An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

[Spock]

Found a book that is the kind of thing I was looking for in the Kilimanjaro thread and looks to be the kind of thing I am after in Eye on the Land.

http://eyeontheland.blogspot.com/

"Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism" by Jim Steele

Pull quotes from the Amazon description
>>>>
"Controlling our carbon footprints will never address the most pressing issues of habitat loss and watershed degradation."
I bolded this because it is so fundamental to, well, everything.

"Steele highlights how faulty science and bad models have misguided critical conservation efforts and misrepresented conservation success. Most distressing Landscapes and Cycles reveals how global warming advocates have opposed appropriate conservation efforts simply because the concerned scientists did not blame climate change. "

[Bob Juch]

Found a book that is the kind of thing I was looking for in the Kilimanjaro thread and looks to be the kind of thing I am after in Eye on the Land.

http://eyeontheland.blogspot.com/

"Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism" by Jim Steele

Pull quotes from the Amazon description
>>>>
"Controlling our carbon footprints will never address the most pressing issues of habitat loss and watershed degradation."
I bolded this because it is so fundamental to, well, everything.

"Steele highlights how faulty science and bad models have misguided critical conservation efforts and misrepresented conservation success. Most distressing Landscapes and Cycles reveals how global warming advocates have opposed appropriate conservation efforts simply because the concerned scientists did not blame climate change. "

I'm not sure how to interpret, "Most distressing Landscapes and Cycles reveals how global warming advocates have opposed appropriate conservation efforts simply because the concerned scientists did not blame climate change." There are advocates for global warming? They're opposing conservation of land because scientists are not blaming climate change for what?

[franktangredi]

I blame George Zimmerman on global warming.

[smilergrogan]

I blame George Zimmerman on global warming.

These threads need a new title. How about "Crank vs. Frank"?

[Bob78164]

--Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

--Bob

NASA founded in 1958, does this prove NASA caused Global Warming?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

aka recovery from Little Ice Age

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

"Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change," Holdren said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... z2tKckujoe

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-w ... 04122.html

The Canadian Ice Service, an arm of Environment Canada, said there is 10 per cent more ice this year compared to the 30-year average.
"We probably haven't seen a winter this bad as far as ice for the past 25 years," said Voight, referring to both the amount and thickness of the ice.

[Bob Juch]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-w ... 04122.html

The Canadian Ice Service, an arm of Environment Canada, said there is 10 per cent more ice this year compared to the 30-year average.
"We probably haven't seen a winter this bad as far as ice for the past 25 years," said Voight, referring to both the amount and thickness of the ice.

So? What counts is when it forms and when it melts.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-w ... 04122.html

The Canadian Ice Service, an arm of Environment Canada, said there is 10 per cent more ice this year compared to the 30-year average.
"We probably haven't seen a winter this bad as far as ice for the past 25 years," said Voight, referring to both the amount and thickness of the ice.

So? What counts is when it forms and when it melts.

It's that something someone predicted or a post facto explanation ?

[Bob Juch]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-w ... 04122.html

So? What counts is when it forms and when it melts.

It's that something someone predicted or a post facto explanation ?

Huh?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I keep seeing predictions about future climate, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/scien ... ience&_r=0 for example this is 2014 the year Al Gore suggested we would have an ice free Arctic summer. When such prediction fail to materialize the warmers then manufacture some explanation. Now that there is higher than normal sea ice coverage in the Arctic along with extensive mutli year ice, you seem to suggest that this is progressing as foreseen. I was wondering if anyone had previously suggested that expansion of ice coverage and multi year ice was proof of the coming Global Warming disaster.

[Bob Juch]

I keep seeing predictions about future climate, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/scien ... ience&_r=0 for example this is 2014 the year Al Gore suggested we would have an ice free Arctic summer. When such prediction fail to materialize the warmers then manufacture some explanation. Now that there is higher than normal sea ice coverage in the Arctic along with extensive mutli year ice, you seem to suggest that this is progressing as foreseen. I was wondering if anyone had previously suggested that expansion of ice coverage and multi year ice was proof of the coming Global Warming disaster.

This should explain things better than The Daily Caller: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[Bob78164]

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has begun to collapse. The process appears irreversible. The resulting increase in sea level is expected to be approximately 10 feet. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/g ... 01555.html

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a ... rd-levels/

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

This really does seem to fit the hysteria theme

"East Antarctica may become a large contributor to future sea-level rise on timescales beyond a century," the report's authors write in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change.

Eastern Antarctica has enough ice to raise global sea levels by 53 m if it all melted, although even most worst-case scenarios discount such a drastic melt.
Still, the extent of ice loss in Antarctica is not as studied, with scientists still not sure how much climate change is affecting the region.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/a ... res/27270/

[Bob Juch]

You keep cherry-picking sentences that you like from articles that you like.

