Seems to me that every year some new record gets broken. And when we look at when the last record was set, it is often 1894 or 1932 etc. All LONG before the dawn of Man’s Sinful Fall from Grace due to His Biting the Carbon Apple.
This part of what you said is correct.
[quote]This part of what you said is correct.
[/quote]
So has life as we know it ended on the Great Barrier Reef yet or are we seeing some walk-back on that issue/hysteria/frenzy?
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]This part of what you said is correct.
[/quote]
So has life as we know it ended on the Great Barrier Reef yet or are we seeing some walk-back on that issue/hysteria/frenzy?[/quote]
Yeah, 50-60% severely bleached, 20-30% dead. In less than a month. And luckily, there’s no reason to think there will be any more particularly big El Niño’s in the coming decades, right? I mean, it’s not like ocean temperatures have been getting warmer or anything… Whew! And to think I was worried.
[quote]
Yeah, 50-60% severely bleached, 20-30% dead. In less than a month. And luckily, there’s no reason to think there will be any more particularly big El Niño’s in the coming decades, right? I mean, it’s not like ocean temperatures have been getting warmer or anything… Whew! And to think I was worried.[/quote]
Gosh and from the sounds of it, I thought the whole thing was dead dead DEAD never never NEVER to recover. But then again, hope springs eternal. I am sure that it will recover sufficiently for the next hysteria-fueled wail in oh say five/six years? By which time the Arctic sea ice will have all melted as well as the Himalayan glaciers and we will FINALLY see the end of the Alpine ski industry along with shrimping and fishing and farming and other important life-sustaining functions. Whew!
Ooops!
[quote]New data from NASA suggests that the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since measurements began in 1979. Instead, the polar ice extent has remained above the post-1979 average.
These revelations contradict the data global warming activists cite, when they claim that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt.
Does this mean global warming is a sham?
Forbes.com reports:
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?
The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:
The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.
To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.
The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]
Yeah, 50-60% severely bleached, 20-30% dead. In less than a month. And luckily, there’s no reason to think there will be any more particularly big El Niño’s in the coming decades, right? I mean, it’s not like ocean temperatures have been getting warmer or anything… Whew! And to think I was worried.[/quote]
Gosh and from the sounds of it, I thought the whole thing was dead dead DEAD never never NEVER to recover. But then again, hope springs eternal. I am sure that it will recover sufficiently for the next hysteria-fueled wail in oh say five/six years? By which time the Arctic sea ice will have all melted as well as the Himalayan glaciers and we will FINALLY see the end of the Alpine ski industry along with shrimping and fishing and farming and other important life-sustaining functions. Whew![/quote]
It’s a typical ploy to mis-represent the argument of an opponent and then mock it. Nowhere in this thread has that I can recall has anyone said that the whole 2,000+ reef is dead.
Meanwhile, what your own argument amounts to, is ‘Hey, there are still some carrier pigeons left! Stop being hysterical!’
And that Forbes ice article is ridiculous… will have to trash it later, though… Gotta run.
Ok, now, in response to the Forbes article from 2015… since you’ve quoted basically the whole article, I’ll respond in kind:
This is climate skeptics’ latest argument about melting polar ice — and why it’s wrong
[quote=“The Washington Post”]First off, the terminology being used in the passage above (“polar ice,” “polar ice caps”) is problematic. At most, the data above tell us about trends in ice covering the oceans of the polar regions, not frozen ice on land.
However, much of the concern with the melting of Antarctica, Greenland and glaciers around the world has nothing to do with sea ice — rather, it involves huge masses of ice sitting atop landmasses in polar regions. Melting of these ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps can contribute substantially to sea level rise —whereas sea ice melting cannot. So already, Taylor’s argument about “polar ice” seems much broader than it actually is.
And even when it comes to sea ice, the argument falters.
At Cryosphere Today, researchers have penned a rebuttal to Taylor, stating that contrary to his claim, there is a 5.5 percent downtrend in overall sea ice area over the period in question.
“It is misleading to claim that polar sea ice has not decreased over the historic record,” the site states. “In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that receding polar ice caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows that this is exactly what is happening.”
And there’s another problem, explained the University of Illinois’ polar researcher Bill Chapman by phone. The figure above sums together sea ice trends in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, where different things are happening for different reasons. “The Arctic has decreased dramatically, and the Antarctic has increased a little bit over the same period,” Chapman said.
Taylor doesn’t appear to distinguish between what’s happening to sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic. But if you pull apart these two components of the analysis — as NASA itself has recently done — then sure enough, you find a sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, a modest increase in Antarctic ice, and an overall decline in total sea ice.[/quote]
[quote]It’s important to stress how dramatic the Arctic sea ice decline is. Recent years have seen new lows for both winter and summer ice extent. “Data suggest that since [1972], Arctic ice has been decreasing at an average rate of about 3 percent per decade,” observes the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “while Antarctic ice has increased by about 0.8 percent per decade.”
