re: Massive hole reopens in Antarctic sea ice

quote:

---

and yet in order to show the temperature rise they need to demonstrate they have to massage the numbers to such an extent that a pronounced raw data temperature cycle is turned into a straight line, using completely subjective temperature adjustments many times the amplitude of the signal purportedly being measured, while also plugging modeled data into the measurements for the vast areas of the planet that have no surface temperature measurements (and not surprisingly the modeled data is responsible for some of the areas that show the most temperature rise)

---

You continue to say this without any evidence to back it up.

Temperature gathering is incredibly decentralized, not controlled or able to be massaged by anyone. This notion is beyond absurd to anyone that has taken even a modicum of time to understand this process. If there truly was some global cover up, it would not only be easily identifiable to anyone wanting to check, but the notion that despite increased concentrations of GHG's in the atmosphere, that global temps and other climate factors are not shifting, would create far more questions than you realize. Ones that wouldn't necessarily infer the points you want either.

Here is a simple question you need to confront, and we will see if you are able to do what most on this board were unable to: do you understand how greenhouse gasses work in relation to their presence in planetary atmospheres?

quote:

---

the entire statistical premise for the current temperature rests on the presumption that no one prior to 1978 could accurately measure temperature at the time

---

More nonsense.

quote:

---

1) The extraordinary evidence of the PROBLEM and the CAUSE (I'm not too far away from accepting both now)

2) WTF are we supposed to do? If you say Kyoto Protocol....I'm not close to being there.

---

You actually seem genuine, which is not my experience most of the time on here with this subject. So I apologize for assuming you into the same lot initially with my last post. Give me a second to flesh out my response.

quote:

---

1) The extraordinary evidence of the PROBLEM and the CAUSE (I'm not too far away from accepting both now)

2) WTF are we supposed to do? If you say Kyoto Protocol....I'm not close to being there.

---

Alright, here we go lol.

So lets just start with some foundational basics. Not meant to be preachy, just meant to illustrate everything from A-Z. Then I'll discuss point 2.

1.) Greenhouse gasses are a pivotal component of Earth's ecosystem and atmosphere relative to humans. These gasses include CO2, methane, NO2, and water vapor. Their presence has fluctuated over the incredibly long history of the planet. However, they are also the reason why the Earth is not an iced over planet right now. Without their presence the global temperature would be near zero degrees F. What science understands about greenhouse gasses are well established and not controversial. Going back 150 years. Their presence in an atmosphere, amongst other things, has the ability to trap energy from the sun and push it back down to Earth, warming the surface of the planet. This is a dynamic relationship because other gases do other things, some have the capacity to cool the planet(which I'll get back to in the solutions section). So there are periods of Earth's history where we saw high concentrations of things like CO2, but the planet was still cold due to offsetting forces. On planets like Venus, where CO2 is incredibly concentrated in the atmosphere, there is a runaway greenhouse gas effect that makes it the hottest planet in the solar system despite further out from the sun than Mercury. This is all to just illustrate the well documented science of how GHG's interact with suns, planets, and their planet's surface and environment. All things being equal, in a simplified version, you put more GHG's in an atmosphere, they trap more energy and beam more back down onto the surface and heat up the planet.

So what happened in present day Earth? Up until the industrial revolution the planet had a pretty stable range of CO2 concentration(along with other GHG's). Hovering around 280ppm. Which is the range it largely existed in for all of human civilization. As the industrial revolution began to pick up steam and spread globally, CO2 and other GHG concentrations picked up in the atmosphere, which based on the basic and proven understanding of the basic relationship of these gasses with temperatures and planets, temperatures would begin to rise. Which they did. CO2 concentrations from the start of the industrial revolution to now, jumped from 280ppm to over 400ppm. The fastest increase in the planets history. Which is what the overwhelming amount of the literature on the subject has illustrated:
LINK
LINK



2.) Some of the effects of this are baked in and they are by and large unavoidable. We can't remove what has been done to the atmosphere. Except by risky measures like I hinted at above. Such as spraying sulfur into the stratosphere every few years to offset the increased heat trapping of the GHG's. But that is a stop gap and basically still leaves the underlying problem indefinitely, and if ever faltered could be even more catastrophic from the rebound effect and the kicking the can mentality it evokes.