One thing that you can't dispute is that the vast majority of climate scientists say it's getting warmer and that we're going to be in big trouble sooner or later.

If you saw ten doctors and only nine of them said you have cancer and will die soon you'd believe the tenth who said you don't have to worry.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

One thing that you can't dispute is that the vast majority of climate scientists say it's getting warmer and that we're going to be in big trouble sooner or later.

that's two things.

The vast majority of climate scientists say its getting warmer( as it has since the LIA,) they DO NOT say that we are going to be big trouble sooner or later. You are confusing that with stories that say "if it continues to warm", then this or that will happen

I generally agree with this statement by Tom Nelson

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect
3. Human activity has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase over the last 100+ years
4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century
5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901

6. We can't burn fossil fuels forever without running out
7. Alternative energy research is a good thing
8. Energy efficiency is a good thing
9. Destroying the environment is a bad thing
10. I want the best, safest world possible for future generations

Some things I don't believe:
11. The Earth is a more dangerous place at 61F than at 59F.
12. Carbon dioxide taxes can prevent bad weather
13. Increased CO2 causes drought

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Andy Revkin @Revkin
Awful misuse of "Collapse" in headlines on centuries-long ice loss in W. Antarctica. See rates in papers. Same as '09 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... ow-affair/ …
1:54 PM - 12 May 2014 Manhattan, NY, United States

[mrkelley23]

One thing that you can't dispute is that the vast majority of climate scientists say it's getting warmer and that we're going to be in big trouble sooner or later.

that's two things.

The vast majority of climate scientists say its getting warmer( as it has since the LIA,) they DO NOT say that we are going to be big trouble sooner or later. You are confusing that with stories that say "if it continues to warm", then this or that will happen

I generally agree with this statement by Tom Nelson

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect
3. Human activity has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase over the last 100+ years
4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century
5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901

6. We can't burn fossil fuels forever without running out
7. Alternative energy research is a good thing
8. Energy efficiency is a good thing
9. Destroying the environment is a bad thing
10. I want the best, safest world possible for future generations

Some things I don't believe:
11. The Earth is a more dangerous place at 61F than at 59F.
12. Carbon dioxide taxes can prevent bad weather
13. Increased CO2 causes drought

Strongly agree with #s 1-10, and, like Spock, I wish we could get more people focused on what we agree on as far as #10, instead of shouting across the barricades.

11 is true, but not for all life forms, whether people want to believe it or not. The word "dangerous" is a little tricky.
12 is irrelevant and snarky. No one is arguing that, except possibly the Al Gores of the world.
13 is certainly open to debate, and not factual. Same as predictions like "warming Earth produces more hurricanes" (probably not true) and "warming earth produces more powerful hurricanes" (possible, but not anywhere near accepted as factual yet.) But I do think it is a fair statement to say that increased CO2 causes warming, and warming is going to have unpredictable effects on global climate and regional weather patterns, including drought/flooding cycles.

[Bob Juch]

One thing that you can't dispute is that the vast majority of climate scientists say it's getting warmer and that we're going to be in big trouble sooner or later.

that's two things.

The vast majority of climate scientists say its getting warmer( as it has since the LIA,) they DO NOT say that we are going to be big trouble sooner or later. You are confusing that with stories that say "if it continues to warm", then this or that will happen

I generally agree with this statement by Tom Nelson

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect
3. Human activity has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase over the last 100+ years
4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century
5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901

6. We can't burn fossil fuels forever without running out
7. Alternative energy research is a good thing
8. Energy efficiency is a good thing
9. Destroying the environment is a bad thing
10. I want the best, safest world possible for future generations

Some things I don't believe:
11. The Earth is a more dangerous place at 61F than at 59F.
12. Carbon dioxide taxes can prevent bad weather
13. Increased CO2 causes drought

Strongly agree with #s 1-10, and, like Spock, I wish we could get more people focused on what we agree on as far as #10, instead of shouting across the barricades.

11 is true, but not for all life forms, whether people want to believe it or not. The word "dangerous" is a little tricky.
12 is irrelevant and snarky. No one is arguing that, except possibly the Al Gores of the world.
13 is certainly open to debate, and not factual. Same as predictions like "warming Earth produces more hurricanes" (probably not true) and "warming earth produces more powerful hurricanes" (possible, but not anywhere near accepted as factual yet.) But I do think it is a fair statement to say that increased CO2 causes warming, and warming is going to have unpredictable effects on global climate and regional weather patterns, including drought/flooding cycles.

Also: Increased warming produces more water vapor in the atmosphere and that produces more warming.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The sensitivity of global temperature to increases in CO2 is what the debate is all about. The doom and gloom comes from the climate models

[Bob Juch]

The sensitivity of global temperature to increases in CO2 is what the debate is all about. The doom and gloom comes from the climate models

Nope, the "greenhouse effect" is caused by any and all of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and even ozone.