Warming is Heating Up!

Titanic moment?

In another 50-100 years there won't be any glaciers left to calve icebergs. Does it matter what the cause?

He may join the ranks of Harold Camping, in a different sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterworld

Really, one 87 year old guy, out of 51,000 physicists?? With nothing more than an unfounded opinion?? I can find more evidence for perpetual motion devices....lol

In your case I believe your claim

Kram posted a link on my FB http://yournewswire.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/

enjoy

Kram posts a lot of links. Nearly all are biased and slanted to his perspective, which is suspect, at best.

As I have told him many times, we can play dueling links all night long. It only proves that we are prejudiced and biased.

I finally got tired of playing with him, because as I have said before, never argue with a fool, bystanders may not be able to tell the difference.

Not sure why you call it recent, since Hal Lewis resigned more than five years ago, and it makes me wonder why yournewswire.com decided to finally get around to publishing it this week. And he has been dead for over four years.

And he was not exactly a climate physicist. He worked in the nuclear and defense industries, not climate, but I respect him for resigning in protest of the flood of money that influences physicists, not only regarding global warming. I just think he was wrong about global warming.

I respect your position. I just think carbon id not nearlt the player its made out to be. every tree I ever asked loves the stuff!

Thanks.

Every tree I ever asked loves water too. But that doesn't mean that trees love to be washed away by a flood, or want ice piled up on them a mile thick. All things in moderation, as the man says, just don't ask me which man.

I don't mind if humanity experiments with the Earth by pouring trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, but I insist they make a backup of the Earth first. Anybody who uses a computer knows that. (Even the people who don't make backups).

I'm quite engrossed on the topic. I see why some think Florida will be underwater soon. I get the whole "But what if it's true??????????? in recent years your pals at NASA have launched several Sat's to get more highly accurate data, I wont explain further but will say with high quality data you can build a better model than some of the garbage that fanned the flames of fear and ignorance (Al Gore) in years past. I'm a man of science give me factual data that doesn't have a predisposed agenda

I'm 100% in favor of better data without agendas, and I would be extremely relieved if it turns out not to be a danger.

At the same time I think that we have enough good reasons to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to go ahead and cut back in a big way, and global warming is likely enough to be high on the priority list.

The people I trust much less than the global warming scientists are the ones who say that we will destroy the economy by using energy that is not carbon intensive. I need some data, even a little bit of data, to support that.

Better data won't change the fact that the earth heats and cools when it does.

The only data that is relevant to this discussion about CO2 and humanity is only 100 years old.

Someone will know, long after we move on to our just rewards and contribute to the carbon deposits.

how about Obama this year saying there is an "urgent need" to build a billion dollar Icebreaker for a sea that AL gore Gore claimed would be free of ice by 2015?tell me of any prediction made by a climate model or alarmist that's materialized. we have temp Sat's circling that have been there since the late 1970s that just keep pumping out quality data that opposes the models predictions. Methane is 23 times more effective at trapping the heat you fear. not my opinion its accepted science. why is Carbon the target when Methane is so much More damaging? after you consider it you'll see why taxing carbon is a liberal cause

I think you and I can agree that what Al Gore says is not evidence of anything. Neither is the Wall Street Journal, and neither is skepticalscience.org. With luck, they point you to the places they got their evidence.

We need an icebreaker because the Arctic Ocean still has ice, especially during the winter. Global Warming just made it possible to have ship traffic through the Arctic, making it necessary to have an icebreaker. At the moment I think we are depending on Russia's icebreakers. Kind of a national security issue, don't you think?

I don't want to get into all the details of the predictions that have come true, but you are absolutely right about methane. It is potent, and last I heard, the warming Arctic Ocean is starting to melt the methane deposits on the sea floor. That's not good news, as I assume you agree.

Yes, our planet has a strong relationship with carbon. So do I. I love carbon. I couldn't live without it.

I can't tell if it has been vilified to scare people. I've been told by one climate scientist that many climate scientists are a lot more scared for the future than they let on in their publications. If they think it is truly a danger, is it justified to be scared, and to try to communicate the danger and their fear?

On the other side, you are scared of taxes. Is it justified for you to say that the danger of global warming is low because you are more scared of taxes?

This must be of interest for you:

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/

Point 3 is BS.

