Earth day

Oh man... Jeff why'd you have to out me like that? I can't keep getting my corrupt research dollars used to publish faked climate data if I get outed to the public. So shhhh... I don't think CCFan counts but don't let it spread.

I wouldn't call it corrupt research dollars, but would liken it to the same idea as political donations. Take the NRA, does their money influence politicians and the way they vote, or are the politicians like minded individuals that the NRA supports because they vote in a way that NRA agrees with. I'd say the latter. Same with research dollars, if someone likes the research someone is doing, they will get support. Unfortunately, people are so political today that in most cases their bias shows right through them, no matter what their profession is.

Dave, the Forbes piece is basically some writer's opinion column, and in the second they note, "However, now sea ice coverage has expanded to reach the sixth record low, according to AFP." In the case of Arctic Sea Ice this is the crux. If you weight 500 pounds and lose 10, are you now thin? I think we can agree that an increase from a record low to a near record low is not exactly encouraging in terms of sea ice extent.

We also need to note again that extent and mass are not the same thing. The MASS of ice is far more important when it comes to the issue of sea level rise than the extent of the ice. Of course both the extent and mass of ice at both poles and in glacial regions around the world have been in steady decline for decades.

Bruce, did you read the link I posted to the National Science Foundation and how federal science dollars get allocated? There are few, if any, political decisions made when it comes to funding. The criteria for all NSF funding are 1)intellectual merit, and 2)broader impact to society both of which are determined by independent committees of expert scientists in the field.

Things are in fact changing in your world, you just can't, don't, or won't notice it. Doesn't change the fact that it is changing. I don't know why I didn't think of bringing this paper up sooner, but a couple years ago some folks compared flowering records of Henry David Thoreau (circa 1850s Massachusetts) and Aldo Leopold (circa 1930s Wisconsin) to flowering times today and, surprise surprise, flowering times are a number of days earlier on average today than they were 80 or 150 years ago. This one was published in PLOS One which is thankfully open source so you can read it yourself if you want. That kind of change is difficult and perhaps impossible for somebody to notice in casual day-to-day living. But the evidence is there nevertheless. Climate change does not predict the end of seasons, but it does suggest that temperatures will increase, wind and precipitation patterns will be altered, and the number of extreme events will increase, all of which are being observed (though none of which we can ever definitively say has been directly "caused" by climate change).

Correct Ceaft, on the waters of the world since 1925, new and improved with more water to enjoy

john b wrote: When today's Nautiques are as old as "Wating On The Dock" you may not need as trailer to drive one home.

"Joughin's study uses computer simulations and concludes...."

JoeinNY wrote: A prediction of a model is good at the time it is made and run.......................... The chance of all of those assumptions being 100 percent right on something as complicated as a model of world climate is zero.

Dave, when you can get a paper published in Science or Geophysical Research Letters (which I can assure you is incredibly difficult for even the best scientists) refuting the work of these authors, then I will take your criticism of their work seriously.

Let it go already. You (and I for that matter) are in no position as a layman to criticize their methods. If you can find someone at their level who has serious concerns about these papers, then by all means share that. Otherwise your armchair pot shots are exactly that.

Jamin, Jeff, and other climate change believers....we have now covered approximately 17 pages and almost 500 posts in trying to prove each other wrong. If I see one more graph, chart or article on the issue, I am going to scream....and then go have a shot of rye;).   So, let's assume you make believers out of the deniers. You have opened our eyes to the truth!!

What now? What do you want the rest of us to do? It appears we all like our carbon burning toys, our nice warm homes, our gas guzzler cars, and to fly to Mexico in the winter to escape the frigid cold of the Midwest. Apparently, we are not so different after all. But, what do we do to save our planet from impending doom that is here, and is real?

Hansel wrote: OverMyHead wrote: Jamin. I wish I had the time. I am a little busy trying to pay for my artificially inflated energy costs. This is a joke about how energy costs are actually artificially held low when you consider unnecessary energy subsidies and the fact that we externalize most of the cost of burning fossil fuels, right?

Wrong. First we all pay when we subsidize, we just pull the money from a different pocket. All government money is ours to start with. Also You can't just isolate tax policy (In many cases government sponsored give aways to buy votes) the net effect on energy costs from government is increased (artificially high) costs to the consumer. Sure they subsidize wind and ethanol, but they also mandate its use. Wind energy is at least 50% more expensive than coal fired power. They subsidize it down to maybe 30% more expensive, but mandate I use it for 30% of my bill. I pay more in taxes to cover the subsidy and more in energy costs to use the energy. They are taking away the option of coal, which increases the demand for natural gas, making the powerplants compete (supply and demand) for my home heating resources. Coal is just one example of the massive cost of government regulation. There is no way the governments net effect on energy is holding it artificially low.

