Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Me: I think humans should do something about the debris cloud threatening our ability to maintain a satellite infrastructure

Dense: How many space debris clean up missions have you launched?? None??? You're such a hypocrite. Don't dare advocate for action until you've already built your own space elevator and started gathering paint fragments from orbit yourself......

Akrasia wrote: »

RSS adjusted raw satellite data when we discovered that their orbits were changing and this affected their measurements.

For absolute clarity, were you part of the team that discovered that the satellites were wonky?

If not, why try to make it look as if you had some part in it?

You can't take credit for discovering something you didn't discover.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

For absolute clarity, were you part of the team that discovered that the satellites were wonky?

If not, why try to make it look as if you had some part in it?

You can't take credit for discovering something you didn't discover.

Dense, you have an unusual fixation on pronouns. You need to let it go

Akrasia

sryanbruen wrote: »

Up to April 13th, Edmonton, Canada had 167 consecutive ice days from October 30th (not getting above 0c throughout the day). Its previous record was 166 consecutive ice days from November 2nd to April 16th 1975. I think its records go back to something around 1880.

Several April snowfall records have broken in the United States including 11.1 inches of snow at Minneapolis on April 14th which makes it the second snowiest April day on record here. The snow from this storm makes it the snowiest April on record in Minneapolis.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/photos-minneapolis-endures-second-snowiest-april-day-as-blizzard-rages/70004683

Parts of the first and second week had some of the coldest April conditions ever recorded for parts of the Mid-West. The cold has been widespread. Not sure on the coldest April in 100 years but I wouldn't doubt it given the extent and extreme level of the cold.

April figures aren't available yet, but globally, March was warmer than average, The USA and Europe were colder than average.



Heavier precipitation is a well predicted feature of climate change and when temperatures are low, this precipitation falls as snow.

None of this is inconsistent with climate change (I'm not saying you were making this point, but it's a common theme to say 'it's snowing therefore climate change isn't real')

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

April figures aren't available yet, but globally, March was warmer than average, The USA and Europe were colder than average.

This chart might help to give us a rough idea of how the April global temp deviation will pan out:

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You could say that I can help the space debris issue by not launching any cubesats myself. Thats true, but me not making it worse won't help make it better either. Political action on climate change is the solution and individual action is just a panacea.

What has made a difference is the way climate change is discussed and reported and public attitudes towards energy policy which put pressure on political systems to implement action and hold governments to account.

For a long time on this forum, every thread on climate change turned into a back slapping 'it's a hoax' fest. It takes effort to stand up for the science and to challenge the misinformation and change the public discourse to put climate change on the political agenda.

There are plenty of martyrs out there trying to 'lead by a good example' and they turn people off. Look at the distain that the likes of dense has for 'eco warriers', the kinds of people who do all the things that reduce their own carbon footprint, but in the process, alienate people who don't want to change their own lifestyle.

The solution to climate change is not to badger people about eating meat or driving their kids to school, or going on holidays or visiting their family abroad. It's changing national energy infrastructure, phasing out coal oil and gas, government subsidies to improve energy efficiency in homes, regulations on industry to force industry to become more energy efficient and less polluting etc.

Public policy changes are more effective than individuals talking about how great they are because they're carbon neutral and lecturing everyone else about their own lifestyle.

I have never talked about individual carbon footprints on this or other threads on this topic. The only people who do are those who want to 'poison the well'

I'm not saying you should grow dreadlocks, stop showering and tie yourself to trees, but if you really want to help the problem you preach about then why not lower your ghc emissions? No need to shout from the rooftops that you're doing it, just quietly make the sacrifices you want everyone else to make, safe in the knowledge that hey, at least you're not contributing to the problem.

Why are you not doing it? Don't give me this "one person can't make a difference" nonsense. Like "I'm not going to vote cos what difference will it make?" If everyone said that then elections would be pretty interesting.