That uptick in Antarctic sea ice is what climate “skeptics” continue to focus on — and it’s a major subtext to Taylor’s argument. But the more you look into the matter, the more you realize it’s no consolation.
First, some scientists think growing Antarctic sea ice may actually have a human component — that global warming and ozone depletion have led to shifting winds that are fueling more ice growth. And second, a little added Antarctic sea ice doesn’t do anything to allay concerns about loss of ice from Antarctica’s continent. They’re just different issues.
For more on to why Antarctic sea ice has been increasing a little, even as the continent’s vast ice shelves and glaciers have mostly been doing the opposite — well, read here.
Most important of all, though, the case for worrying about what’s happening to the poles goes way beyond matters of sea ice loss (though that can have major consequences). The chief threat that the melting poles pose to the globe is the way they can raise sea level. We don’t know how much sea level rise we’re going to get, or how fast, from Greenland and Antarctica. But there are worrying signs from these ice sheets, and they contain enough potential water to dramatically alter coastlines the world over.
So in sum: 1) total (or global) polar sea ice is in fact declining, according to both NASA and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Cryosphere Today; 2) if you analyze the Arctic and Antarctic separately — which makes more sense to do, as very different things are happening to sea ice in the two places — you realize that the Arctic sea ice decline in particular is very stark; 3) there is also bad news about the melting of ice atop land, based on data that are completely outside of this discussion, but that are perhaps the most worrying of all.
So it is hard to find anything here that should make you not worry about global warming.[/quote]
And on top of that, I’d add this maybe overly-simplistic logic: if on-balance the ice isn’t melting, why this…
(The top graph shows actual seal level; the bottom graph shows the rate of change.The top graph shows actual seal level; the bottom graph shows the rate of change.)
Is Chris Mooney (your Washington Post reporter) a climate scientist? Despite his being rather a prolific writer and clearly an impartial (haha) one, I am curious as to just how his BA in Literature from Yale would enable him to understand these many sanctified scientific principles. Oh and now we are at “but much of the ice is on land” as an argument? Okay 
Right back atcha!
[quote]James M. Taylor: Credentials
B.A. from Dartmouth College.
J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law where he was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and founder and editor-in-chief of the Federalist Voice.[/quote]
[quote=“Mooney’s article”]At Cryosphere Today, researchers have penned a rebuttal to Taylor, stating that contrary to his claim, there is a 5.5 percent downtrend in overall sea ice area over the period in question.
“It is misleading to claim that polar sea ice has not decreased over the historic record,” the site states. “In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that receding polar ice caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows that this is exactly what is happening.”
And there’s another problem, explained the University of Illinois’ polar researcher Bill Chapman by phone. The figure above sums together sea ice trends in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, where different things are happening for different reasons. “The Arctic has decreased dramatically, and the Antarctic has increased a little bit over the same period,” Chapman said.
But if you pull apart these two components of the analysis — as NASA itself has recently done — then sure enough, you find a sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, a modest increase in Antarctic ice, and an overall decline in total sea ice.[/quote]
In other words, he’s getting his arguments straight from experts at Cryosphere Today, the University of Illinois and NASA. You think he did up those graphs himself?
Now, turnabout is fair play. Please explain why we should believe anything Taylor says.
[quote]Oh and now we are at “but much of the ice is on land” as an argument? Okay 
[/quote]
What’s all the bogus laughter for. It’s an important point. Melting sea ice has other impacts, but it doesn’t raise sea levels. Melting land ice does.
Right back at me? You must have me confused with someone who thinks that only those with specialized degrees in climate science are allowed to write/speak about the subject. Since you clearly have a record of expecting the same, I am merely pointing out your, er, lapse in severity and for reasons that have to do entirely with convenience. When did I ever say those without specialized degrees could not talk about or have an opinion on climate change/science? hmmmmm?
Nor have I. Everyone is free to talk. But when it comes down to it, there is always the question of why we should or shouldn’t believe someone (other than because they are saying what we want to hear). Which is where the following comes in:
[quote=“Vay”]Mooney’s article wrote:
At Cryosphere Today, researchers have penned a rebuttal to Taylor, stating that contrary to his claim, there is a 5.5 percent downtrend in overall sea ice area over the period in question.
“It is misleading to claim that polar sea ice has not decreased over the historic record,” the site states. “In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that receding polar ice caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows that this is exactly what is happening.”
And there’s another problem, explained the University of Illinois’ polar researcher Bill Chapman by phone. The figure above sums together sea ice trends in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, where different things are happening for different reasons. “The Arctic has decreased dramatically, and the Antarctic has increased a little bit over the same period,” Chapman said.
But if you pull apart these two components of the analysis — as NASA itself has recently done — then sure enough, you find a sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, a modest increase in Antarctic ice, and an overall decline in total sea ice.
In other words, he’s getting his arguments straight from experts at Cryosphere Today, the University of Illinois and NASA. You think he did up those graphs himself?[/quote]
So instead of addressing the scientific data and charts that falsify everything you said, you choose to attack the messenger’s degree? And that somehow disproves the data? Interesting… I suppose that’s what happens when your only goal is to demonstrate as many fallacies as you can muster in one thread.
