What people are noticing is not "climate change" as the alarmists would have it be understood, but are simply paying the price for the immorality of our nation. Read your Bibles, and you will see how God gives warnings to nations when they are doing it wrong. The USA is currently doing it wrong, and is paying for that...
Maybe climate change is a good thing -- no more arctic icecap means newly accessible oil fields. And a brand-new, long-dreamt of Northwest Passage! What could go wrong?
No, nonsense like the panic over the impending ice age we endured in the '70's followed by the impending melt of the polar caps of the '90's followed by the catastrophic hurricane frequency after Katrina, followed by catastrophic drought conditions now, followed by etc., etc., etc. Whatever the weather pattern dujour is, the climate alarmists declare the apocalypse. So far the earth has thrown them a curve ball each time by not cooperating with their narratives. It's getting absurd at this point.
Climate change has been apparent since the earth had an atmosphere. The most recent climate changes caused the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets to vanish in a short period of time.
"Maybe climate change is a good thing -- no more arctic icecap means newly accessible oil fields"
You might want to check recent satellite imagery, the arctic icecap has been experiencing record growth and thickness. Time to switch back to Ice Age alarmism. The only long term effect this is going to have on mankind is whiplash from the constant turn in direction of how the sky is falling.
No Scott, those words are too big fer me. The poll question is: "Is climate change already apparent in the U.S.?" Of course it's apparent. Climate change has been happening since the earth has had an atmosphere, and the most recent warming trend did melt the ice sheets.
One good thing about keeping oxygen levels low and CO2 levels high, the insects stay small. When oxygen levels on earth were twice as high as they are now, dragon flies were the size of eagles and centipedes were 6' long.
"You might want to check recent satellite imagery, the arctic icecap has been experiencing record growth and thickness"
Could you tell me where to find the satellite recent imagery, Jeff? And how it demonstrates anything about a trend?
"Is climate change already apparent in the U.S.?" Of course it's apparent."
Yes, but the question, Doug, is not if it's happening (we know it is), but why. Saying it's 'ever been thus' really doesn't answer increasing evidence that this particular occurrence has been a by-product of human industrial behaviors.
Too many to list, here is a phrase to Google "arctic ice cap growth". The results come from a diverse array of sources. You can choose to focus on minute details of the debate, or attempt to address why EVERY calamitous prediction made by climate alarmists has tanked and why EVERY long term trend has proven the opposite, and why we on the verge of changing course once again with the latest trend. After a while one has to finally rely on their own eyes and ears to see that this is backwards science, starting with a conclusion then force feeding selective data(proven skewed) in order to support that conclusion. Quite frankly, it's become an embarrassment to the tenets of sound scientific theory.
". . .like the panic over the impending ice age we endured in the '70's"
Forty years is eons ago in terms of scientific research, especially in the age of super-computing capability, and climate modeling. Theories must change as new facts are confirmed. Science is not static.
"Quite frankly, it's become an embarrassment to the tenets of sound scientific theory."
Actually, not at all. It's in accordance with the overwhelming preponderance of international scientific consensus. Admittedly, the petrochemical industry abhors and refutes it (as the tobacco industry fought with its own 'science', attempting to refute the hazards of tobacco), and Fox news, of course. But politics disguised as science seldom gets very far. The scientific consensus confirming anthropogenic (of human origin) climate change is very strong, and growing.
"Theories must change as new facts are confirmed. Science is not static" If only that was what was happening. What is occurring is a systematic moving of the goal posts every time predictions fail to materialize. And so far every one has failed to materialize. You only get so many attempts at proving a theory before credibility is undermined. Climate alarmists have used up there allotment of "wolf cries". And I do appreciate your use of the new narrative and applying it to climate change "Dude, that was like 40 years ago!"
". . .every time predictions fail to materialize. And so far every one has failed to materialize."
Example?
"You only get so many attempts at proving a theory before credibility is undermined."
Scientific theories are not 'proved', Jeff. A theory rests or falls on the array of evidence that either supports, or contradicts, that which the theory attempts to interpret or explain. (The Theory of Gravity, for instance, has never been 'proved'. It's simply the best at explaining the evidence that confronts it.) Over time, as more evidence is collected, a theory either grows in stature and usefulness, or contracts.
Didn't science also once say that the world was flat. and that the sun revolved around the earth or that it was possible to sail over the horizon and fall off the earth. Also that bloodletting would cure most diseases or that Hair and fingernails do not keep growing once someone dies. Instead, the skin shrinks, giving the appearance of further growth.
