Guest Post: Melting Ice And Freezing Fossil Fuels Ambitions

Submitted by James Stafford via OilPrice.com,

It’s not mere anecdotal evidence: Visibly melting sea ice is the best evidence that the planet is warming. So prospecting for oil in the Arctic is a tricky endeavor that must be undertaken slowly and with extreme caution, argues Fen Montaigne, senior editor of Yale Environment 360, author of “Fraser’s Penguins: A Journey to the Future in Antarctica” and other books, and contributor to National Geographic, The New Yorker and Smithsonian magazines.

So just how hot is it going to get? Hotter than we can handle if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, Montaigne tells us in an exclusive interview in which we discuss:

•    Why prospectors should proceed with extreme caution in the Arctic
•    Just how hot it’s going to get with global warming
•    Why science is being side-lined in the climate change debate
•    Why oil companies will have to keep their assets in the ground
•    Why we need to rethink agricultural subsidies
•    What we can expect next from the volatile EV market
•    What really concerns environmentalists about natural gas
•    The great fossil fuels paradox
•    Why natural gas may not only be a bridge to the future, but the future itself
•    Why the US government has no business mandating ethanol

Interview by James Stafford of Oilprice.com

Oilprice.com: We’ll start with the Arctic Sea because so much of your work has focused on this area. Right now, the talk here is of vast opportunities, and vast environmental concern. How can we balance these two, and what is at stake?

Fen Montaigne: I am in the go-slow camp when it comes to developing the Arctic, whether it be the region’s fossil fuel riches, its minerals, or its fisheries. I think the problems that Shell has experienced in its early attempts to drill off Alaska’s coast bolster the case for a cautious approach. Cleaning up an oil spill in that environment would be far, far more difficult than in the Gulf of Mexico, and a spill’s effects would be more severe and long lasting in a cold-water environment than in warm waters.

The Arctic nations — as well as other interested countries, such as China — need to carefully survey and assess the resources of the Arctic basin and draft a conservative plan for their exploitation. That may include a ban on drilling for oil and gas in large sections of the Arctic.

Oilprice.com: How can you make the case for global warming using the decline in Arctic Sea ice, and how profound will the consequences be?

Fen Montaigne: No better evidence of the warming of the earth in the last century — and particularly in the last 30-40 years — exists than the melting of the cryosphere, or ice zones. More than 90% of the world’s glaciers are in retreat, and the disappearance of Arctic sea ice is nothing short of stunning.

I have seen this melting with my own eyes, having spent 5 months researching a book on the Antarctic Peninsula, where sea ice and glaciers are retreating rapidly. Earlier this year, I visited a glacier in Switzerland that has retreated by a half-mile since I last saw it 20 years ago; this is not mere anecdotal evidence, as nearly all the glaciers in the Alps, Andes, etc., are in rapid retreat.

The world is warming. The overwhelming evidence is that it’s caused by human activities. The only question is how hot things are going to get. If we continue doing as little as we are doing now to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, it is entirely possible that the world might be 5 to 10 degrees F warmer in a century or two, which is not a world I’d like my children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren to be living in.

Oilprice.com: More broadly on the climate change scene, Yale Environment 360 recently published an article discussing the implications of a climate activist movement seeking to persuade universities, cities and other groups to sell off their investments in fossil fuel companies. What’s the long-term logic behind this movement and what will the impact be?

Fen Montaigne: I won’t attempt to predict the impact of the divestment movement. But to me one thing is clear: If in the next 100 years the world’s oil, gas and coal companies develop all the fossil fuel assets that they’re now sitting on, the world is going to be a very unpleasant place in which to live, barring some technological miracle that enables us to suck vast amounts of CO2 out of the air. It’s this realization that is driving the divestment movement and the fight to slow climate change.

Believe me, as a 60-year-old American, living in the most affluent country in the most affluent period in history, I appreciate and value what fossil fuels have done for civilization. I know we’re not going to be able to transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy overnight. But if you keep approving tar sands projects, or massive pipelines, or drilling in the Arctic, when does it stop? When does this movement to a renewable energy economy begin? If I were running a fossil fuel company, I’d be uneasy about the concept of so-called “stranded assets,” because at some point — when seas begin to rise significantly, when weather is sufficiently wild and destabilized, and when things are just too damn hot — people, business owners, and governments are going to say it’s time to stop burning fossil fuels as if there is no tomorrow. I think that as global warming intensifies, it’s likely that a significant portion of the assets of fossil fuel companies are going to have to remain in the ground.

Oilprice.com: As the climate debate increasingly polarizes the American public, science seems to be getting in the way of agendas on both sides. Your magazine recently noted how even environmentalists are ignoring science when it stands in the way of furthering their agendas. Are we entering a period in which scientific facts will be completely sidelined as climate change becomes the strict purview of politics?

Fen Montaigne: It’s indeed unfortunate that climate change has become so intensely politicized in the US and that both sides resort to twisting the facts and using super-heated rhetoric.

From my perspective, however, I think there is a lot more distortion of science on the climate change denier side. Still, when global warming activists ring alarm bells every time there is a heat wave or a period of intense storms, I think that’s a mistake. What happens if we have an unusually cold spring in the eastern US or Europe, like the current one? Does that mean global warming is a hoax? Of course not. Short-term ups and downs in the weather should not be the cause for either side to crow or cry wolf.

I also think it’s unwise when global warming activists warn that it’s “game over” for the climate if something like Keystone XL is approved. OK. So what happens if Keystone is approved? If that means it’s “game over,” then why should any of us worry about reducing CO2 emissions?

I do believe that in the US, we’ll soon be moving into a period where there is less debate about the science of climate change, for the simple reason that it’s going to become increasingly clear that human-caused climate change is affecting the world, from our backyards to the poles. Of course, the debate over whether global warming is real scarcely exists in Europe, which has far less of the contrarian, anti-science streak that exists in the US.