'Human produced' carbon dioxide is alleged to be about 4% of total CO2'

Pre anthro CO2 ~ 280 ppm.

Now over 400 - 1.42857142857143 times orig - ~ 43% higher.

So you think nature by itself can not produce more CO2 under any circumstances? It must be from humans? All the 120 ppm?

Go here for an extended scientific discussion of the source of that CO2:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Thanks for posting that. I would never have guessed that someone could be so wrong abut even the simplest facts.

Any point in particular that is wrong?

Last I checked.....last year, or earlier this year......Ice breakers were needed to rescue a ship with passengers stuck in ice. At the SOUTH POLE. Antarctica. The ice pack there has been growing by leaps and bounds!! At least enough to offset the "perceived" shrinkage at the north end of the planet, the Arctic. I'm with Fredski on this one.

I spent 2 years with the good folks at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Research Facility in Bermuda. One of the items they have been measuring for at least 30 years there in the Atlantic Ocean and Atlantic atmosphere.......CO2. What were the findings after 30 years (this was in 1990.....When the US was BLASTING CO2 into the air like crazy...)?? NO RECORDABLE INCREASE IN CO2 in either the ocean water or IN THE ATMOSPHERE!! So, now we are to hear that CO2 was rising like crazy during the 90's, when uncle Al was the VP? Must be his fault....everything was fine before he became VP.

As of 2003, the results at the Facility were the same. Then, computer algorithms were changed, according to one of my good friends there. Guess what? Now they are reading average temp rises and rises in CO2 averages. Hmmmm. And yes, if you are a researcher who wants to be a whistle blower....better think again. Unless, of course, you have just won the lottery.

.....and why is it that CO2 is now just called carbon?

We don't call water hydrogen now do we?

Carbon dioxide emissions are now called carbon emissions. This vernacular contraction stinks of propaganda. Is there some science in this contraction that I've missed?

Thats all part of the brain wash!

Its all under the Carbon Cycle. See here.

Chemically it is correct that it requires only the specification of the mass of one element to be able to describe the oxide of the same.

....then, quit calling water, water! Call it hydrogen from now on! Therefor, we can make fuel cells from water, burn water in our cars, burn water for home heat.....because it's really HYDROGEN, right??

And, we can remove CO2 from stack gases, and burn it....because it's CARBON, right?? Carbon burns, right? Great fuel source, right?

(right...)

Oddly, from what you are saying, that in a lab environment....it is correct to be ambiguous about what you are referring to.

have you ever heard of a co2 tax? most people refer to the issue as carbon but if you insist on being anal go right ahead

Human's have a long 'proven' history to adapt and overcome. We may or may not be affecting the global climate. If we are going to spend trillions of dollars on something, we should focus on using our strength. (Wearing coats, using umbrellas, using sunscreen, moving way when water comes)

I love the picture of the polar bear having an Excedrin moment.

The idea that man can be causing global warming right now does not imply that the earth cannot warm and cool on its own, so asking why the last glacial period ended and the ice melted is not really relevant. Nevertheless, here is some recent research that may shed light on the subject:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

From what you say about pollution and smoke, it sounds like you are not aware of how the greenhouse effect actually works. Please ignore the following if you already understand this.

The cause of global warming is not pollution and smoke. They might actually cool the climate. Smoke and other kinds of smog are incompletely combusted, resulting in visible clouds that may actually reflect sunlight and prevent it from warming the planet. It is the carbon dioxide that results from the complete combustion of carbon that causes the greenhouse effect. CO2, unlike smoke and pollution, is quite transparent to visible wavelengths of sunlight, allowing it to hit the ground and part of it is absorbed, which converts it to heat. That heat is radiated by the ground upward as infrared radiation, but those wavelengths are absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere in the lower part of the atmosphere.

This process is exactly what happens in a glass greenhouse (or a car), hence the name. Visible light enters through the glass, is absorbed by the plants and inner surfaces of the greenhouse, and is re-emitted as infrared radiation. The glass absorbs the wavelengths of infrared radiation being emitted by the warmed inner surfaces, preventing it from escaping, and the heat accumulates inside.

Last I heard the greenhouse effect in a glass house is lack of air circulation.

Your knowledge is thwarted by the brain wash that went on and on and on.

