Shrinking ice proved climate change. Now growing does too?
 

Seriously? First the ice caps were going to be completely gone. ...now they are growing at an accelerated rate... .

Does Antarctic sea ice growth negate climate change? Scientists say no - LA Times

"Climate change" is not about science, it's about religion (and politics). Shall we PARF this thread now and avoid the rush later?

Social engineering doesn't always make sense, just go with it.

The operative word is change.

The climate is still changing. It still affects wildlife (penguins, polar bears, etc). It also affects weather patterns all over the globe.

I've seen the retreating glaciers of Alaska, Canada and Iceland. I don't think the entire globe is going to warm up. Some places will get hotter, some will grow colder. But the point is that it will be different from what it used to be.

Here's another explanation of the phenomenon:

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

These guys drive Progressives crazy because they are smart progressives. Their magazine is great, BTW.

The Breakthrough Institute - Home

This is from their review of Naomi Klein's book, 'This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate':

...Unfortunately, the result is a garbled mess stumbling endlessly over its own contradictions. Her understanding of the technical aspects of energy policy — indispensable for any serious discussion of sustainability — is weak and biased, marked by a myopic boosterism of renewables and an unthinking rejection of nuclear power and other low-carbon energy sources. Having declared climate change an “existential crisis for the human species,” she rules out some of the most effective means of dealing with it.

This guy can write:

For all its vehemence, Klein’s everythingism — her conviction that everything is threatened, that everything must change, that everything is settled about how to change, and that everything will be reconciled in the coming state of nature — falls far short of a useful call to action. A book about changing everything needs to know how everything works and interacts so as to set priorities and strike balances, but Klein proceeds more by romantic enthusiasm and anathema than by detailed knowledge and analysis. Her views are all the more troubling because they faithfully reflect the received wisdom on the Left about environmental and climate policy. Given the vigor of the green movement and its impressive success at influencing policy makers and capturing the public imagination, these ideas will help shape the world’s response to global warming. Klein’s book therefore provokes a disturbing question: having done so much to put the crucial issue of climate change on the agenda, does the Left have anything coherent to say about it?

Actually, climate change is all about science, but the US has a poor understanding of science and how to make decisions based on it. So, we move forward thinking we live in God's terrarium and everything will be ok, despite the evidence. We are really to the point that the question is not about climate change, but how can people continue to reject the overwhelming data supporting it. It's more of a psychology questions now, and not a science question.

That's not the question at all. The climate has always changed and will continue to. The question is what is man doing to affect that change and what should we be doing or not doing to minimize that effect?

That's is a far from settled answer- the WSJ had a very good piece on it last week. To summarize: we, in short, still have very little have very little idea about how our behavior affects the planet. That's not to say we shouldn't be doing some things that are obvious (like mandating cleaner air or water or recycling for example) but to say we're ignoring the "overwhelming" data is disengenuous. We're not even sure if we have or are collecting the right data much less what it means. It's still very much a science question. And what we do or don't do while pondering those answers is very much open to argument- for example, is mandating electric vehicles really good for the environment? Should we be imposing carbon taxes when an economy is at a standstill and scientists aren't sure what CO2 emissions are really doing to the planet?

Climate Science Is Not Settled - WSJ

It was different 1,000 years ago... and 10,000 and 100,000. In fact IIRC it has always been changing. The infamous hockey-stick graph was an out of context slice.

THE DATA TO SUPPORT THE SCAM DOESN'T FRICKING EXIST!!!
THAT IS THE POINT WE ARE MAKING!!!
ALL THE PREDICTIONS TURNED OUT TO BE CRAP!!!

PS: manbearpig isn't real either.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412112518.jpg

We need to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. There can be lots of answers, but the total of the answers must start to move the CO2 concentration lower. Anything else is a waste of time. My question about people believing was silly. If there was a meteorite about to hit earth, and it could be seen in the sky, people would still deny it. So how do you mount a response to a threat that so many people keep looking for a reason to not believe. While individual humans may be intelligent, as a group I suspect that we will not be intelligent enough to respond is timely and effective way.
Regarding climate "change". I agree, the climate has always changed, but now it is changing in response to our actions and not natural forces. Folks need to let go of poorly presented climate data in the past. Let go of Al Gore. Look at the data. Sure there are contradictions, but the overwhelming trend recently is warming that overrides natural fluctuations.

Regard climate "change". I agree, the climate has always changed, but now it is changing in response to our actions and not natural forces. Folks need to let go of poorly presented climate data in the past. Let of of Al Gore, and look at the data. Sure there are contridictions, but the overwhelming trend recently is warming that overrides natural flucuations.

Regardless of one's position on this subject, you gotta love the ingenuity of the people who decided to stop calling it global warming and rebranded it as climate change.

It virtually guarantees that anyone who supports that notion will not be wrong no matter what direction things go :)

What evidence?

What overwhelming data?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412113286.jpg
Snow in Egypt for the first time in 112 years

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412113344.jpg

There is overwhelming evidence that man-made causes in the last 100 years have drastically changed the ecological balance of earth. The ozone layer is greatly affected, sea levels are rising, the oceans are warming, species dying-off and otherwise having habitats altered, etc., etc., etc...

