Climate Change Dump #1

[avb3]

Consensus on AGW is again confirmed, wind and solar use is increasing exponentially, real effects of global warming is happening now, effecting real people, including Donald Trump.

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous on Man-Made Global Warming
Consensus Study now Peer-Reviewed and Published

During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

Climate Change Has Officially Engulfed 5 Pacific Islands

The study is the first scientific evidence that climate change and sea-level rise are sweeping away the low-lying islands of the Pacific, confirming numerous anecdotal accounts. The evidence comes from studying aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014. This was combined with local knowledge to identify any missing islands. The researchers have found that five vegetated islands—not just hunks of rock—have have been completely eroded and submerged, and six more have experienced severe shoreline erosion.

Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course

The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company's application to build a sea wall.

Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bull****” and “pseudoscience.”

But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.”

Scientists, Navy consider future of sonar in warming oceans

Ocean waters are becoming warmer, but they're becoming noisier -- making sonar detection exceedingly difficult.

"[We] haven't had to deal with this issue of climate change until the last 15 years, but the temperature changes are significant enough that it really is having an impact on how sound travels in the ocean," Glen Gawarkiewicz, an oceanographer at WHOI, said in a news release.

Appearance of crater dubbed ‘the Gateway to the Underworld’ in Siberia is a warning to our warming planet

It is known as “the Gateway to the Underworld” by local people who fear to go near the massive crater that suddenly appeared in the frozen heart of Siberia.

And they are right to be afraid.

For as the permafrost melts, the world’s biggest “megaslump” is expanding rapidly. Already about a kilometre long and 90m deep, it is widening by up to 20m a year, making walking near its precipitous edges a dangerous pursuit.

But Batagaika crater, which first appeared about 25 years ago, is also a sign of the rate at which the world is warming – smaller ones have been appearing increasingly across the northern hemisphere.

North Sea countries mull wind energy strategy

Nine countries that share a border with the North Sea -- Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden – agreed Monday to improve infrastructure to support offshore wind.

Renewable energy surges to record levels around the world

About 147 gigawatts (GW) of capacity was added in 2015, roughly equivalent to Africa's generating capacity from all sources.

China, the US, Japan, UK and India were the countries adding on the largest share of green power, despite the fact that fossil fuel prices have fallen significantly. The costs of renewables have also fallen, say the authors.

[rugatika]

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kahl/www...ature_1993.pdf



"The lack of widespread, significant warming trends leads us to conclude that there is no strong evidence to support model simulations of greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean for the period 1950-1990. " Kahl, Charlevoix, et al

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kahl/www...ature_1993.pdf



"The lack of widespread, significant warming trends leads us to conclude that there is no strong evidence to support model simulations of greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean for the period 1950-1990. " Kahl, Charlevoix, et al

My information is from the past two weeks. Your link is almost 25 years old. Guess which one just might be more relevant, uptodate and accurate?

[maverick]

Originally Posted by avb3

My information is from the past two weeks. Your link is almost 25 years old. Guess which one just might be more relevant, uptodate and accurate?

Since your so wise can you explain to me why at the peak of the last ice age when there was ice nearly 1 mile in thickness over Calgary it melted and receded back into the front ranges? I would assume you would need a lot higher temperatures then we are currently experiencing to get rid of that volume of ice? There was no significant population of humans around so why the big warm?

[fluxcore]

Originally Posted by maverick

Since your so wise can you explain to me why at the peak of the last ice age when there was ice nearly 1 mile in thickness over Calgary it melted and receded back into the front ranges? I would assume you would need a lot higher temperatures then we are currently experiencing to get rid of that volume of ice? There was no significant population of humans around so why the big warm?

X2
I don't want another ice age so hopfully were making enough of a difference to avoid one.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by histyle

The late, great George Carlin did a standup bit about people who believe in AGW. AVB3, you sir are the butt of his jokes. Carry on.

Originally Posted by maverick

Since your so wise can you explain to me why at the peak of the last ice age when there was ice nearly 1 mile in thickness over Calgary it melted and receded back into the front ranges? I would assume you would need a lot higher temperatures then we are currently experiencing to get rid of that volume of ice? There was no significant population of humans around so why the big warm?

Originally Posted by rugatika

I didn't know the temperature from 1950 to 1990 changed in the last 25 years. I guess it's not surprising that climate alarmists would have changed the temperature from 1950 - 1990 in the last 25 years given the respect they show for actual data.

Glad to see you're back btw. I was kinda missing your climate posts.

Originally Posted by fluxcore

X2
I don't want another ice age so hopfully were making enough of a difference to avoid one.