Solar Collection

The main task of a greenhouse is to collect solar energy. The greenhouse captures light through its walls and converts it to heat. The effect is similar to that of a vehicle with the windows up. It takes only a few minutes for light coming in a window to warm up the vehicle to a temperature significantly higher than the outside temperature. Greenhouses work the same way. The darker material within the greenhouse helps to store heat, keeping the surrounding air warmer.

The greenhouse is a closed-in environment, which means there are no breezes to push the heat away. The structure is often made of glass, or glass-like material that helps to attract the sun's rays. Without a breeze, the air within the greenhouse heats up quickly and remains warm. This creates the ideal area for plants to grow.

and then there is this and this and this and many more if you was just looking and thinking for yourself.

Your description is fairly good, but incomplete. Lack of air circulation is necessary of course. The absorption of the infrared radiation by the glass intensifies the accumulation of the heat. If you build a greenhouse using plastic that does not absorb the infrared radiation you get much less temperature rise.

By the way, I hope you realize that glass does not "attract the sun's rays." It lets them through, but it doesn't pull them to itself like a magnet. Right?

I hope you investigate those links yourself. They are pure propaganda as you can tell for yourself if you "drill down" to the original research they were based on. In the first one, the idea that CO2 cools the atmosphere is a distortion of the original research that shows that CO2 in the TOP of the atmosphere absorbs incoming IR, and then re-emits it so that much of it returns to space. The IR emitted from the ground as a result of heating by the incoming visible light is not affected by that.

Here is a discussion of the paper in the second one:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm

The greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere is based almost entirely on the basic chemistry fact that CO2 absorbs the infrared radiation emitted from the ground. If you want to deny that CO2 absorbs IR, then you should probably discuss it with the physicists in the Chemical and Material Science section. I'm not interested.

Clean air with increased CO2 in it causes increased warming. Very good. So you can stop worrying about the pollution causing global warming and resume worrying about it causing emphysema, cancer, mercury poisoning, etc.

You got it in one.

And you have a problem with your logic!

Canary, I hope one day neither of us is blinded by its own self conviction.

The Glass house effect is different from what you describe as Green house effect.

http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/glass-houses.html

http://www.hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/

Your claim that it is the absorption of infrared is debunked.

Its all about Convection:

The warmth in a greenhouse is due to the heating of trapped air by the sun. Outside greenhouses, heat enters the atmosphere by convection. Conduction plays a role only at the surface, where air in contact with the ground gains heat by conduction, thus initiating convection.

Let me ask you a question: Does the glass absorb infrared on the way in or only on the way out? Why has salt the same effect on temperature yet it is so different in its behaviour towards radiation.

All I am saying here is that the Glass House effect and the Green house claim are two different pair of shoes.

Did you happen to notice that in the first link, the author got an increase in temperature by using a rock salt ceiling, but he did not actually compare that to what happens using a glass ceiling. Not very scientific, right?

And Btw

from your own source:

The term "greenhouse"

The term "greenhouse" was coined for this atmospheric effect in the nineteenth century. A glass greenhouse and an atmospheric greenhouse both involve a physical barrier that blocks the flow of heat, leading to a warmer temperature below the barrier. The underlying physics is different, however. A glass greenhouse works primarily by blocking convection, and an atmospheric greenhouse works primarily by blocking thermal radiation, and so the comparison is not exact. This difference is well understood and explained in most introductions to the subject. Where confusion arises, it is usually the glasshouse that is improperly described, rather than the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory-intermediate.htm

I agree. The comparison is not exact. It has the same effect though.

This is where we are still looking for the answer. Same as in qualitative or quantitative?

See I want to be a pain, but there is still the big unknown. We are getting hammered with numbers but here we only have a qualitative statement.

A glass house can warm considerably. Show me this with your greenhouse and then we can talk.

The glass obviously absorbs IR in both directions, but the amount if IR leaving is much higher because all the visible radiation is converted to IR.

It is not clear that the salt has the same effect on temperature because as I said the author did not actually compare them.

Regarding the Hashemi/Kevan, I don't know what exactly you were referring to there. Why do you believe his analysis? Why does one person's opinion of the vast amount of research about climate science carry more weight than thousands of climate scientists?

