Global warming

rgambs

Godfather. said:

Smellyman said:

Godfather. said:

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

people also talk about the vast size of the universe and with all that space there must be someone else out there...I don't believe climate change is man driven either, not to say we haven't made a mess for sure but as far changing our climate I doubt it.

Godfather.

Bacteria changed our climate. Forests changed our climate.
Why not humans?
What makes you doubt it? A guy feeling? A guess?

Science is a little more reliable.

without doubt an uneducated opinion I admit, I just look at climate patters starting before the industrial age and see nothing that has not happened naturally, storms, hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding it was just as severe back then as it is now but air pollution is nasty side effect of man's progress thru the years but I just don't think it has been nasty enough to change the climate...remember that's just my opinion.

Godfather.

Who needs stupid Book Learnin? I just open my window. It's nice out today.

is there a book that gives 100% proof positive information that pollution has caused El Niño and other natural disasters ? as far as I know it's all theory created by some politician and his followers(for the money)....what's his name....Gore right ?

Godfather.

Wow, this is the apotheosis of that silly picture!

PJ_Soul

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/11/03/new-study-finds-antarctic-ice-growing-countering-earlier-studies.html?intcmp=hpbt3

new studies from Nasa

Godfather.

Straight from this article you posted - Not such good news, actually:

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

The study has caused quite a stir in the community of scientists who work in Antarctica, with some questioning the reliability of the satellite data and saying it does little to change the narrative that the continent is losing mass.

Others said it demonstrates the challenges of trying to assess the state of ice sheets on such a huge land mass, where time scales and environmental factors often differ marketedly.

A seperate study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters this week found snow accumulation has dramatically increased on West Antarctica’s coastal ice sheet in the 20th century. But one of the study's authors, Elizabeth Thomas, a paleoclimatologist with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, said many of the same factors leading to increased snowfall also have been found to be responsible for the thinning of the ice shelves.

"In fact, having more snowfall doesn't necessarily balance the thinning. They are both a symptom of the same thing," she told Fox News. "They are connected. Rather than me saying there has been an increase in snow fall and that is a good thing if you like, it's actually probably a symptom of the same thing. More snowfall probably means more thinning from the wind driven processes."

Earlier this year, a study in Nature Climate Change found that global sea levels were rising faster than previously thought. Researchers used satellite data combined with tidal gauge information and GPS measurements to overturn previous suggestions that rates had slowed in the past decade.

Another study by Harvard University's Carling Hay and his colleagues in Nature examined rates of sea level rise before 1990 and found they had been overestimated by about 30 percent. That means the acceleration in sea-level rise in the past two decades is greater than previously thought.

Most researchers blamed the rising seas on melting ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica and shrinking glaciers, triggered by the rise in heat-trapping, greenhouse gas emissions.

But even if Antarctica isn’t part of the mix now, that could change in the future.

“If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years - I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses,” said Zwally.

polaris_x

love how these people who still don't get global warming don't actually read the articles they post ... sad ...

dignin

This is big news

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Alberta's climate change strategy revealed

brianlux

dignin said:

This is big news

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Alberta's climate change strategy revealed

Great news! Good for Alberta!

dignin

brianlux said:

dignin said:

This is big news

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Alberta's climate change strategy revealed

Great news! Good for Alberta!

I'm so happy were finally pulling our heads out of our asses.

brianlux

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

This is big news

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Alberta's climate change strategy revealed

Great news! Good for Alberta!

I'm so happy were finally pulling out heads out of our asses.

Good show! I hope as other provinces, states, countries, counties or even simply as individuals we will see more following suit and helping alleviate anthropogenic global warming!

brianlux

No big surprises here but maybe worth a quick read:

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-climate-science-most-gop-candidates-080125499--election.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) — When it comes to climate science, two of the three Democratic presidential candidates are 'A' students, while most of the Republican contenders are flunking, according to a panel of scientists who reviewed candidates' comments.

At the request of The Associated Press, eight climate and biological scientists graded for scientific accuracy what a dozen top candidates said in debates, interviews and tweets, using a 0 to 100 scale.

To try to eliminate possible bias, the candidates' comments were stripped of names and given randomly generated numbers, so the professors would not know who made each statement they were grading. Also, the scientists who did the grading were chosen by professional scientific societies."

More at link.

brianlux

And to add to the above, there's this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/23/climate-change-republican-party-trump-inhofe

Following The Guardian's environment page or the BBC's, or any other reputable foreign news source, I often get the sense that the rest of the world is leading the way to do something about the global predicament that is global warming. I sometimes wonder, will the U.S. let itself be left behind in the dust? If Republican leaders have anything to do with it, I would sadly guess that will be the case.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

This is big news

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Alberta's climate change strategy revealed

Great news! Good for Alberta!

I'm so happy were finally pulling out heads out of our asses.

Good show! I hope as other provinces, states, countries, counties or even simply as individuals we will see more following suit and helping alleviate anthropogenic global warming!

"One of the few dissenting voices came from the opposition Wildrose Party.

Leader Brian Jean said Albertans face job losses and economic uncertainty."

Shocking!