Originally Posted by Johnny Huntnfish

Sexism.....racism.....climate change......and repeat

For some strange reason, Trump's seawall due to climate change (he likes building walls) and the Navy's issues with sonar were completely overlooked.

Amazing.

Perhaps the geniuses on this forum may want to explain why the Navy's real issues with sonar due to the oceans warming is not real?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

My information is from the past two weeks. Your link is almost 25 years old. Guess which one just might be more relevant, uptodate and accurate?

I didn't know the temperature from 1950 to 1990 changed in the last 25 years. I guess it's not surprising that climate alarmists would have changed the temperature from 1950 - 1990 in the last 25 years given the respect they show for actual data.

Glad to see you're back btw. I was kinda missing your climate posts.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by rugatika

glad to see you're back btw. I was kinda missing your climate posts.

x2

[cat336]

Originally Posted by avb3

My information is from the past two weeks. Your link is almost 25 years old. Guess which one just might be more relevant, uptodate and accurate?

If global warming is so real why are we not setting record temperatures daily?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by cat336

If global warming is so real why are we not setting record temperatures daily?

We ARE setting new records monthly for over a year..... globally. And 14 out of the hottest years have been this century.

[fluxcore]

We haven't been around long enough recording temperatures to determine any kind of patern, more often it's called a warmer "trend" and we can prove its normal just as good as people can prove it isn't but fear mongering is a lot more interesting like the news.

[Throttle_monkey1]

Originally Posted by avb3

We ARE setting new records monthly for over a year..... globally. And 14 out of the hottest years have been this century.

14 of the hottest years out of how many years? 100? 150? 250? 1000?

Even if it was a thousand, it is still such a small percentage of the earth's history it's statistically insignificant.

[Dewey Cox]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the oceans are getting warmer. We all believe in the science of a thermometer.

[sparky660]

Is there some sort of forum out there that is better suited for this kind of topic. Some people need to get out of their parents basement and enjoy the outdoors. Don't forget to lose the tinfoil hat too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[avb3]

Originally Posted by sparky660

Is there some sort of forum out there that is better suited for this kind of topic. Some people need to get out of their parents basement and enjoy the outdoors. Don't forget to lose the tinfoil hat too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, no comment on the US navy's concerns?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by avb3

Consensus on AGW is again confirmed, wind and solar use is increasing exponentially, real effects of global warming is happening now, effecting real people, including Donald Trump.

Appearance of crater dubbed ‘the Gateway to the Underworld’ in Siberia is a warning to our warming planet

The article clearly states,

The Batagaika crater is thought to have begun after local people cut down some trees in the 1980s or early 1990s.

“Once you disturb the vegetation or soil above permafrost that can often set in train events that lead to the melting of ice within the permafrost,” he said.

“Cutting down of vegetation … removes some of the insulation that keeps the ground cool and that allows the summer heat to penetrate deeper into the ground.”

This may have nothing to do with global warming, but rather deforestation.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Consensus on AGW is again confirmed, wind and solar use is increasing exponentially, real effects of global warming is happening now, effecting real people, including Donald Trump.



Appearance of crater dubbed ‘the Gateway to the Underworld’ in Siberia is a warning to our warming planet




]

My fave quote from your article:

This includes the last time that the Earth was warmer than it is now, when hippopotamuses and elephants wandered around the future Trafalgar Square.

I bet the light bulb is going to come on any second now.

No? OK. Try this...

This includes the last time that the Earth was warmer than it is now, when hippopotamuses and elephants wandered around the future Trafalgar Square.


How about now?


These guys are kinda eroding the gravitas of having a science degree if you ask me.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

This is also proving to be a leading cause of global warming...and is a major byproduct of the oil and gas industry.

I just learned industry sometimes sprays this waste product on roads and fields.

It has been a practice for a long time. So the government is turning a blind eye.




Rise up before it impacts our rivers and lakes!

[AbAngler]

People just simply have a very hard time understanding geologic time. I deal with it every day, and I still can't get people to fathom how long the earth has been around. Simply put, humans aren't even a blip on the radar screen. Period. Try to get your heads around that! If ALL humans disappeared tomorrow, there would be no trace of us in say, 100000 years, which is again, not even a blip on the radar screen.

Building on that, any climate change that has happened since we've been around, is not even a blip on the radar screen. Completely insignificant. This doesn't mean we should wreck the planet (we like to live in a clean environment), but it does mean that anything we do to the planet, doesn't mean 5hit in the grand scheme of things.

Deep thoughts, brought to you by Abangler.

[dmcbride]

How come Vikings were farming in Greenland 1000 years ago?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

How come Vikings were farming in Greenland 1000 years ago?

The couldn't stand the French in Canada.

