a similar "green line" like that from 1988 through 1994.

[billvon 2,435]

>You can draw a similar "green line" like that from 1988 through 1994.

See below for two ways to see the same data.

[billvon 2,435]

>Where do I say it is NOT getting warmer??

"And yet there has been no significant warming for nearly 2 decades!"

[wolfriverjoe 1,352]

billvon

...Note that most governments do not go the route of "just let them drown" - they tend to try to save their people. In that case you have three choices:

1. Mitigation up front to reduce the underlying problem
2 .Preventative measures before it becomes an emergency (i.e. move them or build bigger levees)
3. Emergency measures (i.e. rescue them after the levees break)

3 is ALWAYS more expensive than 2. Is 2 more expensive than 1? Per an analysis like Citigroup, in the long term it is - but the payoff period might be 30 years.

Given human nature, we will ignore the problem until the only option is #3.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>You skipped the second question/answer and that is what is causing it and why.

What's causing the positive forcing we are currently seeing is:
AG CO2 45%
AG CH4 16%
AG CFC 8%
AG N2O 5%
AG tropospheric ozone 13%
Sun output changes 13%

Why it's causing it - because the above AG (anthropogenic) gases are greenhouse gases, and they retain heat.

> Which there is no valid answer yet . . . .

97% of climate scientists in fact agree that the answer we have is valid. Half of politicians do not. Who would you rather heed?

What is in the company newsletter of course.... everything else is just lies from the leftist media

[cvfd1399 0]

Yeah a public fire department puts out "newsletters" blasting denier propaganda...

[headoverheels 291]

cvfd1399

Yeah a public fire department puts out "newsletters" blasting denier propaganda...

Everything posted isn't about you.

[cvfd1399 0]

You don't post here often enough to see how indirect attacks go from a select few. I call it a "tag on" and it is very easy to see who it is directed to by looking at who posted it.

[headoverheels 291]

cvfd1399

You don't post here often enough to see how indirect attacks go from a select few. I call it a "tag on" and it is very easy to see who it is directed to by looking at who posted it.

I read here more than I post, and I have posted here more than you have (but at your current rate, you should pass me in a few milliseconds).

[cvfd1399 0]

Well then maybe I banter back and forth with them more and know what's going on. That was directed at myself and rush from Amazon. Anyways it's not worth responding to you about again anyways so whatever.