Oilprice.com: There is a significant amount of resistance to the Ethanol mandate, not only because of the connection to food crops with corn-based ethanol. Do you think America is ready for this mandate?

Fen Montaigne: I think that the US’s byzantine system of agricultural subsidies is a mess and needs to be seriously reformed. And I don’t think the US government ought to be in the business of mandating ethanol production.

Oilprice.com: What can we expect from the electric vehicle market in the next 2-3 years? Why have they experienced so many ups and downs? Where has it gone wrong?

Fen Montaigne: I am no expert on electric vehicles, but I am confident that reasonably priced EVs and hybrids will become increasingly common, especially as batteries improve and charging stations become more widespread.

As has been widely noted, the Obama administration’s mandating of far-better fuel economy standards was probably the most important environmental achievement of Obama’s first term. I think that the federal government, working closely with the private sector, also has to become far more involved in stimulating the transition to a renewable energy economy.

Ultimately, it’s innovation and advancement in science, engineering, and the private sector that are going to help solve this climate problem, but a transition as massive and revolutionary as the one away from fossil fuels cannot be done without government involvement.

Oilprice.com: What do you think of T. Boone Pickens’ idea to convert US trucking fleets to natural gas? Is this viable over the long term?

Fen Montaigne: I think using natural gas as a “bridge to the future,” including powering more trucks with natural gas, is a good idea. But many environmentalists are right to be concerned that natural gas is looking less like a bridge to the future, than the future itself. As I said earlier, societies have to take major steps to wean themselves off fossil fuels, and few countries are doing that now, with notable exceptions such as Denmark.

Oilprice.com: Is it possible for the fossil fuels and alternative energy industries to work together to create a viable “transition” period for a sustainable future?

Fen Montaigne: Of course it’s possible. The challenge is that it’s just so easy to keep using fossil fuels, as they are such a compact, relatively inexpensive, and effective source of energy. The profits are enormous, far greater, at this point, than in the renewable energy industry. This is why it is so hard to disrupt the status quo, but that’s what has to happen. What we’re looking at is one of the great paradoxes of history — the very sources of energy that have enabled us to achieve such an advanced civilization and to bring us so many comforts and conveniences are also the sources that threaten to dangerously destabilize the climate that has fostered the growth of human civilization over the past 12,000 years.

Oilprice.com: Are there any significant ways in which the environmental movement has metamorphosed in recent years due to the shale revolution, the natural gas boom, and other energy-related developments??

Fen Montaigne: Leading environmental thinkers such as Bill McKibben have pointed out that the environmental movement used to take heart in the prospect of peak-oil or peak-coal. I think the shale gas and shale oil boom of recent years, as well as the discovery of new oil and gas fields, have demonstrated that fossil fuel use is not going to decline in the next century because oil and gas fields or coal mines are tapped out. That changes environmental strategy, and is one of the reasons that McKibben’s 350.org and other groups are now targeting specific projects like Keystone XL.

And I am sympathetic to one of their central arguments: At some point, you’ve got to stop developing new oil and gas reserves and begin seriously developing alternative sources of energy. Otherwise, it’s going to get awfully hot, and rising seas are going to pose a major threat to cities from Shanghai to Miami.

Comments

[Element]

The graph I linked depicts the geology, straight from the global rock-record of the planet and if you can't groak that fact I can't help you. What it shows though is absolutely relevant to the whole absurd anthropogenic thesis/claim being made by AGW as it shows the normal climate variability of Earth -- SANS HUMANS. So the graph shows the natural NON-ANTHROPOGENIC climate variability SIGNAL of the earth. And that signal is loud and very clear.

So for you to try to convince me from mere fraught theory that weather NOISE is somehow a climate variability SIGNAL means I naturally will dismiss you as a feckless fool, following the usual theoretical primrose-path towards grand self-delusions.

I have told you before that I will never accept your anthropogenic AGW idiocy because actual global climate variability signal is not resolvable in less than 500 year time-slices so you have only noise and no actual climate variation signal, of any actual climate change occurring now, and you won't have any within your entire life time.

I'm pretty sure I'm typing in English, so what don't you groak about this?

Thus I don't really care what you have to say or offer on the whole issue, as you have no evidence of climate change occurring, and won't any time soon.

But even if this were a discussion of mere noise, interpreted as a 'signal', (as it currently in the mainstream media of AGW baloney), even then the noise data is being argued to within an inch of its life, on a daily basis, and there is NO agreement even on the noise, or noise floor! Hopeless nonsense, not even science! And I'm sure I don't have to point you to the various websites where discussions of that noise spectrum is going on each and every day (though it can be very entertaining to read).

But a salient fact remains; that despite steady rise in CO2 there is no unambiguous response from that noise even. And no agreement about that, plus a major scientific fraud has been detected by people trying to rig that noise to try and fraudulently pretend there is a signal. But a genuine climate variation signal trend is impossible to even detect on the time-scales these dishonest clowns were using. They are nothing but con-men.

And you align yourself with them! ... oh yes you do sport.

--

And no, I'm not going to get into a detailed distractive discussion about the Sun, and the observed short-cycle Solar variability, as even a six year old child can understand this rather quickly; the sun is a known variable star, so I'll leave it at this :- we all know that stars are very poorly understood, especially the variability of star output, which can be chaotic and erratic in energy output and radiated spectrum.

Plus what you sly AGW sheep always attempt to do, quite deliberately, is have a discussion about the <500 year time-slice weather NOISE, not the >500 years climate SIGNAL with regard to the sun. So I'm not going to discuss the role of the Sun in WEATHER NOISE.

But the major obstacle you have is the extremely poor data resolution, on the time axis, for all available solar observations, especially any time-scales that matter to a natural climate variability signal, which occurs on a time-scale that with regard to solar output variability correlations, we still know almost nothing. Sans the invention of the "Magical Flak Time-Machine", I can't see how that lack of observation is going to be addressed.