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

This is big news

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Alberta's climate change strategy revealed

Great news! Good for Alberta!

I'm so happy were finally pulling out heads out of our asses.

Good show! I hope as other provinces, states, countries, counties or even simply as individuals we will see more following suit and helping alleviate anthropogenic global warming!

"One of the few dissenting voices came from the opposition Wildrose Party.

Leader Brian Jean said Albertans face job losses and economic uncertainty."

Shocking!

My understanding is that the Wildrose Party is in Alberta only. Interesting that a political party confines itself to one Province. What's their story?

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

This is big news

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Alberta's climate change strategy revealed

Great news! Good for Alberta!

I'm so happy were finally pulling out heads out of our asses.

Good show! I hope as other provinces, states, countries, counties or even simply as individuals we will see more following suit and helping alleviate anthropogenic global warming!

"One of the few dissenting voices came from the opposition Wildrose Party.

Leader Brian Jean said Albertans face job losses and economic uncertainty."

Shocking!

My understanding is that the Wildrose Party is in Alberta only. Interesting that a political party confines itself to one Province. What's their story?

From what I can tell, it's just some economically conservative party that puts oil/money first while pretending to care about people... so not much different from any other party when it comes to pretending to care about people.... but it does seem to attract some wackos, even though the party itself isn't loony, as they go (i.e. not comparable to the Tea Party or anything like that). That's my basic impression. Since I don't live in Alberta, I'm not that well-informed about them. IMO, they are only in Alberta because that's the only province that is right-leaning enough for there to be room for two right wing parties.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

This is big news

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Alberta's climate change strategy revealed

Great news! Good for Alberta!

I'm so happy were finally pulling out heads out of our asses.

Good show! I hope as other provinces, states, countries, counties or even simply as individuals we will see more following suit and helping alleviate anthropogenic global warming!

"One of the few dissenting voices came from the opposition Wildrose Party.

Leader Brian Jean said Albertans face job losses and economic uncertainty."

Shocking!

My understanding is that the Wildrose Party is in Alberta only. Interesting that a political party confines itself to one Province. What's their story?

From what I can tell, it's just some economically conservative party that puts oil/money first while pretending to care about people... so not much different from any other party when it comes to pretending to care about people.... but it does seem to attract some wackos, even though the party itself isn't loony, as they go (i.e. not comparable to the Tea Party or anything like that). That's my basic impression. Since I don't live in Alberta, I'm not that well-informed about them. IMO, they are only in Alberta because that's the only province that is right-leaning enough for there to be room for two right wing parties.

Sounds like some kind of fringe group. Thanks for the info.

brianlux

Interesting article here that talks about the so called "hiatus" or "pause" in global warming:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18914

tempo_n_groove

Tomorrow, Wednesday the Discovery channel has a show special called "racing extinction" on at 9pm.

I encourage all of you to check it out.

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

Tomorrow, Wednesday the Discovery channel has a show special called "racing extinction" on at 9pm.

I encourage all of you to check it out.

Will have to YouTube it later. Thanks for the heads up!

polaris_x

% are a funny thing ...

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/4/we_do_not_want_to_be

AMY GOODMAN: We are broadcasting from the 21st COP, Conference of Parties, United Nations Climate Summit here in Paris, France. The first week of talks is wrapping up. Nearly 150 world leaders gathered here earlier this week. On Monday, President Obama praised world leaders for submitting voluntary pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: Already, prior to Paris, more than 180 countries representing nearly 95 percent of global emissions have put forward their own climate targets, that is progress. For our part, America is on track to reach the emissions targets that I set six years ago in Copenhagen. We will reduce our carbon emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and that’s why last year, I set a new target. America will reduce our emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels within 10 years from now. So our task here in Paris is to turn these achievements into an enduring framework for human progress. Not a stopgap solution, but a long-term strategy that gives the world confidence in the low carbon future.

AMY GOODMAN: While more than 180 nations have pledged to voluntarily reduce emissions, many scientists say far more needs to be done to keep global warming in check. We’re joined now by two guests, Paul Oquist is Nicaragua’s Chief Climate Negotiator. Nicaragua is one of 11 countries not to submit a pledge to cut emissions. Also with us is Meena Raman, climate change coordinator for the Third World Network. She’s also the Honorary Secretary of Friends of the Earth Malaysia. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! So, Mr. Paul Oquist, what is happening here? Why is Nicaragua not participating? Why didn’t you submit voluntary standards for your country?

PAUL OQUIST: Because the concept of universal responsibility and voluntary commitments doesn’t work. Universal responsibility is a spin, it’s a spin on historical responsibility, and common but differentiated responsibilities. The first proof that INDC doesn’t work —

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, wait, wait. Just one sec. These terms are terms 99 percent of the world won’t understand won’t understand.

PAUL OQUIST: OK. These voluntary commitments don’t work —

AMY GOODMAN: Even common differentiated is a term that is not commonly used.

