Reconsidering the Climate Change Act

[The_Global_Warmer]

So we double the numbper because your pals rationalized the lack of warming. To feedbacks, aka "excuses".

Face it global warming science is a business... Scientists have a field that requires funding and they aren't going to seek answers that differ from the desired outcomes.

The arctic ice has been melting since the last ice age. There hasn't been a period of increasing glaciation for over 15,000 years. The ice can only go one way... Down.

there are these guys names Walsh and Chapman who have rebuilt the sea ice Pre-Satelitte data. This graph uses recent Sat Data from NSIDC The light blue is the SSMR/SSMI Sats the other ones I believe it says ESMR. Before that they use records, visible sat images, buoys, arctic manned stations, ships, submarines, exporers, official USSR documents. The Russian happen to be mightly particular in there detailed arctic exporation from the 1920s to 1950s. This has been collaborated with other scientists. The British, French, Norwegians, Danish, Canadians, and Americans have all had manned stations all over the arctic during WW2 and the Cold War.

Russians have had some stations along Siberians coast since around 1900.

They have journals they get data from. You know those cool images of Glaciers and Mtns 60-90 years ago compared to modern day ones? When they show incredible ice loss at an accelerating rate? Well those guys are typically scientists keeping journals and records of things like Sea Ice, Glacial Ice, and I am sure other weather related tests.

The Russians had people trying to venture the NE Passage for Decades. They have historical records of country wide snow depths and snow cover duration averages during the huge reform years 1920s to 1940s. Incredible detail. The British has snow depth from submarine scans and a ton of other military stuff up there they are now releasing which will go into another revision of this study.

This notion that the sea ice goes through radical changes on a 50 year period where it loses nearly all of it's old ice, loses 80%+ of it's volume. Did you know there used to be wide areas in winter of 5-10M ice in large parts of the Canadian Basin during winter? Ice ridges would get smashes in the wide channels in Northern Canada, these ridges would build for decades maybe longer. The ice never melted out enough to affect them.

They have measured some of these with 50-100m thick ice slammed up against an island for miles in each direction. These ridges stayed in place well until recently when the ice in the rest of the channel melted. Last summer Resolute reported an SST of 7.2C during August, the NSIDC I believe said they have record warmth.

There is another Sea Ice graph in Miles. The Gray shading before 1953 has less confidence in the data(so they admit that, doesn't sound like they are trying to get over on someone).

This is a different group of scientists reconstructing things, they get similar results.

[Jonger]

there are these guys names Walsh and Chapman who have rebuilt the sea ice Pre-Satelitte data. This graph uses recent Sat Data from NSIDC The light blue is the SSMR/SSMI Sats the other ones I believe it says ESMR. Before that they use records, visible sat images, buoys, arctic manned stations, ships, submarines, exporers, official USSR documents. The Russian happen to be mightly particular in there detailed arctic exporation from the 1920s to 1950s. This has been collaborated with other scientists. The British, French, Norwegians, Danish, Canadians, and Americans have all had manned stations all over the arctic during WW2 and the Cold War.

Russians have had some stations along Siberians coast since around 1900.

They have journals they get data from. You know those cool images of Glaciers and Mtns 60-90 years ago compared to modern day ones? When they show incredible ice loss at an accelerating rate? Well those guys are typically scientists keeping journals and records of things like Sea Ice, Glacial Ice, and I am sure other weather related tests.

The Russians had people trying to venture the NE Passage for Decades. They have historical records of country wide snow depths and snow cover duration averages during the huge reform years 1920s to 1940s. Incredible detail. The British has snow depth from submarine scans and a ton of other military stuff up there they are now releasing which will go into another revision of this study.

This notion that the sea ice goes through radical changes on a 50 year period where it loses nearly all of it's old ice, loses 80%+ of it's volume. Did you know there used to be wide areas in winter of 5-10M ice in large parts of the Canadian Basin during winter? Ice ridges would get smashes in the wide channels in Northern Canada, these ridges would build for decades maybe longer. The ice never melted out enough to affect them.

They have measured some of these with 50-100m thick ice slammed up against an island for miles in each direction. These ridges stayed in place well until recently when the ice in the rest of the channel melted. Last summer Resolute reported an SST of 7.2C during August, the NSIDC I believe said they have record warmth.

There is another Sea Ice graph in Miles. The Gray shading before 1953 has less confidence in the data(so they admit that, doesn't sound like they are trying to get over on someone).

This is a different group of scientists reconstructing things, they get similar results.

Funny how the ice starts to decline almost immediately when the data gets put together properly in 1953. We have about 50 years of real data on the arctic. Without satellite data and modern science actively monitoring... Its about a accurate as asking an elderly person about weather in there childhood.. It was always snowier and colder, until you look at daily records and prove them wrong.

So what was the first aproximate year a real targeted science was developed in relation to glacier and sea ice coverage? I'm interested to know. We have about a microscopic sliver of time to work from and you appear to have it all figured out to total doom and gloom based on a jokes worth of timescale.

Either way, polls show nobody gives two chits regardless. Isn't AGW slightly below Paris Hilton in popular interest now days? Ya, she is pretty much yesterdays news too.

[Jonger]

what about the billions of dollars oil, gas, and coal companies pay out in funding for research that props up their industries? what about how that money dictates what can and cannot be presented at some of the small scientific conferences (like GSA where a yearly panel of climate change luminaries is consistently undermined by its scheduling and location)?

I have asked about this side of the funding equation about half a dozen times in this forum and not one person yammering idiotically on about how "scientists are saying what they need to say in order to get funded" has ever addressed it.

Think about this. Regardless of what climate scientists dig up, it won't make a bit of difference. The world warmed 1.2 degrees in 100+ years... Nothing has changed in human populated areas of significance. The world could warm up another couple degrees and probably still not much would change.