And so on and so forth.
While our emmissions from industry may contribute to climate change. Things like hurricanes, saharan dust storms, meteoric impacts and volcanic eruptions as well as solar flare and other solar storms, effect climate change much more dramatically than we can.
As Doug pointed out the earth has gone through cycles of extreme climate change like we experience the 4 seasons. On a smaller scale the growth rings of centuries old sequoia trees show cycles of climate change as well.
This is all politics and profiteering by both industry ans those who want us to quit everything and go back to living green like we did before mankind developed industry. Its all media driven dribble that seems to change from global warming this decade to impending ice age the next. I remember in my lifetime when Lake Erie was considered a dead lake, it looked like chocolate milk and smelled like dead fish. All our water conservation, and pollution laws didnt change much. Until the zebra and quagga muscles invaded. Now there are place where the water is gin clear and you can see the bottom in 100ft of water.
It doesnt hurt to be green if thats what you want but mankind has quite the ego to think it can affect the planet's global climate. (Well a full out thermonuclear war could but there wouldn't be much of us left to really care or say I told you so.)
"Didn't science also once say that the world was flat. and that the sun revolved around the earth or that it was possible to sail over the horizon and fall off the earth. Also that bloodletting would cure most diseases or that Hair and fingernails do not keep growing once someone dies. Instead, the skin shrinks, giving the appearance of further growth.
And so on and so forth."
Well, no. You're thinking of the Church, for the most part. Remember Galileo? Science, a comparatively new discipline, began correcting errors like these beginning with the Renaissance. Science errs, and can go off in the wrong direction, without question. How could it be otherwise? Science is a man-made tool. But unlike faith and the ever fallible 'common sense' (common sense, as in - 'we can see it with our own eyes, every day, the sun *obviously* revolves around the earth!), science rejects dogma, and continually reexamines and self-corrects. Science is simply a very formalized method of inquiry. Discernment is required to see when science is being ill used, for one motive or another, but it's not that hard.
Yes well, some apply discernment to what they're willing to read and believe; others don't look at the source of the nonsense, that for what ever reason, they're eager to swallow and believe. Check out the source, Mark. A rogue TV weatherman turned businessman, a rogue businessman turned crank.
Are you aware that a frightening percentage of Americans now believe that vaccination is a genocidal plot by nefarious powers (including Bill and Melinda Gates) to reduce world population? And that many are now rejecting vaccination for themselves and their children on the advice of a Playboy centerfold? The result? Cases of diseases like measles, nearly eradicated in the United States, are now on the rise. Likewise polio, nearly eradicated worldwide, is now on the rise in the middle east and Africa. (This thanks largely to Islamic religious fundamentalism.) There's a lot of stuff on the internet that will advance this sort of nonsense, and many other people believe it, and so it must be true! It's the free marketplace of ideas, after all. Opinion -- facts, what's the difference? Hurry up and buy!
A free people must be an informed, educated people. And people, things aren't going well.
Mark, my screed wasn't all aimed at you, but here's the Washington Post on the individual, John Coleman, who's responsible for your post, "Climate Depot", whose 'expertise' you seem ready to both accept and recommend. From four years ago:
The reason these reports are never trustworthy is because you can take any set of weather events and make it prove whatever you want it to prove.
A book I always recommend is "Fooled by Randomness." Nobody should really comment on subjects involving probability without really understanding statistics. It appears some of the top scientists in climatology don't have this basic understanding. Or they have an agenda.
The data used to prove climate change is too small of a sample size to prove anything.
And I say that as somebody who supports all reasonable measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption and take continued steps to protect the environment. We should all be doing our part at conservation. It's just makes sense. If you're a conservative and not into conservation, you're not much of a conservative. Everybody who hunts and fishes and enjoys such outdoor activities should understand this basic sensible approach. But the global warming zealots lose credibility when they use random weather events to say it proves something about climate change.
Mark, Colemen also has an interesting video on the history of the crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U
But, as in most cases, the education/political community dismiss and impugn Coleman. Typically when faced with reason, this crowd responds with haughty words that boil down to "Oh Yeah, well you're just a stupidy stupid pants"
"The reason these reports are never trustworthy is because you can take any set of weather events and make it prove whatever you want it to prove"
This might be convincing if the evidence for climate change was based only on statistics. But unfortunately it's not.