Sorry can not find a link for the comparison of glass and salt. You might want to back up your claim that plastic and glass are different from your earlier post. Or do you want this just standing there as what it is right now a claim!

I believe in not just one post. I look at so many sources and this is just one of them.

The vast amount of research is done under the premises that there is a warming.

If you happen to have read the IPCC reports you will find that the work starts with that there is a warming and if there is a warming this and this and this will happen.

I did not even see a good explanation of the underlying statistical methodology. Something like they removed heat island effects and so on.

Thousands of climate scientists that rely on their funding as of today will say anything. And yet there is those that speak science. Why please why would there be scienists writing a paper like this?

Why?

Companies that sell greenhouse plastic compete with each other regarding how much IR transmission is permitted by their products. Such as this one:

https://www.gothicarchgreenhouses.com/Solar-Ice-Cooling-Greenhouse-Poly-Film.htm

Sure there are a lot of posts out there, but there is not much actual research showing that global warming is not happening. Mostly they just repeat the same research papers that have been disproved already, like the one you mention.

Also regarding that paper, here is a long discussion about that paper:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=1481&&a=164

Just a side note. All your links go back to just one source which is sceptical science.

I am just a bit sceptical about this one.

The rebuttal smacks like a badly made cake.

The second law prevents the back radiation to heat something that is hotter than the radiation source. Pointing radiation back to a hot surface will gain nothing. What we seems to be missing is the time component. The "green house effect" is only effective in the night. And as we all know clouds as in water as in vapour have this effect making mild nights. This effect is so strong that a few ppm of irregular distributed CO2 have no meaning in the effect.

I am wasting my time. You read what you believe. If you think we have nothing better to worry about, worry about CO2. The next winter is coming and after it a summer.

"The second law prevents the back radiation to heat something that is hotter than the radiation source."

Yes

"Pointing radiation back to a hot surface will gain nothing."

No

These are not the same statement. Pointing radiation back to a hot surface will reduce the heat loss of the hot surface, when compared to e.g allowing it to radiate into 'empty' space.

Now that we are that far tell me what the temperature of the atmosphere is from where it back radiates! Compare this to the temperature of the soil.

And then tell me what the impact is to the air temperature close to the soil and if the impact is highest:

1. from radiation

2. from convection

3. from conduction

Skepticalscience.org is the only place I have found where all these technical questions are discussed at length. This topic about greenhouse effect alone has 1481 posts on it, and it is moderated, which means that all those posts stick to the science and are not allowed to go off into rants about Obama or Al Gore. The people who post comments critical of global warming are taken seriously and answered at length.

I am not inclined to repeat that kind of discussion on CR4 without moderation, even if I had the time.

I'll let others point out your fallacy about the second law. I'll just talk about "a few ppm of irregular distributed CO2". It is not the ppm of CO2 that matters. It is the absolute amount. Suppose you had a long tube filled with pure CO2, and shone some IR down its length, the IR would be absorbed by the CO2. Assume that there is enough CO2 to absorb 90% of it. Then you added an equal amount of nitrogen gas to the tube so that the percentage of CO2 is 50%. Does it absorb less IR? No. Then keep adding more N2 until it is far higher than the CO2, like 1000 times as much. Does the CO2 absorb less IR? No. But its ppm has dropped from 1,000,000 ppm to 1000 ppm. You have to look at the actual amount, not the ppm. Ppm is determined by not only the amount of CO2 but also the amount of all the other gases that don't affect the absorption of the IR.

I don't know what you mean by "irregularly distributed" CO2. Are you saying there are places in the atmosphere where the concentration of CO2 is noticeably different. Or are you saying that there are so few molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere that when you look up they have lots of gaps between them?

It would be an interesting exercise to calculate what would happen if you condensed the CO2 in the atmosphere to a thin layer of liquid CO2. How thick would it be? My back of the envelope calculation is that it would be about 1.7 inches thick. Far more than is needed to absorb all the IR emitted from the ground. In fact one of the points that some skeptics of global warming try to make is that there is so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more doesn't increase the absorption of the IR. That's like saying that if one blanket keeps you warm at night, then two don't keep you even warmer, and three don't make you still warmer.

The greenhouse effect is always effective, not just at night. Just getting into a car on a hot day can prove that. But it is true that one primary effect of the greenhouse effect is to slow down the emission of IR into space when the sun goes down. It is slowing it down all the time, not just at night.