Hell, even I've been looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, not because I see any major global climate panic but because it's a finite resource that we WILL run out of at some point. There's a cleaner, lower-cost option out there which makes pure logical sense. I will look at a hybrid or electrical car when old Betsie here packs it in. I've stopped making unnecessary trips in the car, etc.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm not saying you should grow dreadlocks, stop showering and tie yourself to trees, but if you really want to help the problem you preach about then why not lower your ghc emissions? No need to shout from the rooftops that you're doing it, just quietly make the sacrifices you want everyone else to make, safe in the knowledge that hey, at least you're not contributing to the problem.

Why are you not doing it? Don't give me this "one person can't make a difference" nonsense. Like "I'm not going to vote cos what difference will it make?" If everyone said that then elections would be pretty interesting.

Hell, even I've been looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, not because I see any major global climate panic but because it's a finite resource that we WILL run out of at some point. There's a cleaner, lower-case option out there which makes pure logical sense. I will look at a hybrid or electrical car when old Betsie here packs it in. I've stopped making unnecessary trips in the car, etc.

You don't know what I have or haven't been doing to reduce my impact. I deliberately haven't talked about it because it's a distraction.

Your point about choosing eco friendly options for purely financial reasons is exactly why I argue for political action.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Your point about choosing eco friendly options for purely financial reasons is exactly why I argue for political action.

Sounds like like people are demanding assurances of being financially reimbursed before making any expensive decisions about playing their part in saving the planet.

Lord, make me pure, but not yet.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Dense, you have an unusual fixation on pronouns. You need to let it go

I'd just like to know if you're spoofing about discovering wonky satellites.

You either were or weren't involved. Which was it?

I would posit that being loose with detail served to make an awful lot of well meaning punters believe that the vast majority of the world's scientists were telling them to fret about their carbon footprint, which everyone now acknowledges is a complete waste of time.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You don't know what I have or haven't been doing to reduce my impact. I deliberately haven't talked about it because it's a distraction.

Your point about choosing eco friendly options for purely financial reasons is exactly why I argue for political action.

Well it's pretty obvious from your replies that you're doing nothing.

And where did I say "purely financial reasons"? A deliberate misquote if I ever saw one. You really are desperate at this stage if you try to pull that one. Go back and read what I wrote and quote the reasons I gave.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Sounds like like people are demanding assurances of being financially reimbursed before making any expensive decisions about playing their part in saving the planet.

Lord, make me pure, but not yet.

How does it sound like that?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Well it's pretty obvious from your replies that you're doing nothing.

And where did I say "purely financial reasons"? A deliberate misquote if I ever saw one. You really are desperate at this stage if you try to pull that one. Go back and read what I wrote and quote the reasons I gave.

Gaoth, it wasn't a misquote because I wasn't quoting you. My point was that the way to fix the problem is to make the solutions attractive, not to punish and badger people into sacrificing to 'save the planet'.

Its capitalism in action. Incentives drive behaviour. Governments have a duty to incentivise pro-social behaviour. People will switch to carbon neutral activities when it makes sense for them to do so.

Wanderer78

Akrasia wrote:

Its capitalism in action. Incentives drive behaviour. Governments have a duty to incentivise pro-social behaviour. People will switch to carbon neutral activities when it makes sense for them to do so.

In my opinion, incentives will only have limited effect on creating change, but of course should be included in the process. Again I think we actually need very deep systematic change within our political, economic, financial and social institutions in order to truly move forward, and I fear and suspect this may not be possible, or change has severe limitations due to deeply imbedded thinking within these institutions and amongst society.

