Climate Change Report

[BartW]

This thread took an interesting turn. Sea level rise isn’t because of climate change, it’s from all the plastic we dump in the ocean! No wait, it’s because of the boats! That’s a good one; I’ve never heard that angle before. Points for creativity!

Yes it’s swell to see Volnation have this concern for our oceans all of the sudden. I wonder, though, do any of you actually support ways to fix the problems? Will it cost money? Will it require international cooperation? Or do you just want to sit around and complain about poor environmental standards in developing countries while complacently doing nothing?

If you are concerned about the state of the oceans, what are your thoughts on ocean acidification and oxygen depletion? These are direct effects of fossil fuel combustion. This is indisputable even by anti-climatist standards (I like that verbiage, too ).

Coral reefs are home to 25% of the world’s marine biodiversity. Does it bother you that half of the world’s coral reefs have died in the past 50 years, and the other half will likely be gone within decades? Do you know that some of Earth’s largest extinction events, including the greatest end-permian event in which over 90% of marine species disappeared, was the result of geologically rapid CO2 release via volcanism causing high rates of climate change and ocean acidification? Does it bother you at all that such geologically rapid outgassing is very comparable to present anthropogenic rates?

On related notes, how do you feel about the Trump administration relaxing regulations against overfishing and even subsidizing the commercial fishing industry? How about the expansion of offshore drilling? The removal of marine protected areas? Do you really care about the health of our oceans, or do you only care insofar that you think its convenient to your anti-climatist diatribe?

 

[BartW]

Also, can we please stop mindlessly disparaging climate scientists and meteorologists, and stop conflating the two (tall order, I know…)? Please look up one of my many posts on (or google) the difference between weather and climate. Meteorology and climate science address very different problems physically and mathematically. Neither are some fringe field. They’re interdisciplinary and internally consistent with all fields of science.

Professional anti-climatists, on the other hand, have no internally consistent body of logic. There is no robust alternative theory to anthropogenic climate change. All they do is sling mud against the wall and hope it sticks. It never does long-term, but they just need it to stick long enough to make the roundabouts through the denialist blogosphere and social media. Their only purpose in doing so is to muddy the discussion and delay meaningful debate.

 

[LouderVol]

Your formula is completely flawed. Increase in elevation is dependent on the volume of the matter being submerged and the surface area of the liquid. Your whimsically simple equation does not account for surface area of the ocean whatsoever, and only the volume, which hardly gives you enough information to claim an increase in sea level.

For you to say I am propagating bad science irony at its core.

surface area of what exactly? ice covered vs non? marsh land vs cliff face would have a huge disparity on effect of added water. Heck there isn't even a unified "sea level" across the globe, which honestly still boggles my mind.

volume (increase) is the most important single factor when figuring out increases in global height, area would be secondary. then you would have to add in any number of other variables. local water tables, humidity, soil conditions, impervious vs pervious. heck at some point we would see increases in cloud cover too. unless you have a better formula calling him out for his start serves no purpose either than to be argumentative. if you wanted to further the conversation you could bring in the area side of it. 352,103,700 sq km of total saltwater area per this. Surface Area of the Earth

to further complicate the numbers you have to acknowledge that not every drop of water that melts is going to end up in the oceans at one point in time. lakes, ponds, rivers, heck maybe even new of each would also show up on the freshwater side and increase their heights as well. just to throw out a number its probably a similar ratio to the salt vs fresh water question.

his 1.56% increase is actually be a lot scarier than any real number would be once you take into account all the other numbers. so really you are just making his point for him that there are more things that go into it making the end result not as bad.

 

[BartW]

Ok...

Hint. You totally ignored the volumetric change to to phase change and just threw a bunch of words trying to rationalize it. If the entire Antarctic ice cap melted the ocean level is expected to rise 200 ft.

And about that Antarctic Ice Sheet melting...

Why is Antarctica's sea ice growing while the Arctic melts? Scientists now know why.