"And I say that as somebody who supports all reasonable measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption and take continued steps to protect the environment. We should all be doing our part at conservation. It's just makes sense."
That's good enough for me. Let's hope it's good enough for our natural environment.
Would that it were so, Howard. Through multiple disciples, chemistry and biology being just two, mountains of tangible, observable evidence stand along side the statistical. Here is just one such piece, this from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society :
The only way you say climate change is an issue is to construct models that try to predict the future. The only way you build those models is with math. No matter how you slice and dice it, it's numbers. The PDF you link to ... charts and graphs and maps. Math. Statistics.
"The PDF you link to ... charts and graphs and maps. Math. Statistics."
And text. You need to read the text. (Even so, quantum mechanics is statistics, math, but the bomb worked.) But we're given more here, the *correlation* of the statistical evidence with the physical evidence. From the paper's conclusion:
"At high elevations, the overall trends regarding glaciers, plants, insects, and temperatures show remarkable internal consistency, and there is consistency between model projections and the ongoing changes."
What people are noticing is
What people are noticing is not "climate change" as the alarmists would have it be understood, but are simply paying the price for the immorality of our nation. Read your Bibles, and you will see how God gives warnings to nations when they are doing it wrong. The USA is currently doing it wrong, and is paying for that...
". . .and you will see how
". . .and you will see how God gives warnings to nations when they are doing it wrong."
"The USA is currently doing it wrong, and is paying for that..."
Yes, just like brand-new little earthquakes in Oklahoma. But at least our air is cleaner these days. Thanks EPA!
Hopefully only two more years
Hopefully only two more years at most of this crap and then we can return to common sense.
Nonsense like the
Nonsense like the fracking-induced temblors in Oklahoma, Jeff, or the newly clean air?
Maybe climate change is a
Maybe climate change is a good thing -- no more arctic icecap means newly accessible oil fields. And a brand-new, long-dreamt of Northwest Passage! What could go wrong?
No, nonsense like the panic
No, nonsense like the panic over the impending ice age we endured in the '70's followed by the impending melt of the polar caps of the '90's followed by the catastrophic hurricane frequency after Katrina, followed by catastrophic drought conditions now, followed by etc., etc., etc. Whatever the weather pattern dujour is, the climate alarmists declare the apocalypse. So far the earth has thrown them a curve ball each time by not cooperating with their narratives. It's getting absurd at this point.
Climate change has been
Climate change has been apparent since the earth had an atmosphere. The most recent climate changes caused the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets to vanish in a short period of time.
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/wUWxU5B.jpg">
"The most recent climate
"The most recent climate changes caused the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets to vanish in a short period of time."
Doug, do you claim this as evidence against anthropogenic climate change?
"Maybe climate change is a
"Maybe climate change is a good thing -- no more arctic icecap means newly accessible oil fields"
You might want to check recent satellite imagery, the arctic icecap has been experiencing record growth and thickness. Time to switch back to Ice Age alarmism. The only long term effect this is going to have on mankind is whiplash from the constant turn in direction of how the sky is falling.
No Scott, those words are too
No Scott, those words are too big fer me. The poll question is: "Is climate change already apparent in the U.S.?" Of course it's apparent. Climate change has been happening since the earth has had an atmosphere, and the most recent warming trend did melt the ice sheets.
One good thing about keeping
One good thing about keeping oxygen levels low and CO2 levels high, the insects stay small. When oxygen levels on earth were twice as high as they are now, dragon flies were the size of eagles and centipedes were 6' long.
"You might want to check
"You might want to check recent satellite imagery, the arctic icecap has been experiencing record growth and thickness"
Could you tell me where to find the satellite recent imagery, Jeff? And how it demonstrates anything about a trend?
"Is climate change already apparent in the U.S.?" Of course it's apparent."
Yes, but the question, Doug, is not if it's happening (we know it is), but why. Saying it's 'ever been thus' really doesn't answer increasing evidence that this particular occurrence has been a by-product of human industrial behaviors.
"the insects stay small." But
"the insects stay small."
But I like them big ones!
Too many to list, here is a
Too many to list, here is a phrase to Google "arctic ice cap growth". The results come from a diverse array of sources. You can choose to focus on minute details of the debate, or attempt to address why EVERY calamitous prediction made by climate alarmists has tanked and why EVERY long term trend has proven the opposite, and why we on the verge of changing course once again with the latest trend. After a while one has to finally rely on their own eyes and ears to see that this is backwards science, starting with a conclusion then force feeding selective data(proven skewed) in order to support that conclusion. Quite frankly, it's become an embarrassment to the tenets of sound scientific theory.