In my opinion, one of the major failings of our most predominant economic ideologies, i.e. neoliberalism and neoclassical theory, is when failures occur, ultimately blame the individual without questioning systemic failures or even potential systemic failures. This is my gripe with current predominant thinking regarding how to tackle these issues, ideas such as 'the polluter pays'. 'the polluter' is ultimately seen in this thinking as the individual, but you will actually find in reality, the polluter is in fact a highly complex set of systems and processes, which of course includes humans and our activities. Due to this, I suspect initiatives such as 'the polluter pays' may ultimately fail to achieve its goals, and I suspect is actually fueling scepticism of serious environmental matters as discussed within this thread.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Gaoth, it wasn't a misquote because I wasn't quoting you.

What? How is this...

Your point about choosing eco friendly options for purely financial reasons...

not implying that I said purely for financial reasons?

My point was that the way to fix the problem is to make the solutions attractive, not to punish and badger people into sacrificing to 'save the planet'.

Its capitalism in action. Incentives drive behaviour. Governments have a duty to incentivise pro-social behaviour. People will switch to carbon neutral activities when it makes sense for them to do so.

You're still sliding your way around the direct question of why you're not reducing your own emissions. I don't buy the answer you gave as it's a cop out to say you will make no difference. Whatever about the general population needing incentives/regulations, I'd have thought that such a staunch advocate of reducing emissions would already have your own house in order.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

April figures aren't available yet, but globally, March was warmer than average, The USA and Europe were colder than average.

You missed the bit about extended growing seasons. Last year a cold Spring affected fruit production across Europe and badly impacted wine production. This year is not looking any better and it is the extended cold not warming that has caused problems and shrunk the growing season.
We need about 90 days in the Northern hemisphere for the main crops to reach maturity (i.e. convert solar energy and CO2 into food) and be harvested. yields across large geographical areas will be down this year. Hopefully this is not a trend, but on the positive side maybe the increased C02 can help offset the losses due to late planting.



Get ready to pay more for wine, as global production hits 60-year low


Facilities that process dead farm animals busier than usual


Analysis: Plight of tillage farmers may have been buried but impact will be felt


'It's getting to the point where tillage farmers are going to have to take some hard decisions'


Farm Profit Programme: dealing with an extended winter period


Frustration increases as late spring hits sowing


United Kingdom - Farmers worry over late sowing


Late spring delaying Ukraine barley sowing campaign -analyst


Stuck in the starting blocks: Farmers idled by bad weather


Jump in food prices highest in nearly four years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3rR7CQe960

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What? How is this...



not implying that I said purely for financial reasons?

You said lower cost (or tried to)
My point is that government policies affect the cost differential between polluting and sustainable options. If an electric car cost way more to buy and run than an I.c.e. car then you are much much less likely to switch. You also said you care about preserving scarce resources and cleanliness, these are considerations too but unless you're prepared to pay a premium to advertise your eco credentials, cost is the main factor in energy supply decisions.

You're still sliding your way around the direct question of why you're not reducing your own emissions. I don't buy the answer you gave as it's a cop out to say you will make no difference. Whatever about the general population needing incentives/regulations, I'd have thought that such a staunch advocate of reducing emissions would already have your own house in order.

I do as much as I can with the resources I have. I've already been accused of preaching and virtue signalling but I'm not advocating for virtue, I'm arguing for political action.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You missed the bit about extended growing seasons. Last year a cold Spring affected fruit production across Europe and badly impacted wine production. This year is not looking any better and it is the extended cold not warming that has caused problems and shrunk the growing season.
We need about 90 days in the Northern hemisphere for the main crops to reach maturity (i.e. convert solar energy and CO2 into food) and be harvested. yields across large geographical areas will be down this year. Hopefully this is not a trend, but on the positive side maybe the increased C02 can help offset the losses due to late planting.



Get ready to pay more for wine, as global production hits 60-year low


Facilities that process dead farm animals busier than usual


Analysis: Plight of tillage farmers may have been buried but impact will be felt


'It's getting to the point where tillage farmers are going to have to take some hard decisions'


Farm Profit Programme: dealing with an extended winter period


Frustration increases as late spring hits sowing


United Kingdom - Farmers worry over late sowing


Late spring delaying Ukraine barley sowing campaign -analyst


Stuck in the starting blocks: Farmers idled by bad weather


Jump in food prices highest in nearly four years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3rR7CQe960

Better get used to it. More extreme weather is a consequence of agw.