I think you should go back to studying frankly.

You are confusing land ice and sea ice here, and your article is outdated. Antarctic sea ice has actually plummeted to record lows in recent years.

You were probably trying to reference Zwally et al. (2015) whose paper showed the east Antarctic ice sheet is growing and possibly even outweighing losses elsewhere. We discussed it in the original CC thread at the time. There are a few things to keep in mind.

• It is only one of several studies of glacial mass balance using different geophysical techniques. Whether or not the east Antarctic ice sheet is growing at all is still a point of debate amongst those who study it. Most studies point in the opposite direction. The margins of error are large. Interior east Antarctica is remote and difficult to study.
• Zwally et al. found that the rate of increase in east Antarctica’s ice sheet was constant. They also found that the rate of ice loss in west Antarctica is accelerating. Even by their calculations, ice loss in west Antarctica will outpace gains in east Antarctica within a few decades.

No, sea ice melting does not directly contribute to sea level rise significantly. But it does decrease Earth’s albedo and thereby increase global warming, among numerous adverse consequences. On the other hand, it opens new shipping lanes and new places to drill for oil!

Yes, to date, Antarctic ice sheet loss has not contributed much to global sea level rise. The biggest contributions have come from rapidly melting Greenland and the thermal expansion of ocean water (not from trash or boats, lol). Does that mean there’s nothing to worry about? No! If only Greenland’s ice sheets melt that’s still 20 feet of sea level rise. Antarctica will add to that if it isn’t already. And that's a moot point anyway. We know sea level is rising and at an accelerating rate because we can measure that directly.

The last time Earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago and sea levels were also 20-30 feet higher. Even a 10 foot sea level rise over hundreds of years would be catastrophic. But that’s your grandkids’ problem, right?

 

[LouderVol]

Also, can we please stop mindlessly disparaging climate scientists and meteorologists, and stop conflating the two (tall order, I know…)? Please look up one of my many posts on (or google) the difference between weather and climate. Meteorology and climate science address very different problems physically and mathematically. Neither are some fringe field. They’re interdisciplinary and internally consistent with all fields of science.

Professional anti-climatists, on the other hand, have no internally consistent body of logic. There is no robust alternative theory to anthropogenic climate change. All they do is sling mud against the wall and hope it sticks. It never does long-term, but they just need it to stick long enough to make the roundabouts through the denialist blogosphere and social media. Their only purpose in doing so is to muddy the discussion and delay meaningful debate.

the issue as I see it with anthropogenic climate change is that the end result seems to change every 20 years or so. so I would argue that it is not internally consistent either. at least when looking at it over any length of time. The Anthropogenic CC ideas from the 70s have gone away, global cooling. even global warming has been tossed aside lately for just a generic term of "climate change".

you may be right on the cause, but you have yet to hit a consistent standard for what is going to happen. so its hard to take anyone seriously who is selling these messages when the doomsday clock keeps getting reset every decade. why should we believe you this time? Those last guys were idiots, but now you really actually have it figured out, just don't ask for the real math behind it all?

what is there to meaningfully debate?you either believe this batch of science or you don't. how the message is sold is also a huge sticking point in my mind.

instead of trying to assign blame, and forcing changes upon people it just needs to be sold as ideas that are going to save people money. but no you have to have a bad guy to blame so that it can be forced down people's throats via the government. oh yeah except for China cause lol 2040.

 

[LouderVol]

at some point people have to realize that people are the heart and soul of any man made climate change. people are the bad guys.

even at a near zero rate of resource usage an increasing population is going to put an ever increasing demand on the environment. doesnt matter if you cover every building in solar panels, it still takes resources to support a population.

i had run the numbers previously. The cost to "fix" the world today was in the quadrillions. the global economy is somewhere around 50 trillion, pretty sure its less than that. and that was just basing the change needed on where America is at, not places like China or India who have already out paced us.

you want to really solve the global warming problem, cut your electricity, stop using anything modern what so ever, and hope Thanos shows up in a hurry. what it would actually take to "save" the planet is an absurd proposition that you don't hear anyone actually positing. because they would get shouted down. it doesn't take 100% agreement to have the talks on what to actually do, but they don't want to have that real of a conversation so they stick to redoing study after study instead of looking at solutions.