Jeff, this is one result from
Jeff, this is one result from the Google search you suggested. I don't think it reveals what you thought it would:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm
". . .like the panic over the impending ice age we endured in the '70's"
Forty years is eons ago in terms of scientific research, especially in the age of super-computing capability, and climate modeling. Theories must change as new facts are confirmed. Science is not static.
"Quite frankly, it's become an embarrassment to the tenets of sound scientific theory."
Actually, not at all. It's in accordance with the overwhelming preponderance of international scientific consensus. Admittedly, the petrochemical industry abhors and refutes it (as the tobacco industry fought with its own 'science', attempting to refute the hazards of tobacco), and Fox news, of course. But politics disguised as science seldom gets very far. The scientific consensus confirming anthropogenic (of human origin) climate change is very strong, and growing.
"Theories must change as new
"Theories must change as new facts are confirmed. Science is not static" If only that was what was happening. What is occurring is a systematic moving of the goal posts every time predictions fail to materialize. And so far every one has failed to materialize. You only get so many attempts at proving a theory before credibility is undermined. Climate alarmists have used up there allotment of "wolf cries". And I do appreciate your use of the new narrative and applying it to climate change "Dude, that was like 40 years ago!"
". . .every time predictions
". . .every time predictions fail to materialize. And so far every one has failed to materialize."
Example?
"You only get so many attempts at proving a theory before credibility is undermined."
Scientific theories are not 'proved', Jeff. A theory rests or falls on the array of evidence that either supports, or contradicts, that which the theory attempts to interpret or explain. (The Theory of Gravity, for instance, has never been 'proved'. It's simply the best at explaining the evidence that confronts it.) Over time, as more evidence is collected, a theory either grows in stature and usefulness, or contracts.
Geez! I could've sworn that
Geez!
I could've sworn that Chicken Little died in the "Angling Road Chicken Massacre" the other day.
But, apparently, the sky IS still falling.
"DUCK, Robin, or your goose is cooked!"
--- And the ump cried, "Fowl"!!
Didn't science also once say
Didn't science also once say that the world was flat. and that the sun revolved around the earth or that it was possible to sail over the horizon and fall off the earth. Also that bloodletting would cure most diseases or that Hair and fingernails do not keep growing once someone dies. Instead, the skin shrinks, giving the appearance of further growth.
And so on and so forth.
While our emmissions from industry may contribute to climate change. Things like hurricanes, saharan dust storms, meteoric impacts and volcanic eruptions as well as solar flare and other solar storms, effect climate change much more dramatically than we can.
As Doug pointed out the earth has gone through cycles of extreme climate change like we experience the 4 seasons. On a smaller scale the growth rings of centuries old sequoia trees show cycles of climate change as well.
This is all politics and profiteering by both industry ans those who want us to quit everything and go back to living green like we did before mankind developed industry. Its all media driven dribble that seems to change from global warming this decade to impending ice age the next. I remember in my lifetime when Lake Erie was considered a dead lake, it looked like chocolate milk and smelled like dead fish. All our water conservation, and pollution laws didnt change much. Until the zebra and quagga muscles invaded. Now there are place where the water is gin clear and you can see the bottom in 100ft of water.
It doesnt hurt to be green if thats what you want but mankind has quite the ego to think it can affect the planet's global climate. (Well a full out thermonuclear war could but there wouldn't be much of us left to really care or say I told you so.)
"Didn't science also once say
"Didn't science also once say that the world was flat. and that the sun revolved around the earth or that it was possible to sail over the horizon and fall off the earth. Also that bloodletting would cure most diseases or that Hair and fingernails do not keep growing once someone dies. Instead, the skin shrinks, giving the appearance of further growth.
And so on and so forth."
Well, no. You're thinking of the Church, for the most part. Remember Galileo? Science, a comparatively new discipline, began correcting errors like these beginning with the Renaissance. Science errs, and can go off in the wrong direction, without question. How could it be otherwise? Science is a man-made tool. But unlike faith and the ever fallible 'common sense' (common sense, as in - 'we can see it with our own eyes, every day, the sun *obviously* revolves around the earth!), science rejects dogma, and continually reexamines and self-corrects. Science is simply a very formalized method of inquiry. Discernment is required to see when science is being ill used, for one motive or another, but it's not that hard.