Polar amplification weakens the jet stream leading to more blocking weather systems.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiYsuqphN_aAhVlBsAKHd5GCwgQFjAGegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0-PwRVd47hkMzXKyi37yA5

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

Better get used to it. More extreme weather is a consequence of agw.

Not so fast checkout the IPCC AR5 technical summary on page 52. Cold extremes are not part of the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

Virtually certain that, in most places, there will be more hot and fewer cold temperature extremes as global mean temperatures increase, for events defined as extremes on both daily and seasonal time scales.

Now look at the reality of cold weather extremes as the winter excess deaths increased.

It is estimated that 20,275 Brits more than average died between December 1 and March

An additional 2,000 deaths more than average were expected due to cold conditions between March 23 and 31, this winter’s average death rates show.

Our inflation of the trace amount of CO2 now present in the atmosphere will not alter the course of life on earth except to possibly save it from eventual starvation through sequestration commonly referred to as the global greening effect.

This study shows that it is possible to detect changes occurring in plants using long-term measurements of the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2. These measurements imply that plants have globally increased their water use efficiency at the leaf level in proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past few decades. While the full implications remain to be explored, the results help to quantify the extent to which the biosphere has become less constrained by water stress globally.

source

JCX BXC

Here's an interesting article that I came across this morning. According to this article by the Irish times, the gulf stream has slowed by 15%>

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/gulf-stream-slowing-down-is-bad-news-for-ireland-1.3476747?mode=amp

I find it quite strange that I've never heard of this occurance before, and would propose that more than 2 research papers need to be presented to be conclusive on this issue.

Discuss.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You said lower cost (or tried to)

Cost was just one of the reasons I used, not the only one, as you made out. This is exactly what I said

"Hell, even I've been looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, not because I see any major global climate panic but because it's a finite resource that we WILL run out of at some point. There's a cleaner, lower-cost option out there which makes pure logical sense"

Why do you feel the need to lie about it when it's down in black and white for all to see?

I do as much as I can with the resources I have. I've already been accused of preaching and virtue signalling but I'm not advocating for virtue, I'm arguing for political action.

It seems to me now at this stage that you're the one actually fixated on cost and only want to change if it doesn't cost you anything. You want to blame everyone else (government, regulators, etc.) for not coming up with some incentive to force you to change. Looks like you really don't care about CO2 levels but are just out to make a quick buck off the hype. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Not so fast checkout the IPCC AR5 technical summary on page 52. Cold extremes are not part of the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

This is true on a global scale and has already been measured. But for higher latitudes, a wavier jet stream causes blocking weather systems to become more common, so persistent heatwaves or cold snaps are more likely. Record breaking cold weather is still unlikely because the Arctic is warmer now, so even when polar air gets dragged south, it's likely to be warmer polar air than it would have been a century ago.

Persistent blocking weather causes the excess deaths, whether its heat waves or cold snaps. People can usually survive short events, but when they drag on for weeks, that's when people suffer.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/12331

Our inflation of the trace amount of CO2 now present in the atmosphere will not alter the course of life on earth except to possibly save it from eventual starvation through sequestration commonly referred to as the global greening effect.

CO2 despite being a trace gas, is still one of the main drivers of global climate. We can't double its concentration and not expect consequences. Plants are absorbing some of our extra emissions but nowhere near enough as the CO2 concentration graph continues to edge upwards beyond 400ppm

Akrasia

JCX BXC wrote: »

Here's an interesting article that I came across this morning. According to this article by the Irish times, the gulf stream has slowed by 15%>

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/gulf-stream-slowing-down-is-bad-news-for-ireland-1.3476747?mode=amp

I find it quite strange that I've never heard of this occurance before, and would propose that more than 2 research papers need to be presented to be conclusive on this issue.