 

[Roustabout]

By the same logic we should discard Christianity since many "experts" have been wrong in their predictions regarding Jesus' return. I'm not defending any predictions being made; I'm defending the more general claim of "this is happening."

If you want to prove the professionals wrong you ought to follow the same standards you hold them to. Do science which involves no uncertainty--I'll be glad to read your work when it's published. I mean no offense but most of you guys in here dont even know the difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory, yet you think you're in a position to call those who have a wealth of education and experience in the field wrong.


You should look up how we have historically "weighed" atoms (e.g., using a mass spectrometer); there is still uncertainty. So measuring atomic weights in this method isn't proven, and thus isn't the subject of true science, by your definition either. Does it only become science when we can eliminate all uncertainty? Do you know if the most contemporary methods have no uncertainty? Is it science if not? We still use mass spectrometers today; can we call this work science?

I guess what I'm getting at here is that I think your definition of what constitutes science is extremely narrow and atypical--almost nothing would be science if this is the standard.



I don't know how likely that is to happen but I'd think the problem is that everything--or almost everything--that lives in those climates will have a difficult time adjusting to such a radical change.

Huh?
Your getting your hat handed to you by McDad.
No bed to bring Jesus into it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You are confusing land ice and sea ice here, and your article is outdated. Antarctic sea ice has actually plummeted to record lows in recent years.

You were probably trying to reference Zwally et al. (2015) whose paper showed the east Antarctic ice sheet is growing and possibly even outweighing losses elsewhere. We discussed it in the original CC thread at the time. There are a few things to keep in mind.

• It is only one of several studies of glacial mass balance using different geophysical techniques. Whether or not the east Antarctic ice sheet is growing at all is still a point of debate amongst those who study it. Most studies point in the opposite direction. The margins of error are large. Interior east Antarctica is remote and difficult to study.
• Zwally et al. found that the rate of increase in east Antarctica’s ice sheet was constant. They also found that the rate of ice loss in west Antarctica is accelerating. Even by their calculations, ice loss in west Antarctica will outpace gains in east Antarctica within a few decades.

No, sea ice melting does not directly contribute to sea level rise significantly. But it does decrease Earth’s albedo and thereby increase global warming, among numerous adverse consequences. On the other hand, it opens new shipping lanes and new places to drill for oil!

Yes, to date, Antarctic ice sheet loss has not contributed much to global sea level rise. The biggest contributions have come from rapidly melting Greenland and the thermal expansion of ocean water (not from trash or boats, lol). Does that mean there’s nothing to worry about? No! If only Greenland’s ice sheets melt that’s still 20 feet of sea level rise. Antarctica will add to that if it isn’t already. And that's a moot point anyway. We know sea level is rising and at an accelerating rate because we can measure that directly.

The last time Earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago and sea levels were also 20-30 feet higher. Even a 10 foot sea level rise over hundreds of years would be catastrophic. But that’s your grandkids’ problem, right?

Here’s a link to the reference article dated 2016. I don’t know if they used their own current data or referenced the older data you’re referring to but it seems like they are sticking to the conclusion that Antarctic ice is not shrinking. If you have access maybe take a look?

Geophysical constraints on the Antarctic sea ice cover - ScienceDirect

I think your last paragraph supports what we’re saying? It’s cyclical so instead of denying it and thinking we can stop it let’s find a way to deal with it?

 

[Roustabout]

You are confusing land ice and sea ice here, and your article is outdated. Antarctic sea ice has actually plummeted to record lows in recent years.