PAUL OQUIST: OK. But, the — we’ll say that the voluntary commitments that the universal responsibility — everyone is responsible, is a spin on historical responsibility, because, everyone did not create this problem. Nicaragua has 4.8 million tons of emissions a year. And that’s 0.03% of emissions. Do we feel responsible for having caused climate change? No, not at all. Have we done something about it? Yes, we have gone from 25 percent renewable to 52 percent renewable since 2007, and in 2020 we’ll be 90 percent renewable.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain, for a moment, when you say you’ve gone — you’re going to 90 percent, what are you changing? What is happening in Nicaragua?

PAUL OQUIST: We have a contract with a Brazilian consortium for 323 megawatts of hydroelectric that will take us to —- some smaller projects also. But we went from 25 to 52 percent with geothermal power from the volcanoes, wind power, and now sun power because the solar panels are kicking in, too. Last year, we had a saving of 2.1 million tons of CO2 because of our shift to renewable energy. And our actual emissions were 4.8, so it’s quite significant. Plus we have committed to 11 million tons in our forestry sector that we will cut in the next five years. So that is over two years of emissions. And the grand inter-oceanic canal that we’re building represents 32.5 million tons per year of saving for the maritime commerce. So really, Nicaragua’s house is in order terms of mitigation, but we are on planet Earth and we have to keep this genie in the bottle. We have to achieve the objective of 1.5 degrees increase in this century or at worst, the two degrees. And what does this process in Paris lead to? Three degrees. And three degrees, in our country -—

AMY GOODMAN: Your talking about Celsius.

PAUL OQUIST: Celsius, exactly. Three degrees Celsius. And three degrees Celsius is not acceptable. Three degrees Celsius is a disaster. It’s catastrophic. So we think that we have to get out of this spin and back to where the problem can be solved. Ten countries, Amy, have 72 percent of the emissions. 10 countries.

AMY GOODMAN: In the world.

PAUL OQUIST: In the world. Twenty countries have 78 percent. So can see it’s only 72 to to 78 percent, adding 10 more on. But, they have, also, 76 percent of the world’s gross income. A hundred countries have three percent —

AMY GOODMAN: So, wait, you’re saying that they have that much of the world’s gross income so they can afford —

PAUL OQUIST: They can afford it and they are the ones who have the CO2 that can be cut. So 100 countries, the 100 lowest countries have 3 percent of the CO2 emissions. The 20 largest have 78 percent of the CO2 emissions. Are we going to try to cut out of the 100 countries with 3 percent or out of the 20 countries with 78 percent, or even maybe just the 10 countries with 72%?

AMY GOODMAN: So, clearly, one of the countries you’re talking about is the United States. What do you think the United States should do, the historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gas?

PAUL OQUIST: Well, China has over 10,000 million tons. The U.S. has over 6,000 million tons. Europe has over 4,000 million tons. The three of them are half. They’re half. So, they need to increase their level of ambition if we’re going to solve this problem. There is no solution without them increasing their level of ambition. And right now we think —

AMY GOODMAN: And what is that — when you say level of ambition, ambition’s a big term. But, what do you want them to do?

PAUL OQUIST: They cut their CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions more to reforest and get more sinks through forestry and bamboo and other ways of the CO2 the sinks. And then fuel efficiency is another thing that can be done. But their contributions, their commitments are not enough to limit to two degrees right now we’re looking at a three degree world, and that is catastrophic and unacceptable. I would just like to point out that last week, Mr. Michel Jarraud, the Executive Director of the World Meteorological Organization stated that we have reached one degree above the preindustrial level. We have 400 parts per million of greenhouse gases. And at one degree, what do we have? We have all of the ice in the world melting, the Arctic, the Antarctic, Greenland, mountain glaciers. We have drought, four year droughts in Southern California — Southern United States and Southern Iberia, Southern Africa, Southern Australia. You can see a pattern there, the southern edges. We have the strongest Niño in years, one of the fourth strongest since 1950, which is bringing drought to some areas and floods to others, and they also tell us that this is the hottest year ever, 250. This is with one degree. So are we going to play roulette with the world’s future and let three degrees slip out of this Paris congress?

AMY GOODMAN: Just to be clear, three degrees Celsius is about 5.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

PAUL OQUIST: That’s right.

brianlux

The old news is that carbon reduction targets are still far too low. I almost want to laugh when I see how pathetic these efforts are. It's really hard for me to read these reports and have much hope that we will make the right choices.

Please, somebody, prove me wrong!

kce8

brianlux said:

The old news is that carbon reduction targets are still far too low. I almost want to laugh when I see how pathetic these efforts are. It's really hard for me to read these reports and have much hope that we will make the right choices.

Please, somebody, prove me wrong!

Damn... sorry Brian, you just always say what I think....
so sad...

brianlux

kce8 said:

brianlux said:

The old news is that carbon reduction targets are still far too low. I almost want to laugh when I see how pathetic these efforts are. It's really hard for me to read these reports and have much hope that we will make the right choices.

Please, somebody, prove me wrong!

Damn... sorry Brian, you just always say what I think....
so sad...

Believe me, KCE, I so often wish I had more positive things to say. It's really helpful to remember that Vaclav Havelian definition of hope- that hope is not the conviction that things will turn out well but rather, hope is the conviction to do what makes sense no matter how things turn out. I think that helps nullify some of the futility and maybe even gives us, those who come after us, and all other life a chance to be well.