[dawei88]

Climate always change.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[Bowie]

https://youtu.be/Sl9-tY1oZNw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Bowie

https://youtu.be/Sl9-tY1oZNw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The best I've ever seen Ted Cruz. It's a good watch.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Consensus on AGW is again confirmed, wind and solar use is increasing exponentially, real effects of global warming is happening now, effecting real people, including Donald Trump.


Climate Change Has Officially Engulfed 5 Pacific Islands

[/INDENT][/I]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...vel-effect-man

Four Studies Find ‘No Observable Sea-Level Effect’ From Man-Made Global Warming


By Barbara Hollingsworth | September 14, 2016 | 11:39 AM EDT

Still of former Vice President Al Gore in his 2006 film, "An Inconvenient Truth."


(CNSNews.com) – Ten years after former Vice President Al Gore warned in his 2006 Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, that if nothing was done to stop man-made global warming, melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could raise sea levels by up to 20 feet, four peer-reviewed scientific studies found “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming.”

“It is widely assumed that sea levels have been rising in recent decades largely in response to anthropogenic global warming,” Kenneth Richard writes at NoTricksZone. “However, due to the inherently large contribution of natural oscillatory influences on sea level fluctuations, this assumption lacks substantiation….

“Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is ‘no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming’,” Richard points out, listing four peer-reviewed studies published this year that have all come to the same conclusion.

In a paper published on May 18, Hindumathi Palanisamy at the Laboratoire d’Etudes en Geophysique et Oceanograhie Spatiales (LEGOS) in Toulouse, France and her co-authors explain that “sea level is an integrated climate parameter that involves interactions of all components of the climate system (oceans, ice sheets, glaciers, atmosphere, and land water reservoirs) on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales….

“Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicated a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015. Owing to their global coverage, they also reveal a strong regional seal level variability that sometimes is several times greater than the global mean sea level rise,” the researchers state.

“Considering the highly negative impact of sea level rise for society, monitoring sea level change and understanding its causes are henceforth high priorities.”

Comparing sea level changes between 1950 and 2009 in the Indian Ocean, South China and Caribbean Seas, Palanisamy’s team found that the “tropical Pacific displays the highest magnitude of sea level variations.”

“the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal”However, by studying “sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal.”

Another group of scientists led by Mohammad Hadi Bordbar from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany also concluded in a study published in April that the recent sea level trends in the tropical Pacific “are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.

“Further, such variability strengthens in response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, which may further hinder detection of anthropogenic climate signals in that region,” the study found.

In another study also published in April, a research team led by Sonke Dangendorf of the Research Institute for Water and Environment at the University of Siegen, Germany said that “superimposed on any anthropogenic trend there are also considerable decadal to centennial signals linked to intrinsic natural variability in the climate system… In the Arctic, for instance, the casual uncertainties are even up to 8 times larger than previously thought.

“This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age” – a period of low temperatures which occurred between 1300 and 1850.

In a fourth paper published online in January in the Journal of Coastal Research, lead author Jens Morten Hansen of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and his co-authors studied sea level patterns from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea over a 160-year period (1849-2009).

“Identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes,” the researchers note.

“However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region.”

In addition, the Earth’s coasts actually gained land over the past 30 years, according to another study published August 25 in Nature Climate Change.

Researchers led by Gennadii Donchyts from the Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” study co-author Fedor Baart told the BBC.

“We were able to create more land than sea level rising was taking.”

[Freddy]

Interpitation of the modeling results are only as good as the data being fed into the modeling program.
Do you really believe this stuff as fact?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Interpitation of the modeling results are only as good as the data being fed into the modeling program.
Do you really believe this stuff as fact?

I looked into other research studies and they have seen this back as far as 120,000 years ago.

This is not new. Just being better understood. The Atlantic Ossilation current has a huge impact on temperatures just like our El Niño and La Niña does in the Pacific side.

[JustMe]

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/poli...global-warming

[bigbaddad]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Interpitation of the modeling results are only as good as the data being fed into the modeling program.
Do you really believe this stuff as fact?

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I looked into other research studies and they have seen this back as far as 120,000 years ago.

This is not new. Just being better understood. The Atlantic Ossilation current has a huge impact on temperatures just like our El Niño and La Niña does in the Pacific side.

Who exactly saw this 120, 000 years ago?? And they recorded the data how? You have to be cautious of any "scientific claim" that begins, essentially, with" once upon a time" The device of incomprehensible amount of time is used quite freely by the "scientific community" to explain theories otherwise unprovable...

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by bigbaddad

Who exactly saw this 120, 000 years ago?? And they recorded the data how? You have to be cautious of any "scientific claim" that begins, essentially, with" once upon a time" The device of incomprehensible amount of time is used quite freely by the "scientific community" to explain theories otherwise unprovable...

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

This 1000x