You were probably trying to reference Zwally et al. (2015) whose paper showed the east Antarctic ice sheet is growing and possibly even outweighing losses elsewhere. We discussed it in the original CC thread at the time. There are a few things to keep in mind.

• It is only one of several studies of glacial mass balance using different geophysical techniques. Whether or not the east Antarctic ice sheet is growing at all is still a point of debate amongst those who study it. Most studies point in the opposite direction. The margins of error are large. Interior east Antarctica is remote and difficult to study.
• Zwally et al. found that the rate of increase in east Antarctica’s ice sheet was constant. They also found that the rate of ice loss in west Antarctica is accelerating. Even by their calculations, ice loss in west Antarctica will outpace gains in east Antarctica within a few decades.

No, sea ice melting does not directly contribute to sea level rise significantly. But it does decrease Earth’s albedo and thereby increase global warming, among numerous adverse consequences. On the other hand, it opens new shipping lanes and new places to drill for oil!

Yes, to date, Antarctic ice sheet loss has not contributed much to global sea level rise. The biggest contributions have come from rapidly melting Greenland and the thermal expansion of ocean water (not from trash or boats, lol). Does that mean there’s nothing to worry about? No! If only Greenland’s ice sheets melt that’s still 20 feet of sea level rise. Antarctica will add to that if it isn’t already. And that's a moot point anyway. We know sea level is rising and at an accelerating rate because we can measure that directly.

The last time Earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago and sea levels were also 20-30 feet higher. Even a 10 foot sea level rise over hundreds of years would be catastrophic. But that’s your grandkids’ problem, right?

You mean Greenland where a WW2 era plane was buried under 300 feet of ice?
Sounds like we need some melt too me.

In just 67 years this plane was 300 buried from the original surface.

 

[Orangeburst]

[QUOTE="BartW, post: 16931218, member: 19912"

Professional anti-climatists, on the other hand, have no internally consistent body of logic.[/QUOTE]

Climate alarmists are consistent my ass....global cooling, global warming, now climate change. Always rebranding.

 

[BartW]

the issue as I see it with anthropogenic climate change is that the end result seems to change every 20 years or so. so I would argue that it is not internally consistent either. at least when looking at it over any length of time. The Anthropogenic CC ideas from the 70s have gone away, global cooling. even global warming has been tossed aside lately for just a generic term of "climate change".

you may be right on the cause, but you have yet to hit a consistent standard for what is going to happen. so its hard to take anyone seriously who is selling these messages when the doomsday clock keeps getting reset every decade. why should we believe you this time? Those last guys were idiots, but now you really actually have it figured out, just don't ask for the real math behind it all?

Ah, the zombie myth of global cooling. It’s been addressed at least a dozen times on this site alone. But it’s been a while, and you seem like a good-faith poster, so I will recap again.

Most often those presenting this myth will point to a Time or Newsweek article as evidence. About half of these magazine articles were taken completely out of context and don’t even discuss climate. Annoying and typical, but beside the point. The weight of scientific literature was not accurately reflected by this media. Yes, a small number of papers did in fact predict global cooling. Specifically, a review of the literature found that between 1965 and 1980, a total of 6 papers predicted cooling while 42 predicted warming.

It’s interesting to take a moment to discuss why anyone was predicting global cooling. If you look at the modern temperature record, I’m sure you’ll notice a slight cooling period that lasted from about 1945 to 1975. This was a result of the post WW2 boom in sulfate aerosol emissions, which were stabilized shortly following the Clean Air Act in 1970. Aerosols effectively reflect sunlight, causing cooling. With this in mind, it’s actually very impressive that a significant majority of climate scientists predicted that the warming from the greenhouse effect would overtake aerosol cooling, especially on the heels of three decades of global cooling.