Jamin, I did not see the link, but I believe what you say as you are the most rational debater for your view point. I don't doubt that man has had an affect on the earth and atmosphere, but this global warming/climate change/climate disruption is so political that I will always be suspect of the source, which for some reason is primarily liberal or progressive minded people. I remember 10-15 years ago Rush Limbaugh predicting that the Left would start going after the SUV. Seemed like an odd prediction to me at the time, but boy was he right on. This whole climate change business is aimed at changing people's behavior such as the cars we drive, when as you said at some point, the cars we drive make very little difference.

Hey Bruce, thanks for the compliment. I just wanted expose a little bit of how science funding occurs. I didn't know anything about it until I got close to it, and since the government spends billions on basic research annually I figure we all have an interest in knowing how the system works. No system run by people will ever be remotely close to perfect, but the science funding apparatus certainly attempts (and I think in large part succeeds) in being quite a fair, adaptable, and independent system.

There is, no doubt, a political dimension to all of this but I am attempting to keep politics out of it as much as possible since it is without question first and foremost a scientific question. Surely the scientific conclusion gets co-opted by foaming at the mouth eco-freaks (of which I am not one, at least I don't think) for their own ends but that doesn't change the science of it all. I am also quite certain that an old SUV is easier on the environment than a brand new Prius when you consider the energy/resources used to create a new car. At least that is how I justify having two 25 year old cars...

Dave, as I understand it the energy efficiency of natural gas is greater than that of coal, so I am fine with the transition to natural gas no matter how it comes about. Regulation is by definition one of the primary purposes of government it seems to me. Furthermore, I think that fracking is probably better than coal because its effects are at least localized (I think the same about nuclear power) even if it pains me to think of the destruction happening in beautiful places like western North Dakota.

Joe, Jamin - you guys should watch that video I linked above. In another thread Jamin said something to the effect of "I wish the TV shows would have a real representative debate with 3 people that don't 'believe' global climate change and 97 scientists that do and have the data to back it up"

That's exactly what they did, albeit tongue-in-cheek.

ny_nautique wrote: Joe, Jamin - you guys should watch that video I linked above. In another thread Jamin said something to the effect of "I wish the TV shows would have a real representative debate with 3 people that don't 'believe' global climate change and 97 scientists that do and have the data to back it up" That's exactly what they did, albeit tongue-in-cheek.

Maybe next time he will do the one where Galileo debates all the scientists of his time about the earth not being the center of the universe. Or maybe columbus debating the flat earthers. Should be funny.

Jamin. I certainly agree that there are strong comparisons between the religious ideology of Galileo's time and the political/environmental ideology of the present. Sounds very familiar. Certainly there was a lot of scientific observations of objects moving around the earth that lead to that conclusion. They thought they had all the science just like we do. Only time will tell, but I feel I am in good company.

Dave, if you think you are in good company then carry on. Time will tell, and I am quite certain that you will live long enough to understand that you are now betting on the wrong horse. I'm talking on the order of decades here, so I expect you to have many more years of pleasurable boating before you : )

If there weren't a big cost to me and every other human for you and others betting on the wrong horse I'd have let this issue go a long, long time ago. But we only have one Earth and one atmosphere and we best get it as right as we can.

What is the worst thing that can happen from playing it safe with greenhouse gases?

What is the worse thing that can happen from playing fast and loose with greenhouse gases?

Riley wrote: Yes, except that Global Warming has become one of the Sacraments of Liberalism. I like Joe's idea of working on boats better. I mostly gave up discussing politics quite a few years ago as I found going to work more productive. I do enjoy reading other's point of view, though. The first time I heard of "deniers" was on this thread this past winter. Now it's all over the news when a progressive talks about someone else's view point that is skeptical of GW. I thought deniers were people that didn't believe the Holocaust happened? Who expanded the definition?

I hear you on arguing politics, but like I say, there is the politics of climate change and there is the science of climate change. I generally try to avoid sacraments, and I don't really consider myself a liberal. Denial does sorta fit because as long as folks persist in denying that there is a scientific consensus on the issue there is little else to call it. You can deny that it is the Truth, but you just can't deny the science (which I stress are two separate things). What you do with the scientific conclusion is where the politics begins. Before that, its just plain science.