skierinvermont

Opinions are one thing. Repeating right wing lies that have been disproved a thousand times over are entirely another. Any remotely genuine engagement on the topic would be entirely a different matter and deserve a more engaged response. Anybody with an ounce of respect for the truth, science, human or environmental health wouldn't be repeating disproved falsehoods ripped straight from right wing disinformation sources. This isn’t some mr Rogers fairy land where everyone gets to have an opinion just because they were born. The truth and a rigorous disciplined pursuit of it is what counts. One group is presenting facts and peer reviewed science. The only response is 'it's the oceans!!!' and a bunch of other lies. There is no genuine search for the truth. There is no discussion to be had with such an individual.

You tell lies, I point out your lying and/or willful ignorance, you report me. Good luck. You don’t like being called a liar? Have you tried not spreading lies? I don't have respect for lies and disingenuous behavior. Bless the people here who are willing to try and educate you despite this.

'birds in turbines' is mostly winger nonsense given 100x more birds die from feral cats, communication towers, power lines, and household windows. 'but it can't be forced' is also winger nonsense given wind is cheaper than coal and has been largely adopted on economic grounds. Modest tax subsidies can speed the process with little to no impact on poor people (and much benefit in terms of a less polluted environment and more stable climate). 'all countries' is more winger bullshit since the U.S. uses far more CO2 per-capita than almost any country in the world. climate accords should allocate an equal amount of CO2 per person in every country. Just because the U.S. has been the worse offender historically doesn't mean it should get to keep being the worst. 'question everything as a scientist' lol - we see right through you - just another phony winger buying into right wing lies ultimately you will lose this debate and the actions and words of people like you will be looked back upon with shame, because your side is founded on lies and the truth will ultimately win I have no patience for people spreading lies. Shame on you.

'oceans go back to a cooling cycle' - wow the wonder of magical thinking. How are the oceans going to cool the planet when they are full of more heat than any time in thousands of years. It's simple. There is a massive persistent energy imbalance of the whole planet. There is no possible mechanism by which the oceans could cause such a whole-system imbalance where the atmosphere and oceans - everything - are warming continuously and with a very large magnitude.

I mean most sane people don't really argue that corn syrup isn't bad for you, the argument I've seen is that it's no worse than sugar which is correct (there's little evidence corn syrup is any worse than sugar other than the fact that it's cheaper and more widely used in the food industry).

In terms of global warming, animal farming and dense population centers have a negligible effect outside of their GHG effect (cow farts, cars in cities etc.). Outside the GHG effect of animal farms (cow farts = methane, and clear cutting = CO2), animal farms probably cause cooling by creating a more reflective land surface than a forest. Of course the GHG effect of the cow farts and clear cutting outweigh that.

ENSO doesn't cause a planetary energy imbalance. In fact, by reduced ocean mixing concentrating heat at the oceans surface, more heat is radiated to space and the deep oceans cool. In contrast, we have observed an exceptionally large increase in the earth's oceanic heat content. The oceans have warmed so much that they have expanded significantly and are the primary cause of sea level rise for the last century. It's very difficult to comprehend the amount of heat the oceans have absorbed over the last 100+ years in order to expand that much (and also confirmed by deep sea buoys over more recent decades). You really should make an effort to learn about the amount of heat that the oceans have absorbed and how the only possible explanation is that the earth is stuck in a large radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. There are only a few plausible explanations for such an imbalance: 1) large changes in cloud cover 2) large land use changes making the earth less reflective (human caused land changes have tended to make the earth more reflective) 3) changes in greenhouse gas concentrations The obvious answer is #3 given the observed increase in CO2 and its testable radiative properties

Denver could see it's earliest sub-30 reading ever 4 days after seeing it's latest 100+ ever. While I'd generally expect record cold to decrease with climate change, the wild weather swings are predicted to increase with a slowing jet.

Any biologist will tell you these are terrible ideas. Nature is far too complex to tinker with and not further contribute to our current mass extinction event.

I pay taxes the feds spend billions on disaster relief.

Maybe you, not me. Sea level rise already costs a lot of money in terms of worse erosion and amplifying storm surge. The foot that sea levels have risen so far could have been the difference between the levies breaking in Katrina and not breaking. I’m not saying it was, but you get the idea. Storm surge costs billions every year and if sea level rise has added 20% that is a lot of money. typical bad surge is 10 feet but most of the costs are associated with the last few feet. So by having 10 feet above historical sea level instead of 9 feet above, you may increase damage by 20 or 30%. If it’s just enough to break a levy, it could be 10000% these costs are rising every year as sea level keeps rising and accelerating

People in cities produce less carbon dioxide per person than in the country. There's just infinitely more people in cities. As someone who has lived in both rural and urban places, I didn't just stop using resources when I moved to a city because there were so many other people around me that our collective actions are actually visible (smog) whereas in some rural areas smog is not a problem. You still have a collective action problem in rural places and cities. People still need to get to to work etc.