I’m not even going to bother with the “They changed the name from global warming to climate change” nonsense… maybe next time

Despite what some would have you believe, the predictions and projections of climate scientists (read: not Al Gore) have been remarkably accurate and consistent over the years. Estimates of climate sensitivity have hovered right around 3C per doubling of %CO2 all throughout the IPCC reports, throughout Hansen’s testimonies in the 80s, in the rudimentary climate models of the 70s, and all the way back to Arrhenius’ (admittedly lucky) estimate in the late 1800s. Even Exxon’s own climate scientists predicted today’s temperature and CO2 concentrations to a high degree of accuracy, 30 years ago. I encourage you to look it up.

what is there to meaningfully debate?you either believe this batch of science or you don't. how the message is sold is also a huge sticking point in my mind.

The discussion over whether climate change is real and caused by humans is a fake debate. There are always minutiae to hash out but the big picture is clear. I know you folk don’t like to hear it, I’m sorry, but it really is an established scientific fact, and has been for decades. The discussion needs to be, what do we do about it?

 

[BartW]

at some point people have to realize that people are the heart and soul of any man made climate change. people are the bad guys.

even at a near zero rate of resource usage an increasing population is going to put an ever increasing demand on the environment. doesnt matter if you cover every building in solar panels, it still takes resources to support a population.

i had run the numbers previously. The cost to "fix" the world today was in the quadrillions. the global economy is somewhere around 50 trillion, pretty sure its less than that. and that was just basing the change needed on where America is at, not places like China or India who have already out paced us.

you want to really solve the global warming problem, cut your electricity, stop using anything modern what so ever, and hope Thanos shows up in a hurry. what it would actually take to "save" the planet is an absurd proposition that you don't hear anyone actually positing. because they would get shouted down. it doesn't take 100% agreement to have the talks on what to actually do, but they don't want to have that real of a conversation so they stick to redoing study after study instead of looking at solutions.

Look who’s the alarmist now…

Physical climate scientists aren’t tasked with finding the solution. That is in the realm of social science and political science. When climate scientists enter this realm they are quickly accused of “politicizing the science”. They have opinions, but it’s not their area of expertise.

Anyway, avoiding specifics, climate scientists have outlined the three solutions: rapidly reduce GHG emissions, suck GHGs out of the atmosphere (CCS), or geoengineer the climate. CCS is unproven and prohibitively expensive compared to switching to alternative energy, and intentionally geoengineering the climate is, in my opinion, madness. The sane solution is obviously to cut emissions. How to do that is the real debate. I, like many of you, think a key to accomplishing this is aggressively expanding nuclear energy.

 

[BartW]

Here’s a link to the reference article dated 2016. I don’t know if they used their own current data or referenced the older data you’re referring to but it seems like they are sticking to the conclusion that Antarctic ice is not shrinking. If you have access maybe take a look?

Geophysical constraints on the Antarctic sea ice cover - ScienceDirect

It’s still outdated. Try googling Antarctic sea ice 2019. It has dropped to record lows just in the past few years. Antarctic sea ice is a bit of an enigma. It’s a completely different problem than Antarctic land ice. They don’t correlate, at least not on the scales we’re discussing.

If you want to discuss Antarctic ice you’ll have to be clear whether you’re referring to land ice or sea ice. In your previous post it appeared you were jumping back and forth between the two (hence my bringing up the Zwally paper).

I think your last paragraph supports what we’re saying? It’s cyclical so instead of denying it and thinking we can stop it let’s find a way to deal with it?

“Climate has changed before, therefor man isn’t causing climate change” is a non sequitur. Yes global temperatures have changed before. That is well understood and not disputed. See Milankovitch Cycles.

Climate does not change on its own willy nilly. There is always a cause forcing it one way or the other. We’ve eliminated all the natural culprits – orbital mechanics, solar output, volcanism, etc. And we can directly observe the anthropogenic cause. It’s as easy as pointing a spectrometer at the sky. There are numerous lines of evidence implicating the greenhouse effect.