I agree, you are wasting your time. The global atmospheric temperature is shooting up again in 2015, well above all previous records, and well above all previous El Nino years, catching up with the ocean temperature that has been rising much more smoothly and continuously.

Not the only website..Try "Watt's up with that"… "Climate 4 You", and several others.

As to be expected the CO2 concentration is not even.

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page42.htm

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2008-189

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/earthday/gall_co2.html

Its not well hidden.

Your Greenhouse has holes so to say!.

When you say the value has no meaning do you suggest that the rise in ppm has no meaning too? I am asking because from what you are suggesting we need to have a better understanding of how much other gases are in the atmosphere at any time when we quote the ppm numbers. If the absolute value has such a meaning we are being mislead all the time when we quote ppm readings. I am not impressed!

We would have to do much more homework on the carbon cycle and the atmosphere to come up with absolute numbers. Don't you think?

All the best for you. Curious minds wants to know. I am still searching for the answers.

I didn't know there was so much unevenness in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, but I don't think that degree of variation actually affects the point I was making. The variation is not great enough that any areas are letting much IR escape.

Using ppm is a convenient way of expressing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially since the other components of the atmosphere vary very little, especially the oxygen and nitrogen. (If those components varied a lot every year, then using ppm would be very inconvenient because it would change all the time.) The only problem is that it seems to be a small number, and people use that to try to argue that such a small number couldn't possibly change the earth's temperature. But that small number could just as easily be expressed by the number of molecules of CO2 per square meter, and then it would be a very large number. It is often expressed as gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is also a very large number.

Gigatonnes is an absolute number. Not hard to calculate. The entire carbon cycle is already expressed in absolute numbers. In that context ppm is very inconvenient.

http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/issues/070807/trail3.html

http://carboncycle.aos.wisc.edu/global-carbon-cycle/

Yesterday I found a Dollar! Today I call it hundred Cents because its more!

Are you serious? We quote ppm and its so little so nobody is concerned so we call it Gigatonnes and it is different?

Is ppm just inconvenient because its sounds (and is) so little?

Gosh I wish it was cold and I could burn another stump of wood.

I question your analogy. The long tube you describe has a fixed volume. I don't think Earth's atmosphere is a fixed volume.

The distinction is that the distribution of CO2 in the fixed volume tube has to stay the same no matter what other substance you put in the tube. The pressure inside the tube would increase as you added more and more molecules of other substances.

In Earth's atmosphere, as more is added to it, particles in the air can move about and expand or contract based on their interactions and gravity.

If we add more stuff to it (more Nitrogen, Carbon, Methane, etc.) is it not able to expand out further from the surface of the Earth? I don't know....just seems so intuitive to me that it would.

You are free to extend the analogy to allow the tube to expand, to expand the atmosphere, etc. The point is that over a given surface of the earth, there are a lot of molecules of CO2 absorbing IR, enough to totally block all the IR emitted by the earth. It does not matter how many molecules of other stuff there is in addition to the CO2, so when someone ridicules the idea that only 400 ppm of CO2 can change the climate, they are totally missing the point. You can raise or lower the ppm by adding or subtracting other stuff, but unless you change the number of molecules of CO2 the absorption by CO2 remains the same.

Just another question because you seem to have looked at this a lot. Is there anywhere some data indicating that the O2 content of the atmosphere has changed? Do we have to worry about reduced O2 content?

As if you say the ppm are taken from the whole gas content I'd say it does matter how much of the other gases there is. There seems so be some contradiction.

Nobody by the way ridicules here. We are discussing this and trying to be scientific. So please do not ridicule your posts with accusations.

Great posts on this subject!

"The vast amount of research is done under the premises that there is a warming."

It is not a premise. The earth is definitely going through a warming cycle. The disagreement is on the root-cause for the warming. (Natural cycle? Man induced? Or a combination of both?)

To date most accepted information on the subject is being generated by extremists of both persuasions with no middle ground and little scientific truth or accuracy.

I am convinced the reasons are complicated but are associated with money and world dominance. (Unseat the world currency standard (USA) and transfer it to a different country.)

"Why please why would there be scienists writing a paper like this?"