Discuss.

Those studies were discussed here already about a week ago I think

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Cost was just one of the reasons I used, not the only one, as you made out. This is exactly what I said

"Hell, even I've been looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, not because I see any major global climate panic but because it's a finite resource that we WILL run out of at some point. There's a cleaner, lower-cost option out there which makes pure logical sense"

Why do you feel the need to lie about it when it's down in black and white for all to see?

Fine, take out the 'purely' from my point, it is exactly the same point. I'm not trying to misrepresent you.

It seems to me now at this stage that you're the one actually fixated on cost and only want to change if it doesn't cost you anything. You want to blame everyone else (government, regulators, etc.) for not coming up with some incentive to force you to change. Looks like you really don't care about CO2 levels but are just out to make a quick buck off the hype. Hypocrisy at its finest.

But here you are attributing motivations and completely twisting my position saying I don't even care about CO2 levels?

A few pages ago you said this thread had gone off the rails and is unreadable because of politics. your posts have done everything to improve that situation. It seems all you want to do is attack my character. Good job.

My position has been consistent throughout this entire discussion. Individual action is nowhere near enough to solve the problem. Govenments need to cooperate internationally and implement policies to speed up the transition to sustainable energy. This requires investment in infrastructure and economic instruments designed to encourage people to transition to carbon neutral technology and to improve their energy efficiency.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

. . . . Record breaking cold weather is still unlikely because the Arctic is warmer now, so even when polar air gets dragged south, it's likely to be warmer polar air than it would have been a century ago.

Quite a long standing few cold records been broken this Winter across the Northern hemisphere and "warmer polar air" is much colder than the winds that blow from the tropics.

Akrasia wrote: »

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/12331

The article you linked was published in August 2014 and it starts with the claim that "The recent decade has seen an exceptional number of boreal summer weather extremes, some causing massive damage to society". As far as I can see the major events that have had the most impact on society over that period of time have been the financial panic in 2008 and the ongoing war concentrated in the Middle East but also extending to parts of Africa none of which have anything to do with climate. The biggest natural events that have had an impact on society have been tsunamis (Indian Ocean 2004), (Japan 2011) one of which triggered the Fukushima nuclear disaster. In fact floods and drought have had much less impact in the decade that the can authors claim is caused by c02.

Akrasia wrote: »

CO2 despite being a trace gas, is still one of the main drivers of global climate. We can't double its concentration and not expect consequences. Plants are absorbing some of our extra emissions but nowhere near enough as the CO2 concentration graph continues to edge upwards beyond 400ppm

As far as human experience has demonstrated increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continue to be in no way catastrophic and if anything the last few decades coinciding with increasing C02 has seen an overall improvement in global living standards. Even Tuvalu and the Maldives are still here, the polar icecaps have not melted away despite the many failed predictions. Greenland ice is still here and even some glaciers are growing. Heck, firms are even finding commercial uses for the stuff.

Oneiric 3

Unfortuently, politics and climate change are not 'mutually exclusive' because climate change has become an increasingly political issue.

Outside of the science itself, there is plenty of evidence out there that suggest that one's personal political slant (whether one is aware or not of having such a slant) will greatly shape how one feels about the issue.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2015.1090371?journalCode=fenp20

https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/87850/8/02whole.pdf

https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/10305

https://theconversation.com/our-political-beliefs-predict-how-we-feel-about-climate-change-69435


For me, the concept of 'climate change' is aligned very much with class politics, of which is becoming increasingly evident again with the onset of major political movements across the western world over the last few years, but for the sake of others on here who hold no interest in such theorising, I'll stay quiet.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The article you linked was published in August 2014 and it starts with the claim that "The recent decade has seen an exceptional number of boreal summer weather extremes, some causing massive damage to society". As far as I can see the major events that have had the most impact on society over that period of time have been the financial panic in 2008 and the ongoing war concentrated in the Middle East but also extending to parts of Africa none of which have anything to do with climate. The biggest natural events that have had an impact on society have been tsunamis (Indian Ocean 2004), (Japan 2011) one of which triggered the Fukushima nuclear disaster. In fact floods and drought have had much less impact in the decade that the can authors claim is caused by c02.