So it's nonsense for any one to issue a blanket denial to the possibility of solar variability being implicated in climate variability over such time-scales.

You do not know what role the sun's variability plays in the graph I linked (and nor do I), other than the more obvious Milankovitch orbital cycle aspect (which I know you are aware of) which shows positively that the Sun's input absolutely is profoundly implicated in Earth's climate variability signals, depicted within the graph I linked. That connection is quite undisputed and the orbital correlations with solar input to Earth, and natural climate variability trend signal has been known about for most of the past century.

None of this is new though, it has been taught at the first-principles level within geological palaeoclimatology courses since the 1950s. You can't bamboozle us on that score, so don't even try.

We absolutely do know that the variation in Solar input to Earth's surface does indeed strongly affect and impact climate variability on Earth, and it is in fact a primary driver of the climate variations that we observe within the linked graph's trends (though it sure doesn't explain all of it).

So we know that if the solar output did change, over time-scales pertinent to the climate SIGNAL's plot then it absolutely would change the signal plotted, because variability in solar output definitely would be changing Earth climate.

We reasonably and logically know this would indeed happen. Thus we do know that whatever solar variability there is it will indeed affect Earth's climate.

What we don't know, and can't verify, is if there are such variable-star cycle fluctuations, in the order of millions of years, in solar energy output and spectrum that over-prints and alters the known Milankovitch cycle effect(s).

For instance, a slow gradual almost imperceptible decrease in solar output over several million years could and definitely would lead to ice-age conditions on Earth. In which case this would be over printed and altered by the Milankovitch cycle effect(s).

So to try to assert the Sun plays no role in global climate variability SIGNAL, is of course completely untrue, and beyond asinine. Anyone asserting such were not possible, or a potential physical explanation for what we see in the signal, would immediately be dismissed by any reasonably competent geologist or geophysicist.

Thus if you are trying to assert the Sun is not profoundly correlated and implicated with what that graph shows for the mere sake of trying to defend or rather to resuscitate your pet AGW bastard love-child ... bzzzzt! ... you're pee-peeing into a hurricane ... again.

--

PS. Aye, I have to get back to work tomorrow at a remote locale, no time for zh, so can't continue the AGW-voodoo smack-down. It's been boring, irrelevant and fantastically dumb, as always flak, I can always rely on you for that, hope you get better soon.

[Flakmeister]

Yawn....

[Element]

"So, again, your logic fails you. Let's see: Because homo sapiens are quite capable of wiping out entire genus' of mammals and fundamentally changing their habitat (through pre-industrial techniques such as bows, arrows, fire, agriculture etc) and destroying vast numbers (in the billions, if not trillions) of individual mammals leading to the extinction of species, modern (post industrial) homo sapiens cannot possibly change the biosphere they live in through their actions, even when in the year 1900 there were only 1.5billion of them, and now there are 7 billion of them. Oh, and back when the mega-fauna died out, there was less than 100,000,000 of them?"

No, what it means, is that when the climate finally tips, and trends to wherever it will, you have zero control over it. (and your 'arguments' are incredibly stupid nit-picking and irrelevent to the big picture or the point of the topic, so I'm increasingly struggling to even bother to read your increasingly stupid fucking staggeringly ignorant bullshit, lift your game or fuck-off boy)

--- END ---

That's you done. You are along for the ride. I know you're a bit of a sook and unable to mentally deal with your inevitable demise and extinction, as I can see that within all your hysterical tirade responses (which I can't help poking fun at - much too funny) about the species being "on the line", and all that childish crap, but I could not give a fuck. I really don't.

Here's the truth, can you handle it?

I'm being serious now, our species has never not been on the line, at any instant, in all of human hystery, and it never will be 'secure' - ever.

Life is NOT in danger, EVERY geologist I know accepts this.

Read that again, I'm not kidding here. We all are extremely confident that no matter what happens, short of a solar nova, or complete atmosphere loss, life will thrive on earth for billions more years. We are virtually unanimously not worried in the least, about life, or its survival potential due to humans. I don't know a single geologist who thinks humans are a danger to life on earth. And we are not the slightest bit interested in the saving of any single species, as we see life making new species with endless profusion, in the rocks, daily.

However, virtually every one of us agrees without reservation that all of humanity is very much in danger, and some forms of life are one of the major threats, to our species. We have no doubt that we are assuredly doomed, as a species. And as a profession all of us profoundly know this and accept it as obvious. Looking at the rocks (and not just fossil-bearing ones either) shows you this, it goes without saying that we are not going to be here for very long (geologically speaking). It's actually amazing that we have lasted as long as we have.

We accept this reality, and that makes our world outlook rather different to almost all other scientists, and definitely radically different to the mainstream. Most scientists still think we actually have a shot at long-term species survival, but we don't, and absolutely no one wants to hear the truth. It really bums-out positivist 'survivors' (which can actually be very funny).

So when some sooky egotistical ball-sack ejectulate throws a cerebral hissy-fit about the fact they're screwed, this still doesn't change anything, the rocks remain the same, the science remains the same, and so does our comprehension of how temporary we are, as a species.  And I am now so adjusted to this it just doesn't phase me at all, nor to hear someone talking utter nonsense about "fixing the fucking planet".

BWHAGHAHAHAHAHA! <cough-gag> GAAAHHHHAHAHKKKAHAHHAAAAA .........!!!!!!!!!

It's so fucking laughable hearing stuff like that, it can bring tears to your eyes ... you poor sad deluded bastards ...

The hard data is way too compelling. So keep all this in mind when you find that geologists are prepared to use energy, and mineral resources in ways that you think we shouldn't do, because they see the future, and the present, and the past of humanity in a very different context and terms to you.