Personal financial gain? Personal ego? False competence? Undermine the USA? Complete ignorance of the subject with an opinion based solely on emotions rather than reasoning?

Take your pick and feel free to add other "reasons".

I do so hope that the scientific community has a sudden attack of common sense and gets control of this obscene argument soon.

I can't remember who, but I think Yogi Berra said: "It either is, or it ain't."

Our scientists really need to adopt this simple statement and apply it to all research.

In the past if a point discovered during a scientific analyses was deemed to be an assumption/guess due to lack of concrete, tangible, undisputed facts that point was "thrown out" and not allowed to influence the conclusion.

We really need to get back to this requirement as soon as possible.

Measure, measure, measure, verify, verify, then report would be a good place to start.

Why ever this is OT blows my mind! Not that I care but pointing out the mental mistake that has been implemented in our minds how a glass house and a greenhouse effect work should get at least a neutral feedback!

Oh Whatever!

I'm with you on that.

I can't understand why my posts 19, 30 (3 OT!) and 41 have been given OTs. All are directed at the conversation at hand.

Would not like CR4 to become a POS - it needs to have 'OTers' state why they are marking OTs - other than 'they disagree with me'

Also OT posters should be identified - so the rest can make up their minds who is pushing what barrow.

I say: Whatever!

I would think that if CO2 were to stratify against the earth's surface enough to cause such a severe impact to the earth's temperature, the layer would be so thick that humans and all other living organisms would perish from oxygen depletion.

How is it that the wind does not disperse the CO2 and keep it from collecting against the surface?

I would think that cement concrete and other heat reflective surfaces would contribute more to the heating affect than any gas concentrated in a very thin layer against the earth's surface.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. CO2 does not need to stratify against the earth's surface to cause the climate effects. If it were condensed to a liquid it might make a layer an inch or two thick, but it is not stratified. It is distributed in the rest of the atmosphere. It has risen only from 280 to 400 ppm, not enough for a person to notice.

I would point out here that co2 is a heavy molecule and has a tendency to cling to the surface....

Yupp I was wondering when that comes up!

There are some models that suggest that certain types of pollution actually cool the earth by blocking and reflecting sunlight, so to some degree there is probably some grain of truth in that.

Great post!

Yesterday NASA reiterated that satellite imaging and measurements illustrate that the Antarctica ice mass has grown at a significant rate over the last few years.

NASA also states that ocean temperatures are dropping around the area local to Antarctica and the added ice is dropping the ocean level.

The blip went on to say that there some limited areas of the ice cap that has suffered from limited melting affects.

Given this information I suspect Professor Lewis is correct and the real underlying cause of the generated panic is being driven by money.

Conspiracy perhaps?

Even if the late Prof Lewis was right about money in science in general (and he worked with the military, so he knew about money in defense research) you might also want to look at the money on the other side of the equation, trying to debunk global warming. Do you think only environmentalists are spending money to influence the debate? Perhaps you have heard the recent news about Exxon and its huge in-house research effort that proved global warming, and then the executives went public to deny there was any problem and said it was all unproven.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/investigation-finds-exxon-ignored-its-own-early-climate-change-warnings/

I agree. The generated panic is all about money. The panic is on the side of the oil company executives. And because the Republican Party lives on oil money, they have taken up being against Global Warming as a Conservative Cause. So all good conservatives must follow the party line on global warming or be cast out as RINO's.

The news about Antarctica proves nothing. That's like saying that the fact that your freezer has developed some ice proves that it is not warmer in your kitchen. The real polar warming is in the Arctic.

Saying that there are "limited areas" suffering from "limited melting effects" sounds like spin to counteract the news that subsurface waters are undermining the ice sheets that are holding back the glaciers. Where exactly did you read about these "limited" effects?

Interesting news. Thanks for mentioning it. I found more info here:

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html

One of the authors also had some comments about sea level rise:

"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."

This just in!

"

Scientists confirm their fears about West Antarctica - that it's inherently unstable"

"It may be the biggest climate change story of the last two years.

In 2014, several research groups suggested that the oceanfront glaciers in the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica may have reached a point of "unstoppable" retreat due to warm ocean waters melting them from below. There's a great deal at stake - West Antarctica is estimated to contain enough ice to raise global sea levels by 3.3 meters, or well over 10 feet, were it all to melt.