Now, those 1.2 degrees aren't even proven to be true either. With urban heat islands and BAD pre-1950's records we still don't know for certain.

So with all this being reality, you really think we are going to stop using fossil fuels before we have developed a replacement source of energy? Not likely... So why do you think oil/gas would spend all this money to defend a resource that's BOUND to run out anyhow. Every bit of oil in the ground WILL be burned until its gone. You should care more about promoting alternative energy a lot more then "climate change" for the very sake of humanity. I worry more about my children's future in a world without a new energy before we are ready. Thats the only thing I believe we have in common.

I'm a believer in peak oil, not sure we are there yet though.... Recently I was informed about peak COAL. High Caloric coal has past the point of exhaustion.

[donsutherland1]

what about the billions of dollars oil, gas, and coal companies pay out in funding for research that props up their industries? what about how that money dictates what can and cannot be presented at some of the small scientific conferences (like GSA where a yearly panel of climate change luminaries is consistently undermined by its scheduling and location)?

Wxtrix,

You raise a fair and important question.

The reality is that individuals,firms, and industries typically act in their own self-interest, not necessarily for improving broader society's welfare (role of externalities in economics). A desire for self-perpetuation of firms/industries is fundamental and pervasive. Hence, one sees a tenancious fight for a status quo from which they benefit. The climate change issue under which the implications of scientific understanding and the goals of various industries collide is one such battleground on which the fight to maintain the status quo is ongoing. Rather than seeking the more challenging path of innovating in a fashion that takes into consideration the realities of scientific understanding, the firms/industries focus on preserving the status quo that they have found lucrative. "Business as usual" is the approach they pursue. They seek to sustain that approach for as long as they can. So long as the net economic benefits exceed the costs of doing so, they invest in preserving the status quo.Their own funding on the climate change issue is rooted not in the quest to advance scientific knowledge, but to help secure the status quo.

Of course, the pursuit of self-interest is not confined to the climate change issue, alone. One sees the same dynamic at play when it comes to purely economic matters e.g., patterns of international trade. Firms/industries losing market share to more competitive foreign rivals typically seek to punish their international rivals. Instead, they should focus on enhancing their own competitiveness via significant improvement or innovation to rebuild and sustain competitive advantages, But such a path requires investment, foresight, and managerial courage. It is risky. There are no guarantees. Hence, one witnesses increasing calls to penalize firms/industries in numerous developing countries that have managed to develop competitive advantages vis-a-vis their American rivals. That consumer welfare in the U.S. would ultimately be harmed if some of those calls for punitive economic sanctions were put in place matter little. That reduced innovation limits society's long-term welfare is largely irrelevant. The status quo is all-important.

[dabize]

Wxtrix,

You raise a fair and important question.

The reality is that individuals,firms, and industries typically act in their own self-interest, not necessarily for improving broader society's welfare (role of externalities in economics). A desire for self-perpetuation of firms/industries is fundamental and pervasive. Hence, one sees a tenancious fight for a status quo from which they benefit. The climate change issue under which the implications of scientific understanding and the goals of various industries collide is one such battleground on which the fight to maintain the status quo is ongoing. Rather than seeking the more challenging path of innovating in a fashion that takes into consideration the realities of scientific understanding, the firms/industries focus on preserving the status quo that they have found lucrative. "Business as usual" is the approach they pursue. They seek to sustain that approach for as long as they can. So long as the net economic benefits exceed the costs of doing so, they invest in preserving the status quo.Their own funding on the climate change issue is rooted not in the quest to advance scientific knowledge, but to help secure the status quo.

Of course, the pursuit of self-interest is not confined to the climate change issue, alone. One sees the same dynamic at play when it comes to purely economic matters e.g., patterns of international trade. Firms/industries losing market share to more competitive foreign rivals typically seek to punish their international rivals. Instead, they should focus on enhancing their own competitiveness via significant improvement or innovation to rebuild and sustain competitive advantages, But such a path requires investment, foresight, and managerial courage. It is risky. There are no guarantees. Hence, one witnesses increasing calls to penalize firms/industries in numerous developing countries that have managed to develop competitive advantages vis-a-vis their American rivals. That consumer welfare in the U.S. would ultimately be harmed if some of those calls for punitive economic sanctions were put in place matter little. That reduced innovation limits society's long-term welfare is largely irrelevant. The status quo is all-important.

It is this, and the ongoing "tragedy of the Commons" pattern that it engenders, that really alarms me. Even the high-end projections of AGW changes could probably be mitigated by decisive action using existing technology by the time the problem becomes evident to all - if it weren't for the situation that you describe.

There are plenty of small scale examples of societal crash and burn (Easter Island etc.) due largely to forseeable environmental collapse - people are perfectly capable of it.

[BeastFromTheEast]

bump for jounger.

[BeastFromTheEast]

can you add anything substantive to this forum? because I have no idea who you are, but you seem pretty eager to troll my posts here, but I can't see where you've added anything useful or factual here.

Can you purposefully not butcher other posters names? Thanks...

Alright now back to business let the mud sling away...

[dabize]

I'm serious--can you add anything substantive to the conversation or are you simply here out of the blue to troll me?

He/She punches the clock and does his/her job.

The simplest (and most depressing) explanation

[Mallow]

Face it global warming science is a business... Scientists have a field that requires funding and they aren't going to seek answers that differ from the desired outcomes.

Dumbest. Argument. Ever.

Scientists in the academic community are more likely to get funding (from the NSF, etc) if they can show that the current "consensus" is faulty in some way. Not less likely. To say that scientists "aren't going to seek answers that differ from the desired outcomes", where in this case "desired outcomes" apparently means "current consensus" (???), is to show an amazing lack of understanding of the scientific process.