Scientists who study the data, (and are not on the payroll of some polluting industry), agree to an indisputable degree. Here's all you need to remember:

"Science is not a debate between scientists and non-scientists. It never has been and it never will be. Science is decided by scientists, not idiots."

If you actually do Look at the data you will find a major problem.

That is, climate scientists have been hoping for correlation between rising CO₂ levels and rising global temps. Problem is, they are not finding it.

Now a reasonable person would celebrate this. Yet, the 'climate scientists' twist and turn, trying, and hoping, to land on some supportive correlation ... all in an effort to be able to more easily sell causation.

And there is their problem. They have been selling AGW causation as undisputable, for decades now - in a cart before the horse kind of way. Yet, those facts - they are a stubborn thing.

Clearly you know nothing about science.

Regarding snow in Egypt, wild swings was/is a prediction made by climate scientist. Thanks for posting the pic.

Ever consider we're in a CO₂ Famine?

Where do plants get 'food'? (hint, ryhms with CO₂)

Where do we get food?

You want a greener earth?...

I guess that Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer just doesn't understand science

While a lot of things were predicted snow in Egypt was not one of them.

The "wild swings' predicted centered about higher energy storms.

Strange how the world scientific community acknowledges global warming...
And the amateur armchair American scientist claim it is a myth perpetuated by the Christians.

Good sense says we should be good stewards of our planet....logic says recycling and waste reduction are a good thing....a long hard look tells us that electric vehicles are a stop gap measure being rammed down our throats by feel good politicians and are actually an excellent example of the image of looking green while achieving no or even backwards motion....
Any one that says any of this is settled is naïve and is fooling themselves. The climate has always changed and no one can ascertain to what degree we have affected it. it seems likely we have to some degree, and again, logically we should work to reduce our impact. However, the whole climate change industry is just that, an money making industry and nothing more. Any one who buys into either side with certainty is living life with blinders on. The vast majority of the opinions that get touted around re climate change are paid for you realize, the data is customized to the end users needs.
So much wasted time and effort has gone into ridiculous "green" science to make people feel like something is being done about a manufactured panic. The IC engine car is still by far the most environmentally efficient mode of transport for people if you look at the whole picture and not just the cherry picked data.
Everyone should wake up and smell the control.....climate change is the left hand, in full view of all while working away at this "end of the world" issue, is any one asking what the right hand is doing?

...and there is overwhelming evidence that it is also NOT. That's the point of this. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then why are there so many SCIENTISTS that question the veracity of the data? Why are there so many faked data points? Why are they hiding the data that contradicts their conclusions?

As an example.. The Hockey stick graph. Looks alarming...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CXhZq5GDGH...st+century.jpg


...BUT it's such a SMALL excerpt out of the context of long term temperatures it's designed to be sensationalist. Look at the records for the last 10,000 years not the last 100. 100 years is a blip on the global radar. Help me understand the panic using the two graph's below...

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/...temp4000yr.gif



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412115071.jpg

last I heard the world scientific community had accepted "climate change" not global warming, and anyone who does not accept a changing climate is an idiot. What causes the change?

just give this a minute ..

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LB5XQq7qkfc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why?

Increasing CO2 concentrations increases the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. It also results in acidification of the oceans. I know you guys hate to hear it, but this is prove/settled science. Believe me, I wish the denyers were right. But no amount of saying it ain't so will over come the data.

heh heh ...

because that's how science works.

I've been spending some time this year working in the high arctic.

Why do people want to save glaciers?
Have they seen what kind of damage those things have been doing to the earth?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412121280.jpg

If you believe man made co2 is killing mother earth, do your part to stop it. Stop breathing out co2.

This needs to be saved for posterity. How can science compete with this? :rolleyes:

So what?

I knew I'd catch someone that failed grade 3 science. :)

Copernicus was imprisoned for claiming the Earth circled the Sun, rather than agreeing with "settled science" that taught the Earth was the center of the universe.

Yes, once scientists reach consensus, and science is settled, we should quit trying to learn any more on that particular topic.

So CO2 causes a major shift in the ability of human food (i.e. fish) to continue to regenerate from plant life.
The ocean's bounty is already stressed from overpopulation/overfishing/drag-netting/pollution/etc/etc.
When gods gifts die, gods children die.
But first they fight each other.

If ice melting off of Antarctica is diluting the natural salinity of the ocean in that vicinity, it would be reasonable to assume that more ice would form.

And localized heat pockets affect traditional stratospheric wind patterns, which regulate and balance the seasons.
Then we get poles melting and egypt freezing.

actually by all measures, arctic ice is down.

if you actually read the article, and the quotes by the scientists, and not the "some say ..." bits added by the reporter, you'd know this. the report even sites the study showing that the notion of arctic ice being up, is false: http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1289/2014/tc-8-1289-2014.html

wow, mainstream reporting on science is awful.

Funny comment, half the men in my family are scientists. Geology, meteorology, physics, engineering. All question it. You're making a generalization supported by your prejudice.