I don't understand most of what you are trying to say here but the odds of multi-meter sea level rise in a decade is near-zero.

Don't know how Will is so patient with comments like above. But take a look at the company you keep... scientists have a conspiracy to pretend the ice is gone (easily disproven by satellite picture, airplane and boat traffic) .... and prescription drugs make people more sick... there you have it people... the paranoid American far-right

No, the 2007 IPCC report (the definitive scientific consensus on climate change at the time) predicted that near ice free conditions would not occur until the end of the 21st century. The projection was largely based on a modeling study by Zhang and Walsh who are two of the top sea ice researchers (you see their names a lot). That projection has since been moved up to the 2030s in some recent studies based on the unexpectedly fast rate of sea ice volume losses from 2007-2012. Maybe some bloggers and people on this forum predicted sooner, but it is generally better to form one's opinions from peer-reviewed scientific and journalistic sources.

Ranting about how the Russians are punishing us with cold weather is a valid point? Maybe ban this guy too.

Can someone ban this guy? Unreadable.

I know it's nitpicky but that last bar is no where near the line of best fit for that period (07-17). To get a flat trend like that you'd have to go from '10-'17.

Yeah there's a lot of good info and analysis (and some bad analysis too)... you just have to take the predictions with a grain of salt and make your own inferences based on the information.

How long you have been following the arctic sea ice forum? I assume you mean Neven's site? In my experience his site (and probably other similar sites) are way too pessimistic (or optimistic if you notice how giddy some of them get). I haven't really followed that site in a few years, but back around 2012-2014 they were off the charts with their wild predictions. Yeah the ice is "bad" and they do a great job showing pictures of how "bad" it is... but without a lot of aggregate empirical data or sound logic to back up predictions.

When you include 2016, the years after 2007 look to have a slightly bigger area drop after June 30th than the years before 2007. Not sure if it's significant though.

Again, you are making the same mistake I made 10 years ago. Mainstream consensus science has never predicted a "likely" ice free Arctic before the 2020s at earliest. I believe the modeling continues to suggest a most likely timeframe of late 2020s or 2030s or later. There were a few fringe guys who did not publish peer-reviewed papers that predicted ice free in the years following 2012. Few were fooled by them other than AGW-hype bloggers and AGW-deniers looking for strawmen (like yourself). I spend a significant amount of time the last 5 years arguing against these AGW-alarmist types on this forum. Why? Because I follow legitimate peer-reviewed science not internet bloggers. If you pay attention, there is a core group that has studied and published on the arctic for decades. This group was never on board with an ice-free arctic before 2020. At best, a few might have suggested it was possible with bad enough weather (which actually was possible considering how close we got in 2012). Likewise, the mainstream prediction regarding tropical activity has actually always been a low confidence prediction for a net decrease in the # of cyclones and a slight increase in average intensity. It's right there in the IPCC reports. So the examples of a few fringe AGW guys without any real credentials or publishing history making fringe predictions that turn out to be wrong is a lot more akin to the fringe bloggers you are following on the internet. They're both wrong. Likewise I'd like to see a response to Snow Misers clear explanation of why a solar lag cannot exist. When you turn off the stove (the sun) a pot of water will immediately begin to cool (the earth). There is no lag. It doesn't cool down completely immediately. But it begins to cool immediately. In reality, the earth has not started cooling, it has not stopped warming, it hasn't even slowed down its warming. If anything, the data suggests the warming has accelerated.

An excellent and concise explanation of the problem with "solar lag" bloggers.

I think your overall point has some validity. There are a lot of pressing problems facing humanity today. There could be even more in the future, regardless of climate change. But I would suggest reading some more scientific sources about the effects of climate change. Increases in flooding, drought, and sea level will have huge costs to humanity. It affects the entire planet and the problem is not temporary.

I've been listening to people like you say the cooling is coming for over 10 years. In fact, I had a radio show in college 10 years ago where I actually said we could see some cooling and AGW might be greatly exaggerated. Mostly I was overreacting to learning that some news articles, Al Gore, and even some science was skewed towards AGW and I went off too far in the other direction. I learned from my mistakes. Some never do. We've already been through one very weak solar cycle for 10 years now. The earth didn't cool down. It didn't even stop warming.. it warmed a lot the last 10 years. This is where you introduce some magical lag period you read about on some internet blog that doesn't make any logical or physical sense. Let me tell you a secret.. these magical "lag" people were the same ones saying cooling was imminent 10-15 years ago. Then they invented the lag, because instead of the warming reversing or stopping, if anything it actually accelerated.