The urgency may now increase further in light of just published research suggesting that destabilization of the Amundsen sea's glaciers would indeed undermine the entirety of West Antarctica, as has long been feared."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/scientists-confirm-their-fears-about-west-antarctica-that-its-inherently-unstable/

Panic?

The critical issue here is, of course, the speed at which this could all occur. The new study's simulations show the loss of West Antarctica playing out over thousands of years. But many scientists worry that at least some of the change could happen faster.

Panic!

Yes. It is so big it would at least take longer than 75 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Exactly!

It could well be that the rise in ocean levels are due to the earth's core expanding and thereby causing the ocean floor to rise as evidenced by the dramatic increase in volcanic activity over the last decade.

The pressure at pretty much every volcanic site has been steadily increasing for quite some time with the Yellowstone caldron one of the most evident.

If you research the volcanic activity world wide and plot it the results are alarming.

The incidence of earth quakes is also increasing at an alarming rate.

I definitely believe we can and need to do a better job of minimizing and eliminating pollution in every form but I do not believe the warming trend we are experiencing is only attributable to man made affects on the environment.

I don't understand what you mean by NASA reporting something that is not true. It is a scientific paper. It adds interesting data and analysis to the bigger picture. It might be wrong, but it looks like it takes an additional factor into account that previous authors did not, thereby refining our understanding of climate.

All of those disclaimer words are just how scientists frame their results to account for the fact that they might be wrong. Few scientists use absolute words to describe the implications of their papers, and if they do, they might be called on it, or have to eat their words in print in their next paper. So I wouldn't go by their apparent modesty in their claims. Look at the data, the analysis, the quality of the work, then judge for yourself.

We can't figure it out before we have to take action, because the science simply takes a long time to become really settled. Taking action is not a scientific question. It is a risk management decision. What is the probability that the danger is true, what are the consequences of not taking action if it is true, what are the consequences of taking action if it is not true, etc.

According to the son of a good friend of mine , who is employed by JPL, in Pasadena, NASA has had it's funding cut, partly due to many "Failures" in the last few years (think certain Space launches etc.), has had to resort to sending packages / payloads, with other countries USSR, France, etc rocket programs, and competition from Private companies (Think , Space X, Google connections etc.) . He feels they are desperately trying to remain relevant, using their instruments to find funding in whatever way they can, which is to find the biggest and most important "Fire " that is gaining attention, pour more "Fuel " on it , and then rush to put it out, But , now that will need more funding..On and on... The satellite temperature measurements are more accurate than ground measurements as those are often concentrated next to thermal mass areas , like cities, airports with huge amounts of asphalt and concrete, which did not exist 100 years ago. Also, the monitoring stations were approx 1 / 100 th in number , of the systems in place now, and had nowhere near the amount of heat sinks close to them… Statistics can be deceiving...

"We currently have two extremist groups playing in this "game".

One group thinks that every single thing associated with energy production, farming, ranching, and manufacturing is bad for the environment and that the earth should be returned to it's pristine state regardless of the impact to humans. (No common sense what-so-ever.)

The other group is strictly money driven and wrongly thinks the earth is so large that we as humans cannot negatively impact the environment regardless of what we do. (No common sense here either.)"

I think that's quite an over simplification. Yes, those groups exist...but make no mistake, the first group is just as money driven as the second. Or if the first group is the pure environmental extremist who have no monetary interests at all, I say that they are actually quite small and are being used by the larger group which is interested in power and money but pretends they are interested in the "environment".

Regarding the second group...no argument, there are those who money driven. Businesses exist in part to make a profit. But there are many (businesses and individuals) who, while concerned about the economics such as does it make sense to spend billions or trillions of dollars to solve a problem that we may not even have as opposed to dealing with more immediate problems, are more against what's being forced down our throats because we see that so many who are pushing it are doing so for the money, and that the science backing up their claims is rather weak.

I suggest that both groups you mention are actually rather small and extreme.