One of the fallacies of this discussion is always the presumption that any shifts require enormous sacrifices and economic hardship. Which is why I posted that link to the research on the 23 trillion in investment opportunities arising from the shift in the global energy marketplace brought on by things like the Paris Accords. We all need energy and food and all the rest, its just where we get them from that has to change. And unfortunately air does not respect border autonomy. What we do, what China does, it all goes into the collective atmosphere and so the only way to address that is collectively or miraculous technological breakthroughs.

But this global shift is happening whether we like it or not. So you can be a leader or left behind. And the environment doesn't care about elections or the business cycle. Miami is already stuck with billions in present and future damage related costs stemming from climate change. Saltwater creep in the Nile is not going to disappear. Fresh water loss that can easily lead to conflict is still gonna happen to some extent. Inaction just means you let it get worse and magnify the exorbitant price tag for that inaction. And just as bad, leave your nation behind the ball of a changing global energy economy.

America solved major pollution and clean water problems with legislation from both parties. Like the clean water act. Ronald Reagan implemented the first cap and trade system(a conservative creation) to tackle and ultimately eliminate much of the acid rain problem that was intensifying in America and many industrial cities. The collective effort of the entire world body came together to end the proliferation of CFCs which were dangerously accelerating a hole in the ozone. So historical efforts show collective action at all levels can be successful. But issues this big and on a global scale, will require some global solutions and coordination. America itself could do any number of things internally. They could do what economists bi-partisanly believe should be done, not just for this but other externality costs that producers of those costs are insulated from, which is a carbon tax. Which economists, and I agree with them, should primarily have that tax re-distributed equally back to the population so citizens aren't bearing the cost of higher prices, only the producers. Or you could borrow from Reagan with cap and trade. You could also invest heavily in key industries like we have done and continue to do to the tune of 100's of billions annually for the oil industry. Shift those subsidies around to more critical parts of the sector. The thing is, nothing is not nothing. Nothing is just kicking the can and adding zeros to the eventual bill that will come.

Internationally, and from a self-interest perspective, your best bet is to be at the head of the table at any collective body to maximize the terms to your nation's self-interest and mitigate any harm at your expense other's may seek for their self-interest. That is why economists, environmentalists, and many business leaders were upset with Trump's decision. It takes away our capacity to do that most effectively and hands it to the EU and China. A second Kyoto protocol is unlikely, nations want more autonomy to address things their way, which is why we have the Paris Accords in the first place.

There are a ton of resources available about this out there. And I could probably elaborate much further on every point, but this post probably already ties the record for the most long-winded and eye-glazing post ever submitted.

Your entire premise assumes other countries, especially the biggest polluters, will make good on their promises.

They won't.

That is the entire underlying problem. We in the United States could destroy our economy in the name of climate change and it would do nothing.

We aren't the problem.

quote:

---

I shot 20 cans of old white rain hair spray a few weekends ago.


Sorry for having fun.

---

If you used anything larger than .223 caliber, you don't need to apologize.

quote:

---

But what does it mean?

---

It means that the environment on all celestial bodies change. But apparently it's not Change We Can Believe In......

We can't even keep our inside home temps within 1 degree during the day...Yet we're supposed to be worried because adjusted data gives us a 1 degree change in 100+ years...

The entire thing is absolutely laughable

I wouldn’t argue with dale or texags about this stuff. The huddle and play has already been called. The ship has sailed, their grandchildren will wonder why it was a partisan issue.

I live a carbon negative lifestyle

Go get spoon fed your adjusted data and hush