And they absolutely will provide human society and industry the resources it needs to get the job done, whether you or anyone else likes it, or agrees or disagrees with it or not. We are going to give to humanity its best possible long-term shot at survival, even if you don't understand the choices being made, or if you think it's flat out the wrong choices, or the wrong thing to do. It's going to be done - get over it. It's because we know what life does, and we know what it has been doing, and we have an unimaginably detailed understanding of what the earth does, and what is normal on it, and we acutely know we have just one shot at doing this.

So you can ferment and rant and come out with all sorts of faux dumb theories to object with, but it won't make a bit of difference. Humans are going to use the economical energy and mineral  reserves, irrespective of what anyone thinks, and people like you are going to have to grow-up, or at least try, and get your head around why it is being done in this way, because ignoring geology, and wallowing in your indulgent ignorance does not impress us one little bit, and it never will. You will never change anything by brow-beating us with that pathetic laughable AGW excuse for 'science'. And it will not change a damn thing we do, nor how we see this earth and life on it, and our ultimately short-term role on it in geological terms.

Can you handle that?  Are you now doing ideological flip-flops, prancing around and ranting incoherently at the walls, while fulminating another post?

Look, don't even bother, AGW was DISMISSED by real geologists a long time ago and we will never accept it, as it's patently idiotic drivel of the worst possible kind, and it's become virtually impossible to even be civil to the idiots still pedaling and pitching that miserable deluded shit to us.

This is why I keep telling you to ...

MENTALLY ADJUST, AND GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

These are all differences in awareness between geologists and other scientists, we have already seen and understand and accept that humanity is here for a limited time, and what comes next almost certainly won't include humans. We have a different outlook on all this, we see the very biggest time-picture, and it's different to what astronomers see, it's a bit more personal, it's the thing we walk on, and what feeds us that we study. And this is why you'll always find it difficult to understand the blunt nonchalant fatalism of most geologists, who have seen what happens to all species, and to the Earth through geological-time. We're more than OK with it too, because it's how it really is. Who the hell are we to object? We are along for the ride.

PS: Enjoy the peaches, they're delicious.

[SmallerGovNow2]

you cite a bunch of opinion, no facts.  more bunk loser.

[Aurora Ex Machina]

Hey, dog, learn to read.

I explicitly didn't bother, since the quality of sources in this thread is borderline retarded. Woof woof, now go play with your balls.

[Roger Knights]

Fen Montaigne: "I have seen this melting with my own eyes, having spent 5 months researching a book on the Antarctic Peninsula, where sea ice and glaciers are retreating rapidly."

Not so:

Study: warming of Antarctic peninsula due to ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns

Antarctic summer effect confined to peninsula

New study: Ocean-driven warming along the western Antarctic Peninsula needs to be considered as part of a natural centennial timescale cycle of climate variability

[Aurora Ex Machina]

Your source is a commercial viral weapon. Oook.

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.

I'm not going to bother pointing out the obvious commercial viral weapons in everyone's links, but please. You're either 12, have the mental skills of a small gibbon or are under the influence of a brutal Belief Formation not to see the obvious here.

[SmallerGovNow2]

FACT, "he does not have a university qualification"...  "non-scientist" these are tried and true smears used by the global warming community when they cannot win an argument with FACTS.  Like all plant life needs CO2 including plant life in the oceans.  That greenhouses actually pump CO2 in to increase plant production.  Your arguments are bunk.  You fudged the data on warming and got caught (thought everyone forgot about that huh).  you are not scientists you are political activists...

[Aurora Ex Machina]

Here's a video for you. Even dogs can use science, unlike you.

And no, I'm not bothering to argue, since I've already told you that you're under a Belief Formation, and are effectively brain washed here. Doesn't matter what I say, you're immune to anything I type or post.

It's called meta - and you can't even see it. Woof Woof Woof.

[Mark Urbo]

The more of your posts I read, the more of an idiot you appear to be...

One chart dimisses the whole failed "green" global warming agenda:

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast110/carbondioxide.gif

[Flakmeister]

I don;t think so... Could you remind us of what changes have occured in the sun over the past 600 millions years or so?

[Aurora Ex Machina]

If you can find me a living trilobite then you might have a point. Otherwise, your use of the word "idiot" is vastly ironic.

<VELOCIRAPTOR!>

[MeelionDollerBogus]

then explain the excessive carbonic acid in the oceans that's bleaching coral reefs to death, removing habitat for little fish that are all food for bigger fish we eat?
Explain that.
Add CO2 yourself to samples of ocean water with plants in them.
And to water by itself. Carbonic acid is the result.
Excessive carbonic acid KILLS sea life. Excessive CO2 is the cause. The PROVABLE cause.

[Roger Knights]

"Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. . . . Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, . . . ."

Watts isn't paid for his blogging. The ONLY evidence brought forward to support that claim is aHeartland document describes a request he made last year for funding for a different project:

James D wrote on WUWT: "Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by weathermen and meteorologists everywhere. The new site will be promoted heavily at  WattsUpwithThat.com. Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011.  The Anonymous Donor has already pledged $44,000. We’ll seek to raise the balance."

Watts later reported on the progress of this project:

"Using the funds provided with the help of Heartland’s private donor, I hired a specialist programmer familiar with NOAA systems to trap and convert the NOAA sat feed data to look like any other hourly station (like ASOS hourly stations at airports etc) so that we’d be able to start the visualization and comparison process. This is just one phase of the project before it is ready for public consumption. When finished, there will be a website free and open to the public that will allow tracking and visualization of temperatures from the CRN right alongside that of the regular surface network"

See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/

Aba daba daba daba daba daba dab.

[Flakmeister]

Anthony has zero credibility...

Stunts like his "AGW slaying peer-reviewed" paper last summer that his co-author ran away from and it went no where...

Links upon request, but go ahead and verify for yourself (you know, how real science is done by real scientists)...

And it will never be published because it is junk science....

[Dodgy Geezer]

Visibly melting sea ice is the best evidence that the planet is warming.

