I think one of the biggest problems pertaining to the global warming argument is that humans in general are far too short-sighted. They only see - or want to see - what has changed in their own lifetime, or maybe take into account their parents and grandparents lifetimes as well. But if you look at earth's geological record, you'll find that the earth is not a very good environment for life in the long term. Earth's environment is dynamic and at times very unstable. Consider the fact that there have been seven mass extinctions since the beginning of life on this planet. One of these, the Permian-Triassic extinction that occurred about 250 million years ago, saw the elimination of 96% of all the plant and animal species that existed during the Permian period. Every species that exists today, including humans, has evolved from the surviving 4%. I know a lot of people are making a big deal about the melting of the polar ice caps. They forsee a disaster for the coastal regions of the world. What they're overlooking is that in the period between 95,000 B.C. to 20,000 B.C. the Laurentide Ice Sheet extended all the way down to the state of Maryland on the east coast of what is now the United States. The island of Manhattan was buried under 80 feet of ice. If it were not for global warming, a good portion of the United States would have been uninhabitable. Would the early European settlers have even considered coming to such a place? Probably not. That means the United States as we know it today would have never come into existence. So it just goes to show that there can be benefits from global warming. Also, during the Triassic period (250 million to 65 million years B.C) there were no polar ice caps in either the northern or southern hemispheres. And yet somehow the dinosaurs managed to flourish for millions of years.
not even that long ago... check the condition of the arctic polar cap in 1922. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03...-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis over making claims it can't back up, especially about climate. As BBC News Science Correspondent Tom Feilden noted last week, "Science is facing a 'reproducibility crisis' where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced. And this includes the field of climate change, by the way. It's a disaster. Being able to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science. Yet, radical climate change advocates would have us spend 2% of global GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion a year, to forestall a minuscule amount of anticipated warming based on dubious modeling and experiments. Meanwhile, the federal government spends literally billions of dollars a year on climate change, with virtually none of the money funding scientists who doubt the climate change threat. There is no serious debate. This is a problem for all of science. Worse, our government's own science fraud is a big problem. Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, recently detailed how a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement. Meanwhile, Georgia Institute of Technology climatologist Judith Curry recently retired, blaming the "CRAZINESS (her emphasis) in the field of climate science." Even so, mythical claims of a "consensus" among scientists about climate change continue in an effort to shut up critics. Those who dissent, and literally thousands of scientists and engineers do, are shouted down and harassed. As Princeton University physicist Will Happer told the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian earlier this week: "There's a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. ... It will potentially harm the image of all science." It's time for some science Glasnost. New EPA Director Scott Pruitt has called for an open debate on climate science, rather than the name-calling and outright dishonesty of the past. Real science has nothing to fear from more openness and discussion, but everything to fear from more politicized dishonesty. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/is-global-warming-science-just-a-fraud/ http://www.investors.com/politics/c...-government-scientists-have-to-keep-cheating/
Engineered algae puts half of its carbon into fats for biofuels There's an inherent tension in convincing organisms to produce fuel for us. To grow and thrive, the organism has to direct its energy into a variety of chemicals—proteins, fats, DNA, and more. But for biofuels, we're mostly interested in fats, which are long-chain hydrocarbons that already look a lot like our liquid fuels. Fat is easy to convert into biodiesel, for example. So how do we convince an organism to do what we want, rather than what it needs? There have been two approaches to this so far. One is to take an organism that we understand well and engage in genetic engineering to direct its metabolism toward fuel production. The second approach is to search for organisms that naturally produce lots of the chemicals we're interested in. Now, researchers at the company Synthetic Genomics have taken what you might consider a hybrid approach. They've started with an algae that will produce oodles of fat, but only if you stop its growth by starving it of essential nutrients. And, by studying how this starvation response works, the scientists identified a key regulator and altered its activity. The engineered strain produces nearly as much fat as the normal strain, but it does so while continuing to grow... more
How well have climate models done in the upper atmosphere? If people who reject climate science ever point to actual data, you can just about bet the farm it will be data from satellite measurements of upper-atmosphere temperatures. At least until the record-setting global heat in 2015 and 2016, some of the satellite data was amenable to the claim that global warming had magically ended in 1998. That was always nonsense, involving cherry-picking a start year and ignoring ongoing correctionsto the complex satellite measurements. That said, it is certainly fair to compare the satellite records to climate models to see what we can learn... more
Can't get a very accurate long term record if satellites were not around. Possibly by the year 3040 we can get a better long term temp record of global warming
Well.. I'm older than that so by long term I referring to several centuries, There are an awful lot of instances in the past before satellites of climate changes. Using satellites is not what I consider something relevant to getting the entire picture of the planets climate. At least not at this current time frame
it seems history teaches us nothing , we know for a fact the earth goes thru cooling and warming cycles ! yet we try to change it ! what have we done about the next ice age ? we know its coming yet we do nothing we debate about the influence of man upon the climate ! clean air and water is good and we can do something about that !! but the climate no !!! the earth the sun the moon the cycles effect the climate man is so minute in the cycle he has little or no effect on the climate .