I fall into a different category, those who is not absolutely certain that global warming is a fact, but are who see that it is the most likely situation, and think the risk is too high to ignore. I also don't think that it will be all that expensive to reduce carbon emissions. What most people do to reduce their emissions in the US are also things that save them money. Solar panels, better insulation in their houses. Driving more slowly. Where are the huge expense in those things? And doing all those things brings many other benefits, including reducing the risk of war in the Middle East and terrorism at home, reducing pollution, reducing ocean acidification, reducing explosions at refineries, reducing oil spills, reducing mercury poisoning in the oceans and lakes. Just do it.

Please do not throw in propaganda. When mentioning ocean acidification you show where your information comes from.

Reducing explosions in refineries? Are we back to engineering matters now?

War in Middle East, seems to be not related to the topic.

See I am on the same side. I think that it does not hurt to save ourself some money. Solar power? Why not. Have this. I think we have better thinks to worry about than a inert gas.

We should not need a big scam to make this world better.

I will look into mercury poisoning because those things are pushed away from the focus when we talk about climate. Thanks for bringing this up.

I'm afraid I've run out of time to participate in this thread anymore. Thanks all.

Also, Google the recent paper written by the Society of French Mathematicians, calling the UN proposals absurd….It nails exactly what you are referring to…These guys aren't Kindergaten teachers...

Yupp! This one here!

Yup! If one has a chance, excellent You Tube lecture from Noble Laureate, Ivar Giaver, "Global Warming Revisited" on Obama's claim of Global Warming, the "no greater threat to future generations" speech to the UN. ….The guy nails it, but hey, he is only a Physicist, AND supported Obama originally.

Amen!

I'd join your church any time!

Can we get a Witness!? Agree on all points…Just get politics out of the Scientific process. I wonder if Scientists could get enough funding to prove the opposite points, what the "facts" would be ..? And , if they did change their points of view, due to the types and amounts of grants given, do they still get to call themselves "Scientists"…. Or "Promoters.IE, Public Relations, people…"

Not sure. As the discussion turns away from science to religion everything is possible. Or we call it a "Proven Political Miracle" to bundle up all politics, science and religion in one expression!

At one PPM we have an upwards trend.

Who said 'Everybody can have their own opinions, but they can't have their own facts'?

Finally, some sanity from the judiciary;

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has issued a sweeping 18-page subpoena to the fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil investigating its decades of climate deception. The subpoena asks for records going back to January 1, 1977, including Exxon's work with industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Oil & Gas Association.

As far as Exxon Moblil--The old saying may apply " The Pessimist complains of too much wind; The Optomist is certain it will diminish in short time; The Realist adjusts his sails".. That is what any corporation , or succesful company / individual does. Exxon Mobile pay more taxes, yearly, as a Corporation , than any other American company. Return on equity is 1 / 3rd of Apple (Approx. $ 9.00 to $27.00), and Apple is holding multiples of billions of dollars overseas rather to pay the reparation taxes . Apple doesn't worry about Global Warming, because the manufacturing is done in China and elsewhere, where they can just say "Clean hands here!!!" I will guarantee you one thing, we can do without Apple, for a while, , but we cannot do without Exxon Mobile.. They are just trying to stay ahead of the game, and have more infrastructure invested than any other company in the US , if not the world. If you look at the investment portfolios of almost all of the Indexes, it is a very large holding. representing a tremendous return of dividend investment back to their share holders over the years. After 20 years, Apple just started a dividend program. Why wait so long? Because, they were figuring out what was going to happen in " The Arctic word of technology", . The Media and GW advocates will jump on anything to make a point to bolster their arguments, but they had better realize, that companies like Exxon have given us a tremendous advantage as an Industrialized Nation, and what they have been doing is always 20 -30 years ahead of the pack. Without oil, we have no Plastics, etc. At some point in time, scale of economy will fill in different technologies that will slowly replace petroleum, but each of these companies will re-invent themselves as it does. If not, dinosaurs will roam...

Mind to give us a link?

Want to see the deception claims. Oh never mind! I can clearly see the deception and which side it is on.

Oh never mind! The subpoema is just another political move and will not prove any science facts.

If the internal documentation shows or supported the notion that climate change is crap - they are done!

If they have some supporting documents - they are done too!

I do not see that they can win!

We are the cause of global warming, but not how you think.

Sorry, the image decimation makes this unreadable. Click on the picture to go to GoComics for today's original.

pic caption;

WTF am I going to live now?

(Pic caption to Polar Bear in OP) - CR4 forgot to connect the reply.