It is actually a very POOR indication that the planet is warming. The planet is actually COOLING at the moment

The Antarctic ice sheets are actually increasing. The Arctic ice cover is dropping to a low at the moment - this is believed to be due to the altered direction of some warm ocean currants. Nothing to do with Air temperature or AGW at all.

If we want to drill in the Arctic we will need to know if this change is short-term (a few years) or longer term (say, 20-50 years). AGW theory will not tell us this - the theory has collapsed and is NOT true. Look at the UK Met Office, who tried to depend on it and failed dismally.

[Flakmeister]

Stop making up shit:

The Antarctic ice sheets are not increasing, there is is however, a small increase in the sea ice extent..

The combined polar ice  is dropping fast.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Here are the fitted trends

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/how-fake-skeptics-fool-themselves-part-infinity-sea-ice-version/

[MeelionDollerBogus]

BY NO measure whatsoever - we call these things THERMOMETERS - is any cooling happening.

[BigInJapan]

Ahh no, it IS anecdotal evidence. Certainly as anecdotal as this:

"It’s not mere anecdotal evidence: Visibly increasing winter snow accumulations in northern Japan are the best evidence that the planet is cooling.

Has anybody asked themselves, if the Arctic ice sheet is melting, due to "global warming" why then is the Antarctic is sheet growing?

"Global warming", I suppose wold be the answer, too. Yuo cannot make this shit up, unless of course you belive in it, in which case you could make a career of making this shit up.

"Tyrone! Fuel up the Gulfstream and call up some hookers. We're going to Paris for steak."

"Mr Gore, sir, my name is not Tyrone, it's..."

"It's what I say it is, Boy. My Daddy didn't vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act so I'd have to listen to some uppity Cullids telling me..."

"I'm white sir."

"Well... well... stay out of the goddamned sun, man. You look like you belong on one of Daddy's tobacca farms. Don't you know the world is getting warmer?"

"Really sir?"

"Well no, but that's how we make these millions, isn't it? There's a sucker born every minute, Tyrone. A sucker just looking for a new God and by my sweet honoroable Jesus, I've made one for them. GLOBAL WARMING!"

[Flakmeister]

See above, the ice SHEET is not growing, it is shrinking. The Sea Ice extent is modestly growing due to the effect of prevailing winds...

[SmallerGovNow2]

"barring some technological miracle that enables us to suck vast amounts of CO2 out of the air."

IDIOT!!!  Under 400 ppm right now.  Increased levels are needed for re-forestation and coral reefs to thrive and survive.  You exhale 40,000 ppm CO2!!!  You want to regulate how much people can exhale?  The overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases is... drum roll please... H2O!!!  That's right 95%+ WATER!!!  Get this stupid shit out of here...  Nothing more than a global tax scam of the NWO...

[MeelionDollerBogus]

idiot. IDIOT. CO2 levels in the ocean are SO HIGH they are killing the coral reefs by CARBONIC ACID.
you dumb fuck. You'll kill us all.

[Element]

Hey, Million-times-a-dickhead, carboniferous to Permian period the CO2 concentration was orders of magnitude higher than right now, and the sedimentary limestones from that time are absolutely dominated by giant global coral reef systems, on every continent.

Now if we reasonably presumed that the cosmos's physics are always the same, everywhere, and at all times, then bamboozled idiots like you need to think about how it was that with so much CO2 in the atmosphere, during that time, this lead to the greatest marine radiation and extent of coral reefs this planet has ever seen, and it remained that way for many tens of millions of years.

let me spell it out, so I know you get the point of this: dah oceans didn't acidify and kill the coral.

Clearly those conditions were extremely favorable for coral, with CO2 concentrations that make today's CO2 levels look like a rarefied gas! So much for your pet, lame sniveling ocean-"acidification" theory, ala soft-cock. It's yet another load of silly eco-crap fear-fest, being trotted out by the pseudo-science enviro-twats to brow-beat the public into giving up their taxation purses, to another bunch of lowlife do-nothing whining parasites.

(no, really, you're welcome)

Or alternatively, you could just ignore such geological observations, just like all the other times you stupid arseholes ignored such fundamental observational inconsistencies of the planet, and keep yapping your desperate peurile crap about the end of human life on earth, at 500ppm CO2, while I sit back an laugh at you, and throw shit at you, you hapless fucking drop-kicks.

Yeah, yeah, I know, some doco or Youtube video told you its all real, and you're a true-believer now and feel all alert and sincere about it, and that's all settled, rightly or wrongly, all paradoxical inconvenient facts be damned, CO2 rise will kill all dah coral!!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

the sky's falling - quick RRUUUUUNNNN!!!!

You hopeless lame fuckheads.

[Winston of Oceania]

BULLSHIT!

[esum]

scientific studies show that "global warming" stopped 5-10 years ago....

the WARMERS are behind the knowledge curve, have a POLITICAL AGENDA placing their hand on your wallet.... 

the latest study showed gay sex, illegal immigration and government spying and irs malfeasence are causing climate change.... 

it is also postulated that nuclear war / winter in the middle east will be harmful to the enviroment. that being the case it is best to heat the earth up to offset the nuclear winter.

[Withdrawn Sanction]

Change seems to be the nature of things.  If man's "contributions" to the climate change were eliminated, would the climate stop changing?

In some respects, this sounds a lot like the Keynesian/central planning debates of several decades ago, where it was believed scientists could smooth out the oscillations of the business cycle.  Our current central bank policies are hold overs from that debate.  In reality, the idea of smoothing out the BC was really just pseudo intellectual cover for looting and cover up of excessive risk taking.  

[ArgentDawn]

Pretty sure the warming ceased 20 years ago and we've been on a steady plateau of temps since. 

just sayin'

[Lumberjack]

1. Maine governor vetoes climate change study.

   http://www.pressherald.com/news/lepage-vetoes-climate-change-study_2013-06-25.html

   Flashback: (priceless).

   http://www.sunjournal.com/gubernatorial-candidates/story/917588

[Colonel Walter ...]