Well, there was a european heatwave in 2003 that killed up to 70,000 people. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18241810

We're at almost 1 degree c of warming and there are damaging consequences already. Climate sensitivity is most likely around 3c, so if we don't reduce our emissions quickly, we'll see the most extreme of todays weather becoming common weather, with the new extreme being events of unprecedented ferocity. Heatwaves in Europe where the temperatures hit 50c are possible by 2100. That would be catastrophic for humans, livestock, and wildlife.

As far as human experience has demonstrated increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continue to be in no way catastrophic and if anything the last few decades coinciding with increasing C02 has seen an overall improvement in global living standards.

The worst impacts of climate change are in the future. More emissions today are committing us to more consequences in the future. There are still plenty of victims of climate change even today, a lot of Puerto Ricans picking up the pieces, Houston Texas has been devastated.

Even Tuvalu and the Maldives are still here,

Tuvalu was not predicted to completely disappear until well after 2100, recent studies have shown that the islands may be growing as sand is deposited in storms, but that's not much comfort to the people in the coastal cities (that aren't tropical atolls) that face being inundated by rising seas.

the polar icecaps have not melted away despite the many failed predictions.

They're melting faster than most models predicted they would.

Greenland ice is still here and even some glaciers are growing. Heck, firms are even finding commercial uses for the stuff.

The vast majority of glaciers are in retreat globally.

Greenland is melting faster than ever

The cores reveal that the ice layers became thicker and more frequent beginning in the 1990s, with recent melt levels that are unmatched since at least the year 1550 CE.

"The ice core record ends about 450 years ago, so the modern melt rates in these cores are the highest of the whole record that we can see," said Osterberg. "The advantage of the ice cores is that they show us just how unusual it is for Greenland to be melting this fast."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180328143303.htm

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Unfortuently, politics and climate change are not 'mutually exclusive' because climate change has become an increasingly political issue.

Outside of the science itself, there is plenty of evidence out there that suggest that one's personal political slant (whether one is aware or not of having such a slant) will greatly shape how one feels about the issue.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2015.1090371?journalCode=fenp20

https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/87850/8/02whole.pdf

https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/10305

https://theconversation.com/our-political-beliefs-predict-how-we-feel-about-climate-change-69435


For me, the concept of 'climate change' is aligned very much with class politics, of which is becoming increasingly evident again with the onset of major political movements across the western world over the last few years, but for the sake of others on here who hold no interest in such theorising, I'll stay quiet.

I know everyone has biases, but on this issue, I try to go based on the best scientific evidence I can find.

When the vast majority of published science on a subject supports one conclusion, and that conclusion is that human activity is a real threat to global climate stability, then I think we should listen and act with concerted urgency.

Also, I think it's funny that there's a Journal called 'European Journey of American Studies'

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Well, there was a european heatwave in 2003 that killed up to 70,000 people. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18241810

We're at almost 1 degree c of warming and there are damaging consequences already. Climate sensitivity is most likely around 3c, so if we don't reduce our emissions quickly, we'll see the most extreme of todays weather becoming common weather, with the new extreme being events of unprecedented ferocity. Heatwaves in Europe where the temperatures hit 50c are possible by 2100. That would be catastrophic for humans, livestock, and wildlife.

The worst impacts of climate change are in the future. More emissions today are committing us to more consequences in the future. There are still plenty of victims of climate change even today, a lot of Puerto Ricans picking up the pieces, Houston Texas has been devastated.