I just wish we could have
I just wish we could have cold snowy winters like we did back in the 60's.....
Do you smart people with all the answers think it'll happen in the next ten years?
I found this a good read on
I found this a good read on the subject.........................................
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/07/600-page-litany-of-doom-weather-…
"I found this a good read on
"I found this a good read on the subject."
Yes well, some apply discernment to what they're willing to read and believe; others don't look at the source of the nonsense, that for what ever reason, they're eager to swallow and believe. Check out the source, Mark. A rogue TV weatherman turned businessman, a rogue businessman turned crank.
Are you aware that a frightening percentage of Americans now believe that vaccination is a genocidal plot by nefarious powers (including Bill and Melinda Gates) to reduce world population? And that many are now rejecting vaccination for themselves and their children on the advice of a Playboy centerfold? The result? Cases of diseases like measles, nearly eradicated in the United States, are now on the rise. Likewise polio, nearly eradicated worldwide, is now on the rise in the middle east and Africa. (This thanks largely to Islamic religious fundamentalism.) There's a lot of stuff on the internet that will advance this sort of nonsense, and many other people believe it, and so it must be true! It's the free marketplace of ideas, after all. Opinion -- facts, what's the difference? Hurry up and buy!
A free people must be an informed, educated people. And people, things aren't going well.
Strange days have found us.
Mark, my screed wasn't all
Mark, my screed wasn't all aimed at you, but here's the Washington Post on the individual, John Coleman, who's responsible for your post, "Climate Depot", whose 'expertise' you seem ready to both accept and recommend. From four years ago:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/01/a_new_nasa_…
Old saying: Lies, damn lies
Old saying: Lies, damn lies and statistics.
The reason these reports are never trustworthy is because you can take any set of weather events and make it prove whatever you want it to prove.
A book I always recommend is "Fooled by Randomness." Nobody should really comment on subjects involving probability without really understanding statistics. It appears some of the top scientists in climatology don't have this basic understanding. Or they have an agenda.
The data used to prove climate change is too small of a sample size to prove anything.
And I say that as somebody who supports all reasonable measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption and take continued steps to protect the environment. We should all be doing our part at conservation. It's just makes sense. If you're a conservative and not into conservation, you're not much of a conservative. Everybody who hunts and fishes and enjoys such outdoor activities should understand this basic sensible approach. But the global warming zealots lose credibility when they use random weather events to say it proves something about climate change.
Mark, Colemen also has an
Mark, Colemen also has an interesting video on the history of the crisis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U
But, as in most cases, the education/political community dismiss and impugn Coleman. Typically when faced with reason, this crowd responds with haughty words that boil down to "Oh Yeah, well you're just a stupidy stupid pants"
"The reason these reports are
"The reason these reports are never trustworthy is because you can take any set of weather events and make it prove whatever you want it to prove"
This might be convincing if the evidence for climate change was based only on statistics. But unfortunately it's not.
"And I say that as somebody who supports all reasonable measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption and take continued steps to protect the environment. We should all be doing our part at conservation. It's just makes sense."
That's good enough for me. Let's hope it's good enough for our natural environment.
"This might be convincing if
"This might be convincing if the evidence for climate change was based only on statistics. But unfortunately it's not."
Actually, that's all it is.
"Actually, that's all it
"Actually, that's all it is."
Would that it were so, Howard. Through multiple disciples, chemistry and biology being just two, mountains of tangible, observable evidence stand along side the statistical. Here is just one such piece, this from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society :
http://www.decvar.org/documents/epstein.pdf
The only way you say climate
The only way you say climate change is an issue is to construct models that try to predict the future. The only way you build those models is with math. No matter how you slice and dice it, it's numbers. The PDF you link to ... charts and graphs and maps. Math. Statistics.
"The PDF you link to ...
"The PDF you link to ... charts and graphs and maps. Math. Statistics."
And text. You need to read the text. (Even so, quantum mechanics is statistics, math, but the bomb worked.) But we're given more here, the *correlation* of the statistical evidence with the physical evidence. From the paper's conclusion:
"At high elevations, the overall trends regarding glaciers, plants, insects, and temperatures show remarkable internal consistency, and there is consistency between model projections and the ongoing changes."
It has to be read. But enough from me.