How much ice melts when it is -20 degrees Fahrenheit?

Okay...if it warms to -13 degrees Fahrenheit, how much ice melts?

Talk to me when we are all vacationing at the poles!

[Ranger4564]

The Hubris is astounding. It doesn't matter if there is Global Warming or Peak Oil or Peak Food or Peak Water or any of it. What if these conditions are true? Then what? If they are false schemes, so what? If we control the use of materials / recycling, investigate new technologies, use innovative thinking to develop new systems, what is the problem?  If we develop alternate energy sources, if we eliminate the centralized control over resources and come up with technologies that enable distributed resource management / energy production... enabling freedom, what is the problem?

I know. Noone here wants to pay for something that may not be a direct problem that is being described. However, what if paying for the technologies / research I speak of leads to a more stable and autonomous civilization? Instead of reacting as people seem to always do, use the fucking brain and figure out how the situation can be redirected to be beneficial to humanity. The oligarchs / bankers / politicians / corporations do that in every situation, but people, no they don't do shit except complain and pontificate. Plan mother fuckers, plan, like your life depends on it, because it really does. Develop technologies for use by humanity, not at the service of the groups listed but for the betterment of life of every person on the planet. We have the ability, we just don't have people interested in exploring the possibilities. No fucking imagination. No innovation / invention. No creativity. No entrepreneurialism. No foresight. What a fucking shame.  Go capitalists.

Advancements in civilization have been the result of humanitarians, and the humanitarians need to escalate the civil support systems mechanism. We need to find and facilitate research by the humanitarians for the betterment of citizens. We need to set up our own venture capital institutions, we need to set up real research and development centers, we need to transparently discuss the pros and cons of all information gleaned from the research. We need to build a parallel universe that ignores the oligarchs / bankers / politicians / corporations. We need to parallel everything, that's what the Constitution was sort of hinting at... luckily, we have already started... the venture capital system seems to be in place, we just need to be more selective. But we as citizens need to fund and build our own labs / technology centers / manufacturing centers so we are not at the mercy of the controlled freaks.

I can't do it alone, but I have a lot of the ideas needed to get us moving towards a better world, just that so many people seem to want to stay in this dystopic utopia.  Think outside the box, please... humanity's future depends on it.

[Bearwagon]

Since you mention 'thinking outside the box', I'll give it a try: How about we just get somewhat more lazy and manage to get along with just the exuberance we already have in every regard, instead of funding or building ever more of these things we already have more than enough of?

[Ranger4564]

Wrong answer.  Next...

[MeelionDollerBogus]

Because you'll kill us all & you have no right to do so.

[Ranger4564]

Sorry, replied to wrong response.

[Ranger4564]

I came back to clarify because i want it understood why you're wrong.  You are the reason the oligarchs can remain in control... even your response is a meme they fed you. You are apparently a shill because if you thought for yourselves, you would have understood what i presented and why it's the only hope for the citizens to regain control over their fates. Read it again, and again till you see past your blinders.

Do you actually believe we can just unplug all electrical devices / equipment / tools, turn off all motors / engines / generators? Vast numbers of people would die instantly from disease and starvation. What i said above is that we need to stop supporting the efforts of the oligarchs to control / exterminate us; instead we should as citizens develop the technologies that address the problems... technologies the oligarchs are not developing. What i want to develop is alternate decentralized energy production, alternate farming techniques from hydro / aero / vertical farms to undiscovered methods, research centers where people can learn the things that interest them / that need to be developed to support the system being develooed, labs where people can try out the new tech, education, housing, communities, all reconsidered. It's called THINKING / progres / development.

The oligarchs can exert control over us because they own and operate everything. Our opportunity lies in us developing the tools / infrastructure that we own that serves our needs. It should be self evident, but evidently, you have Stockholm Syndrome. You'll note i said we need to operate as if the global warming phenomenon is legitimate, so development must address the conditions.

These are basic concepts, so a part of me believes you meant your response as humor.

[Bearwagon]

The part of you that believes I meant my response in a humouros way is right. But please get me right: Admittedly I am a jester, but what I wrote also points to a more serious fact: That we already have everything necessary to do like you suggest. You wrote: "Our opportunity lies in us developing the tools / infrastructure that we own that serves our needs." What I mean is: No more developmemnt, it's already there - just put it to use.

[Ranger4564]

I agree perhaps we could take over some existing assets, but I really don't foresee Monsanto or GE or any other corporations running research / development facilities, handing over the keys to their labs or data. I guess what I'm saying is we need to work on our own technoloigies, and if we can ruin the oligarchs financially, then perhaps we can have their facilities. I just don't see it happening. But, along hte way, we might be able to reduce emissions here, waste of current there, so we start greening right away and only improve it from there. We'll see, what I propose takes a real initiative, something which the vast majority are not interested in.

[MyBrothersKeeper]

My opinion:  Since the ice is melting in some places and growing in others it would seem that wind patterns would be the logical culprit.  This would also be the case to explain more "severe" weather.  Also, wind patterns logically pass Co2 through higher places like mountains which are full of trees and absorb a great deal of the Co2.  If they really wanted to prove more Co2 in the atmosphere, it would seem logical to use the rate of current tree growth in those higher altitude area's vs historical norms. Logic would also tell you that if the seas are actually rising than you would see some significant evidence of consistent shoreline erosion throughout the world....not just in a few places as ocean currents could easily explain that. I just went to the beach and saw no evidence at all that any of the 30+ year old buildings were in danger of collapsing into the sea.  Conclusion:  is planet warming?  probably.  Is it due to human activity? highly unlikely. Land inhabited by humans as a percentage of land is very sparce outside of a few asian countries. 2/3 of earth is covered by water which is virtually uninhabited by man.  I think the impact of man on climate change is almost non existent. Can it be stopped? No, because weather and climate patterns go through cycles like everything else in nature. That isn't to say we should be reckless with the planet. Let's start with people who are reckless...like China.