Tuvalu was not predicted to completely disappear until well after 2100, recent studies have shown that the islands may be growing as sand is deposited in storms, but that's not much comfort to the people in the coastal cities (that aren't tropical atolls) that face being inundated by rising seas.
They're melting faster than most models predicted they would.

The vast majority of glaciers are in retreat globally.

Greenland is melting faster than ever

Stop. Just stop. I can't read any more of your nonsense.

a) 2003 is not attributable to agw, and it most certainly did not kill 70,000 people. It was a once-off warm summer that hasn't been repeated since.

b) You say "we" should reduce our emissions quickly, yet you are reluctant to do so as you're not getting a financial incentive to do so. "Do as I say, not as I do".

c) 50 °C by 2100 is such a general statement. 50 degrees where? Seville? Stockholm? Some cities have always had heatwaves up to near 50 degrees, so where exactly do you mean? The south of Spain gets this type of heat almost every year. Some of your statements look like they came from the desk of Nathan Rao.

d) Puerto Rico? Houston? What's that got to do with agw? Again you're conveniently attributing two topical hurricanes as evidence of agw when in fact there is no proof whatsoever.

e) Which storms would these be? Did you make them up too?

Your posts are becoming comical at this stage but with a background hint of hypocritical arrogance. Plus the deliberate insertion of words like "purely" to try to misrepresent what others said.

Gaoth Laidir

Just on the Greenland ice melt, there's been significant levelling off of the rising trend of over the past 20 years relative to through the '80s and '90s.

The 2017 melt season was less intense than recent years, and was below average melt in the 1981 to 2010 reference period. Surface melting was particularly low in southeastern Greenland. In general, melting was limited to low elevations (below 1500 meters or 4900 feet) along the western and northeastern coastlines. Fewer melt days than average occurred along the Davis Strait and the interior melt pond region along the central western coast. As discussed below, the melt year ended with two significant late melt events in southeastern Greenland. The final 2017 melt event occurred at the end of October, covering the southeastern coast.
Overall, the 2017 melt season was the lowest since 1996. Although it began and ended with a few large melt events, the middle of the melt season through mid-July was below average—only briefly picking up intensity late in July through mid-August.

https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

How does it sound like that?

Sounds like those most alarmed by C02 are looking for others to make personal sacrifices before they can embark on a personal C02 reduction drive themselves.

They're looking for the tax payer to cough up for their shiny new C02 free equipment and lifestyle before they can do anything themselves about how "we" need to act so quickly.

They don't mean themselves when they say "we", they mean other people.

We need to act now, we need to fund this, we need to fund that.

All baloney. They're not going to be funding anything because they haven't got anything to fund it with.

Comes back to the studenty type I described earlier as living on a different planet, terribly aggreived and has all the answers but isn't interested in actually doing anything themselves to help alleviate the crisis situations they perceive, for any number of awfully valid excuses, but keep endlessly complaining about how their idea of how things should be isn't being taken seriously by the world.

And they wonder why people don't take them seriously.

It's a bit like the entourages of climate scientists endlessly jollying around the world to applaud whatever clown has the most climate fear and then discuss the awful harm being caused by Joe Soap's completely unnecessary air travel, or the high flying ABC1 Guardian reader we illustrated in the other thread who all seem to have seen at first hand the destruction of the bleached corals, fretting about the environmental havoc the lifestyles of others is reeking on the planet and crying themselves to sleep because they think the world is about to explode into flames.


They've all the answers but are waiting on someone else to force them against their will into adopting a lifestyle that they've no interest in.

That's why their sovereignty and democracy will have to be reigned in a little by some "global" political decisions, to force what the eco activists want to impose on them. They'll be the ones funding this transition to windmills after all.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

April figures aren't available yet, but globally, March was warmer than average, The USA and Europe were colder than average.

Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?

Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.
<snip>
My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that's a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that's a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that's a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there's no story.