Yes, we have to find ways to deal with climate change. But adaptation and mitigation are not an either/or proposition. Not addressing the problem is like bailing water on a sinking ship. We must address the problem, and the longer we wait the greater the problem becomes.

 

[BartW]

You mean Greenland where a WW2 era plane was buried under 300 feet of ice?

Sounds like we need some melt too me.

In just 67 years this plane was 300 buried from the original surface.

Cool.

Yes, Greenland is losing ice at a rate of about 300 billion tons per year.

Are you going to be that special cookie that denies global warming is even occurring? Is it time again for this fake debate to return to square one?

 

[Wafflestomper]

Huh?
Your getting your hat handed to you by McDad.
No bed to bring Jesus into it.

I'm truly devastated by this given your previous demonstration of knowledge in the field.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It’s still outdated. Try googling Antarctic sea ice 2019. It has dropped to record lows just in the past few years. Antarctic sea ice is a bit of an enigma. It’s a completely different problem than Antarctic land ice. They don’t correlate, at least not on the scales we’re discussing.

If you want to discuss Antarctic ice you’ll have to be clear whether you’re referring to land ice or sea ice. In your previous post it appeared you were jumping back and forth between the two (hence my bringing up the Zwally paper).

I wasn’t differentiating Antarctic land ice from sea ice Im not that versed on the area. On Arctic Ice which is all sea ice my point which you’ve also basically agreed to I believe is floating ice melting isn’t going to move sea levels.

You also mentioned warming affecting the density of water. That is a valid point, however you’d have to move several degrees in order to see even a 0.1% change in density. While I’ll admit that even a fraction of a percent change in density can result in observable sea level changes the forcing function simply doesn’t appear that strong.

What is your field Bart?

Edit: I googled Antarctic Sea Ice 2019. From NOAA.gov. I’d say the biggest thing that jumps out is the variability about a fairly nominal level?

 

[Roustabout]

It’s still outdated. Try googling Antarctic sea ice 2019. It has dropped to record lows just in the past few years. Antarctic sea ice is a bit of an enigma. It’s a completely different problem than Antarctic land ice. They don’t correlate, at least not on the scales we’re discussing.

If you want to discuss Antarctic ice you’ll have to be clear whether you’re referring to land ice or sea ice. In your previous post it appeared you were jumping back and forth between the two (hence my bringing up the Zwally paper).


“Climate has changed before, therefor man isn’t causing climate change” is a non sequitur. Yes global temperatures have changed before. That is well understood and not disputed. See Milankovitch Cycles.

Climate does not change on its own willy nilly. There is always a cause forcing it one way or the other. We’ve eliminated all the natural culprits – orbital mechanics, solar output, volcanism, etc. And we can directly observe the anthropogenic cause. It’s as easy as pointing a spectrometer at the sky. There are numerous lines of evidence implicating the greenhouse effect.

Yes, we have to find ways to deal with climate change. But adaptation and mitigation are not an either/or proposition. Not addressing the problem is like bailing water on a sinking ship. We must address the problem, and the longer we wait the greater the problem becomes.

It’s not well understood. It’s well accepted as fact. How and why they changed is not well understood at all.

 

[Roustabout]

Cool.

Yes, Greenland is losing ice at a rate of about 300 billion tons per year.

Are you going to be that special cookie that denies global warming is even occurring? Is it time again for this fake debate to return to square one?

Is that how you discuss, by calling people special cookies? It really makes your position stronger.
The plane being buried is a fact. He’ll, I knew the guy that dug it out.
Ice is being gained and lost all the time. Even at the same time.

 

[82_VOL_83]

This thread took an interesting turn. Sea level rise isn’t because of climate change, it’s from all the plastic we dump in the ocean! No wait, it’s because of the boats! That’s a good one; I’ve never heard that angle before. Points for creativity!

Yes it’s swell to see Volnation have this concern for our oceans all of the sudden. I wonder, though, do any of you actually support ways to fix the problems? Will it cost money? Will it require international cooperation? Or do you just want to sit around and complain about poor environmental standards in developing countries while complacently doing nothing?