Should we pursue fusion and other permanent ways of creating energy: Yes.  I don't see electric cars as a permananet solution.  The battery disposal itself will pose a far greater detriment to the environment. Finally:  God created heaven and earth in it's human inhabitable form. Turning away from Christ poses far greater danger to our collective well being than global warming.

[insanelysane]

Cork the volcanos.

[Dane17]

I will beleive the AGW bullshit when the "believers" can explain farms on Greenland in the middle ages.  Then again I'm old enough to remember the impending ice age fears when Carter was in office.

[Dane17]

I will beleive the AGW bullshit when the "believers" can explain farms on Greenland in the middle ages.  Then again I'm old enough to remember the impending ice age fears when Carter was in office.

[slimething]

Scientists said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. As of today, according to DMI, ice extent is within 2sd of the 1979-2000 baseline average. 

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Arctic temperatures north of 80 degN have been far below average (record lows in fact) since DMI began taking measuring temperatures in 1958.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

But now the frozen water cultists shift discussion from "global warming" to Arctic winds, cyclones, cracks in the ice, rotten ice and heat hiding under the Arctic that will devestate the sacred holy ice.

Will these latest nut jobs make it through the Northwest Passage this year? Don't worry, they will not be carrying weapons cabable of killing polar bears as there aren't any left in the Arctic. :)

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/alt-news/these-four-guys-plan-to-conquer-the-n...

[Aurora Ex Machina]

No, scientists did not say that. Crappy journalists did. There's a massive difference.

[detached.amusement]

Please dont accuse "journalists" of any sort of original thinking.  If that hadnt have come from a Hansen or a Mann or a Schmidt or some other charlatan who makes his living by feeding off of the grant program, the sorry sap of a "reporter" never would have come up with the idea.

[kw2012]

Average Global temperature hasn't increased in 16 years. Showing that global warming models are broken at best.

The Anarctica Ice Cap has grown to the LARGEST ICE EXTENT EVER. 

Cooler temperatures actually hurt food production.

[MeelionDollerBogus]

ALL fraud. Not a single word true.

[DOT]

Enthalpy.....anyone?

How is it that some get to abuse information to fit a model instead of using data (applying a rule to sort information) so that it may be consistent. The assumptions and presumptions  of many so called scientists are astounding. Shit, pretty soon social studies and economics will be called 'sciences'.

[glenlloyd]

While I concede that man might be contributing to the situation (I said might) I also know that 1) the earth has cycles, it's not in stasis in any way and we don't know about those cycles or what happens during those and 2) the scientists behind the 'global warming' debate have been proven to be crackpots and their science along those same lines.

We did a lot more polutin' back 50 odd years ago than we do now...and that didn't seem to do an awful lot.

I suspect that our changes here are more of a consequence of something that we yet understand, like the sunspot frequency which contributes greatly to certain types of activity here.

Show me hard data that there is causation and I'll listen, but until then...meh, besides, I do my part, drive a diesel with low carbon footprint (and high mpg) and walk a lot more places. But don't mistake the reason for this, my only motivation is high fuel costs.

[Element]

And that's the rub, like all giant BS theories there's never hard and unambiguous evidence to support it, and they'll keep pretending things are getting worse, when they aren't.

Meanwhile, people will be getting frost-bite due to run-away energy cost rise, bought about by resulting dumb policy over-ractions to jumping at the AGW-critter's 'orrible shadow-spectre.

But of course there actually is hard evidence that already demonstrates that the anthropogenic aspect of the theory is 99.999% sure to be baloney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg

graph in here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

But hey, blaming humans for that natural variability is 99.999% of their fun!

I'll add this one in too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_isotopic_stage

[Blue Dog]

Global warming is a complete and total fraud.

[xavi1951]

When Russia took down the Wall, they also closed all their weather stations throughout the north.  Global warming really got a boost then.

[Zer0head]

Twitter @fenmontaiqne Will lead bullets finally kill off the California condor? https://twitter.com/fenmontaigne/statuses/331797805964357632

No Fen, wind turbines are the weapon of choice

http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/wind/feds-approve-condor-deadly-wind-pla...

[jtlien]

Even though I am a skeptic ( just shoveled 20 inches of snow this May) of the global warming trend.

There are solutions  that are fairly simple ( but are often met with hostility by the vested AGW crowd ).

One would be to seed the oceans with iron, leading to more CO2 eating algae in the ocean and more fish.

I calculated once how much CO2 could be stored in the first 20 feet of depth of a 1000 x 1000 mile stretch of ocean say off the coast of California in fish alone and a few more fish in this volume would absorb all the CO2 emitted by the US.

Another would be to go with Internal Combustion Engines in our cars converted to burn Ammonia.   No batteries needed.   Ammonia is already piped all over the US to use in agriculture.   It would burn and give off nothing but nitrogen and water.    It could be made using air and hydrogen made from nuclear power.

Desert area like Quantara depression in Libya could be flooded from the sea and prevent rising sea levels.   Use nuclear power to desalinate and grow food in areas of desert near the ocean.

[Balanced Integer]

Always like to see when someone is thinking outside the box. Have a green arrow.

[Aurora Ex Machina]

Seeding oceans doesn't work like that, and usually trashes the ecosystem.

This year will be different. Heavy rainfall in the Midwest this spring has led to flood conditions, with states like Minnesota and Illinois experiencing some of the wettest spring seasons on record. And all that flooding means a lot more nitrogen-based fertilizer running off into the Gulf. According to an annual estimate from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sponsored modelers at the University of Michigan, Louisiana State University and Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, this year’s dead zone could be as large as 8,561 sq. miles—roughly the size of New Jersey. That would make it the biggest dead zone on record. And even the low end of the estimate would place this year among the top 10 biggest dead zones on record. Barring an unlikely change in the weather, much of the Gulf of Mexico could become an aquatic desert. [source]

Hint: agricultural run-off causes the same blooms that iron oxide does.