@zen45: That's the arrogance and avarice of man at work. If you trace it back to the source, it's always about money. Academic grants, studies, taxes and regulations,etc.
Even though the red bit is not right, you are right saying that we have more important things to do concerning relationship to nature (clear air and water, ocean....) The problem/issue is the term itself: Climate-change and its brief sense like: CO2 emission-->greenhouse effect---->melting ice--->storms, drought and floods..... The processes 'behind' that are real, though. They are actually all related to irresponsible environmentally unfriendly 'use' of limited resources without renewal concept. I cannot get why all the politic still sell their (really required) actions to be taken as stopping of climate change. Measures against are needed but to safe resources and to stop pollution. If we can stop 'climate change' is actually not the real question. The cancellation idea of the Paris Climate Agreement by Trump is just another sign of stupidity of an unqualified politician. But what would one expect from such a joke-president who glorifies physical violence against journalists?!
The recent warming happened when Solar TSI was at it's highest. Coincidence? http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
Higher TSI levels are 'warming' per se. Coincidental is the measured global warming. (If other cooling effects would prevail you would not have a warming as result). Solar TSI and climate are related since it's the sun that heats up the earth. And there are periods with higher TSI and lower. It's reasonable that such TSI cycles affect the climate (also as a cycle). Since 'global warming' is a result/balance (direction) of many interacting cycles we need to consider it as a part of many... Higher TSI means more energy radiation. It's quite reasonable to conclude warming of earth as effect. One would need to compare other high TSI periods to average temperature of earth... Science knows for instance endothermic and exothermic effects. Both can happen at the same time. But actually we are measuring the result / balance which then is either endothermic or exothermic. This does not mean both would not coexist. If cooling effects prevail it gets colder if warming effects prevail it gets warmer.
Maybe and maybe not. As the earth gets warmer, it slows down the "ocean conveyor belt" and this will cause Europe to get colder. http://e360.yale.edu/features/will_climate_change_jam_the_global_ocean_conveyor_belt
I know what you want to say. That makes things even more complex taking special regions. It makes only sense to compare location of action to result of action. Since more activity of the sun affects the entire earth one can only relate it to 'overall-average'...both are 'global'. That fact is represented by a correlation of average temperature and activity of the sun, but does not explain an ice age for instance. (Must be additional effects like changing ocean currents). One cannot compare global causes to local effects...and their cycles. They are like wave functions with different amplitude and frequency (repetition after one wave-length), though. To reason 'global-warming' with CO2 only makes also no sense. One cannot isolate just one relation.
I think it's one of the reason's they stopped calling it "global warming" and started to call it "climate change" because what they are really doing is just guess work
Many statements and assumptions concerning global warming are inconsistent..even my own since I changed sometimes the relation without to remark.... Most considerations start in a reasonable way, but then the consequences are not really classifiable. I once posted about cycles and time.... Just a little experiment to illustrate how quickly it gets complex... Take 3 different surfaces but with same size. All them under a plastic cube (hood) with given volume. 1 water 2 sand (bright sand from a nice beach) 3 asphalt Record 4 temperatures relative to time. The cube's air and the 3 different surfaces. Compare those temperatures to a radiant heater (temp) which is pointed to the cube. It should have on and off cycles. Off temp should be below zero (cold)... Then repeat the experiment by using more watts for the radiant heater. If you want you might add even more 'variables' like adding more CO2 to the cube or more or less ice somewhere. Compare the curves to each others. Is the warming synchron? Are the increments of amplitudes always the same or do we have an inertia? Can you still comprehend all the relations of cause and effect? They all can degenerate to a guesswork, yes.... BUT plastics are in the ocean, fossil fuels are limited, there are cities full of smog one cannot breathe without wearing a filter/tissue, glaciers are vanishing, quality if drinking water is in danger and so on and so on... Why do they argue with that "climate change" all the time when there are pictures available EVERYBODY can see what's wrong with our nature??? I am quite sure that the climate will change in some regions, but in another way.....the 'climate' there better said condition to live will become that bad that people have to move away.....and to find another place....just like wars are doing it already...
I don't think you'll find anybody (here) disputing that we need to be good stewards of the place within which we live. We need to clean up after ourselves and that should include the corporate industry too, We do not enforce to keep our home clean