If you are concerned about the state of the oceans, what are your thoughts on ocean acidification and oxygen depletion? These are direct effects of fossil fuel combustion. This is indisputable even by anti-climatist standards (I like that verbiage, too ).

Coral reefs are home to 25% of the world’s marine biodiversity. Does it bother you that half of the world’s coral reefs have died in the past 50 years, and the other half will likely be gone within decades? Do you know that some of Earth’s largest extinction events, including the greatest end-permian event in which over 90% of marine species disappeared, was the result of geologically rapid CO2 release via volcanism causing high rates of climate change and ocean acidification? Does it bother you at all that such geologically rapid outgassing is very comparable to present anthropogenic rates?

On related notes, how do you feel about the Trump administration relaxing regulations against overfishing and even subsidizing the commercial fishing industry? How about the expansion of offshore drilling? The removal of marine protected areas? Do you really care about the health of our oceans, or do you only care insofar that you think its convenient to your anti-climatist diatribe?

No, that wasn't the reason but keep going on your CO2 kick.

 

[82_VOL_83]

No I agree with you. I totally get what you’re saying. They then shift the argument to the density difference between salt water and fresh water. What I’m fumbling on is saying even if they are right (and I don’t think they are) there is only 2.5% of the total water that is fresh water. Salt water has a density of 1.025 kg/L vs 1.0 for fresh water or another 2.5% difference. So if all the fresh water in the world migrated into the ocean the difference would be 0.025^2 or 0.0625%. And that is spread out over a massive surface area since the earth is 3/4 covered in water. So even if they can make a point on that and I don’t think they can, it’s noise. This is all incredibly lousy science.

Again talk to me on habitat preservation and I’ll get on board. Keep screeching on rising sea levels and I tune out.

Oh yeah, I was just adding to your conversation and ending mine. Our resident meteoroclimatiatrist, Black Sky BartW, just can't seem to admit that Archimedes is right and his beloved climatist that his party has on payroll are wrong on sea ice and water levels. I love his judicious use of the word "much". Where is Samuel L. when you need him.

 

[0nelilreb]

View attachment 212750
Good for you poindexter

...after reading this thread for two days I can say there’s more than one poindexter in here . Lol

 

[NorthDallas40]

Oh yeah, I was just adding to your conversation and ending mine. Our resident meteoroclimatiatrist, Black Sky BartW, just can't seem to admit that Archimedes is right and his beloved climatist that his party has on payroll are wrong on sea ice and water levels. I love his judicious use of the word "much". Where is Samuel L. when you need him.

So he’s an actual meteorologist or a climatologist? Or just espouses that agenda on here?

 

[MontyPython]

...after reading this thread for two days I can say there’s more than one poindexter in here . Lol

Seriously. Not much actual thought process here. Bunch of hillbilly banter.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Seriously. Not much actual thought process here. Bunch of hillbilly banter.

Yeah if I remember right wasn’t Archimedes from up around Scott Co?

 

[LouderVol]

Look who’s the alarmist now…

Physical climate scientists aren’t tasked with finding the solution. That is in the realm of social science and political science. When climate scientists enter this realm they are quickly accused of “politicizing the science”. They have opinions, but it’s not their area of expertise.

Anyway, avoiding specifics, climate scientists have outlined the three solutions: rapidly reduce GHG emissions, suck GHGs out of the atmosphere (CCS), or geoengineer the climate. CCS is unproven and prohibitively expensive compared to switching to alternative energy, and intentionally geoengineering the climate is, in my opinion, madness. The sane solution is obviously to cut emissions. How to do that is the real debate. I, like many of you, think a key to accomplishing this is aggressively expanding nuclear energy.

Cutting emissions only works to a point. Burning fuels is only part of CO2 creation. The biggest part. But only a part. As we continue to grow as a species those other sources are going to grow too.