Seriously: this thread needs nuking from orbit, the lack of anything close to ecology or basic science knowledge is scary. Well, at least I can see why America is so fucked.

[MeelionDollerBogus]

An ammonia energy transit system would be exceptionally good, actually.

As for oceanic Co2, the oceans are taking it up but the problem is not just temperature - acidity of the oceans is killing sea life & that threatens our food supplies.

[Element]

Nooooo!!! ... you'll undercut the parasite's public-cash-cow and stymie the UN global whine-a-thon-bout-not-much!!!

[The Invisible Foot]

"Keep breathing your air you humans."-Ben

[moneybots]

There hasn't been any global warming in 15 years in the lower troposphere.

[Aurora Ex Machina]

Yes, but there's been plenty in the oceans.

Similar to the Meehl et al. (2011) 'hiatus period', Watanabe et al. found a strong correlation between global surface temperatures and sea surface temperatures over the Pacific.  They then applied a simple statistical correction using this relationship with sea surface temperatures to determine whether internal variability could explain the slowed global surface warming.

The model originally overestimated ocean heat content in the upper 300 meters and underestimated it for 300–1,500 meters for the decade of 2001–2010.  When applying this statistical correction, Watanabe et al. found an enhanced overall ocean heat uptake, which suggests that the slowed surface warming can be explained by internal variability transferring more heat to the deep oceans, consistent with previous research.

Climate model simulations expect a long-term decrease in ocean heat uptake efficiency as a consequence of global warming.  Watanabe et al. offer a possible explanation for this model expectation:

"Since climate will be far from equilibrium during this period, the weakening in ? [ocean heat uptake efficiency] should not be interpreted as saturation of heat uptake. Rather, it is likely that surface warming gradually stabilizes ocean stratification, thus reducing deep-water production at high latitudes, which acts to weaken advective heat uptake by meridional overturning circulation [cf. Meehl et al., 2011; 2013]." [source]

[Mark Urbo]

This article is a joke and the author a quake !

With a hat tip to Jack Nicholson [As Good as It Gets], take your leftist wack-a-doo "green" agenda BS and failed socialist policies to a different country – “Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here”.

----------------------------------------------------

Current climate warming is the result of our planet cycling out of its last glacial period. The earth has had thousands of temperature cycles between warm and cold climates in its 4.5 billion year existence. These natural [ see Milankovitch ] cycles occurred before human existence, and will continue until the Sun burns out… 

The concept of human influence or <b>anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a failed theory</b> put forth by the environmentalist left and supported by like minded scientists, educators and media type. It has become a [“green”] movement or [marketing] tool to facilitate their political agenda.  The AGW climate models have been disproven, and critical AGW data has been exposed as false or manipulated.

Prominent scientists dissent on AGW:        http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/node/943

 NASA scientists “Co2 Not a Threat”:          http://www.sys-con.com/node/2523162

 1000 scientists disagree w/ AGW:              http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

 1100 scientific papers dispute AGW:          http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...

 Milankovitch cycles:                                       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 On graph that ends the AGW warming mantra all by itself:               http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast110/carbondioxide.gif

[Aurora Ex Machina]

Now in January of 2013, a group of 20 "Apollo era NASA retirees" has put together a rudimentary climate "report" and issued a press release declaring that they have decided human-caused global warming is not "settled" and is nothing to worry about.  This time around they have not listed the 20 individuals who contributed to this project, but have simply described the group as being:

"...comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds"

The project seems to be headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive.  The press release also links the NASA group to his website, "co2isgreen", which also has an extensive history of receiving fossil fuel industry funding.

This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA scientists with no climate science research experience listened to a few climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists, read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions, decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA.  It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science. [source]

Yeah, if you trust your "NASA scientists" you're in for a bad time.

Woof Woof Woof, this thread delivers the stupid. Although it is very telling that it has required the two chestnuts of Homosexuality and Climate Change to regain the fold.

As viral weapons go, both are rather basic. It doesn't matter, most of this demographic will die out soon enough.

[detached.amusement]

Yeah AGWers, please leave out that utterance by the IPCC lead that "if we dont see some actual AGW within 5 years, we're going to simply have to assume something is fundamentally wrong with the models."

AKA Carbon Dioxide - you keep using that word, I dont think it means what you think it means.   It doesnt have the heat capacity, nor does some idiotic notion of "re-radiating" to double count heat transfer make for any sort of realistic model.

and ya wonder why they have to be recalibrated to reality in order to make predictions...which promptly go utterly fkn whacked once they get to that "positive feedback" zone where reality is but a suggestion to the models.

[Flakmeister]

You are a day late and a dollar short... Why am I not surprised...

What you do not know about IR spectroscopy and transmission fills many textbooks, you may consider opening one to educate yourself...

BTW, it is also very bad form to simply make shit up like you just did, or to deliberately repeat known lies....

[MeelionDollerBogus]

"AKA Carbon Dioxide - you keep using that word, I dont think it means what you think it means.   It doesnt have the heat capacity,"

It absolutely does: this can easily be tested by any containment of CO2. Just try to shine infrared through it and measure how much is deflected and how much gets through. "capacity" is a misused term here: Co2 need not contain heat WITHIN ITSELF merely REFLECT IT like a mirror BACK AT YOU, at us, the surface of the Earth, blocking needed cooling to space.

edit: any -1 on this is a declaration you're a sandy vagina in belief of skyfairies and flat earths. You need to do real science for a change and DO THE EXPERIMENT described above.

[Bugsquasher]

Total fracking bullshit. HasZH been infiltrated  by the minions of Al(l) Bore(king) all the time?