I always think it would be so interesting to hear from an educated and knowledgeable climate change denier. Not someone who’s sole purpose is to muddy the waters with a ridiculous amount of false arguments, but someone who actually logically addresses the real data and tries to refute it.
Real question to you Vay. Do you know any? Is there anybody we can find Youtube videos for who has some interesting counter points to what seems to be an overwhelming scientific consensus? Are there any climate change deniers that real scientists still respect and logically debate? There’s got to be right? They can’t all be… like this thread.
Bjørn Lomborg’s writing is interesting because he does attempt to do this, although the fact that he’s not a scientist (as is the case with most climate deniers) means that he tends to over-simplify things. He is a statistician, so he completely gets the mathematical models, which is where (eg) fred smith trips over his own shoelaces. Nevertheless, he does accuratly address the issue of spending (value for money vs. misdirected efforts destined to fail). He seems like the kind of guy you could actually have an intelligent conversation with.
OTOH I wouldn’t really class Lomborg as a “denier”. He accepts that climate change is happening and needs to be fixed. His arguments are more to do with practical matters than science.
Brent, Jotham used to try to argue the science in earnest… but the problem there is, if you really try to follow through on that, you’re gonna come up against reality… which is I guess why he disappeared. I suppose the models are a legitimate area of some skepticism, though when you consider it in terms of risk that argument strikes me as pretty watery. I’ll say this for Fred, though - he’s pretty good-natured about all of it.
Bjørn Lomborg’s writing is interesting because he does attempt to do this, although the fact that he’s not a scientist (as is the case with most climate deniers) means that he tends to over-simplify things. He is a statistician, so he completely gets the mathematical models, which is where (eg) fred smith trips over his own shoelaces. Nevertheless, he does accuratly address the issue of spending (value for money vs. misdirected efforts destined to fail). He seems like the kind of guy you could actually have an intelligent conversation with.
OTOH I wouldn’t really class Lomborg as a “denier”. He accepts that climate change is happening and needs to be fixed. His arguments are more to do with practical matters than science.[/quote]
Wouldn’t it be nice if in 2016 the debates we were having were practical ones about what to do about it, rather than it’s existence. The fact that it’s happening should be obvious to anybody with a Statistics 101 course under their belt. What to do about it, that’s a much more complicated problem and I would imagine some of the worlds leading scientific experts disagree on what course of action we should take. I guess that’s what I was really asking. Some of your favorite Youtube clips where two intelligent scientists debate climate change. Not one scientist mentally abusing a denier.
And yet we’re in a world where millions, perhaps billions of people can’t interpret the meaning of a simple line chart, and in many cases can’t determine which of two numbers is larger.
Anybody who thought leaded gas was fine when science definitively proved it wasn’t was retarded. Anybody who thought smoking was not harmful when we proved without a shadow of a doubt that it was, was retarded. In 2016, anybody who denies climate change is, well…
But sure, “good-natured” is what we’ll go with 
Got your talking points out, I see, but unfortunately cannot find anyone who was denying leaded gas or cigarettes were health risks. What I can find though is concerned environmentalists predicting massive famines, overpopulation, etc etc from Malthus on. Where do you think the climate change alarmist brigade will fit in. :loco:
As usual, fred, you seem to be living in a parallel universe inside your own head. Nobody ever denied that cigarettes were harmful? Are you having a laugh? Go and look up the industry memos which supported FUD campaigns to keep the public wondering. People have known about lead toxicity for literally centuries; it was added to gasoline in the full knowledge of its harmful effects. There are dozens of shithole countries whose shithole status can be partially or entirely ascribed to overpopulation (or more accurately, population pressure on the environment). Just off the top of my head: Nigeria, Haiti, Philippines, India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. The planet as a whole exceeded its carrying capacity sometime in the early 1900s: I don’t think anybody today will deny that we’re burning through resources faster than they are being naturally replenished. Except you, possibly.
Exactly. The fact that the “climate change hasn’t been proved” conversation is even happening today suggests that humans are getting dumber.
The effects of this profound lack of education are terrifying. It’s not just about understanding climate change, but relatively simple patterns that affect everyday life. I would say a majority of the world’s population have such limited maths and science skills that they are unable to keep control of their household finances or manage their family businesses effectively. When that happens, people start to imagine they have no control over their own lives, and they start signing up with cult-like religions or get-rich-quick schemes.
It will only happen if you all bring true data, not your feelings only.
Don’t worry, somebody has done it for us.
This somebody is the United Nations. It has set up 17 goals for sustainability.
17 Goals to Transform Our World
But we are running out of time
At 8:02 PM, Taiwan Time, the world population is… 7,429,170,815
I finish the previous post… correct here and there… and check again…
Ooops, at 8:04 PM, Taiwan Time, the world population is… 7,429,171,050
Yeah yeah yeah, very productive discussion here