Ice Melt

[Chris616]

Nobody has said that "all scientist are on the take and lie to us." But of those that receive government funding in one form or another represent a very large percentage of those claiming global warming.

Climate change isn't a money making venture, so other than a few employed by environmental organizations I'd guess that the vast majority of "climate scientists" are employed by governments or academia (which often receive gov't funding), so what you've stated is correct. It doesn't mean what they're saying is incorrect, though.

There is no denying that those in charge, or the leaders of global warming, have been caught lying about it over and over again.

I've been trying to come up with why you'd think this. Do you have some examples that you can give?

NASA was a very respected agency that accomplished some amazing things. Nobody is denying that. But NASA became a political organization instead of a science organization, that pushed social justice ahead of science. Today, when NASA puts out something, it has to be verified to see how accurate and truthful it is based on it's political leaning.

Hmm....here I've been quoting NASA sources thinking that would be the one organization in the US that most people would have a positive image of and be persuaded by what they say. Of course, they're headed by bureaucrats who might put a spin on a press release, but that's not going to fundamentally change the message coming from the scientists and engineers who work there.

It's difficult to argue against a position where you believe that democratically elected governments have an agenda to "push" a belief in global warming. Can you explain why that would be?

Logically, it would be opposite. The fossil fuel industry vastly outspends the green energy industry on lobbying in Washington (see link below). My inner cynic says that the result would be the US government enacting policies favorable to the fossil fuel industry. That has certainly ramped up during the current administration.

Isn't it more logical that the reason that orgs like NASA are saying the human caused global warming is happening is because it is, rather than some secret agenda?

Red text above is by me.
Chris
The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2 to 216 | United States Congress | United States Government

 

[Chris616]

I'm not sure what you are referring to in the manufacturing process comment, but it does make me think of how inefficient windmills are. Is there a windmill farm anywhere in the country that actually produces more energy then it uses? Is there a farm that can operate without government funding to make up the loss that they incur due to maintenance? GE made billions selling windmills that do not have the technology to create electricity for a profit. But because of politics, fueled by fake global warming claims, the government gives away money to everyone that is part of the windmill industry. Once the funding ends, the windmill farms fall apart and the power plants keep on generating electricity because they where never turned off or replaced.

There is a kernel of truth in what you've written here, Eddie. I can imagine that some windmills, because of gov't incentives, resistance from neighbours, etc., get built in places where the wind doesn't blow hard enough for them to be viable economically. When wind farms are sited for the logical reason of where the winds blows the strongest, they are definitely cost effective compared to other sources now. According to the following, they weren't not that long ago.

Here's a table copied from the following Wikipedia entry:
Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia



The source of the data is a US government agency, the Energy Information Administration (so please read my other post first). The "LCOE" is the "all in" cost of generating electricity including the costs to build, fuel, maintain, etc.

Natural gas electricity generation has dropped in cost in recent years, as the price of the raw material has dropped. The interesting sections (blue highlight) is how the cost of generating electricity through wind power and solar (PV) has dropped to about the same as natural gas. I know that gov't subsidies are an evil concept to many of the folks on TBN, but that is responsible for a lot of this price decrease. Subsidies help to generate a market, which spurs innovation and drives down the cost through scale of production.

Of course, until we have a better way to store electricity, solar and wind power are never going to be the entire solution.

Chris

 

[Chris616]

If Climate change was real and our oceans will be rising any day now...why would the previous leader of the free world buy ocean front property that will soon be worthless? Should he not walk the walk for his his big talk.

The Obamas will be long dead before human caused global warming raises sea levels enough to affect their new purchase.

Chris

 

[Chris616]

Furthermore...if all the beach front property is going to be underwater, why are all the largest financial institutions still lending money to people buying property by the ocean. They aren't in the business of losing money...

Same answer. In the 21st century (the one that we're in), sea level rise is projected to be anywhere between 10-40 inches. Considering the time horizon for even the longest mortgage, lenders aren't taking much risk.

Chris

Sea level rise - Wikipedia

 

[JasperFrank]

When you see some click bait of Sea Levels rising, just do a little research on if that area is experiencing land subsidence. I've found almost ever article that talks about sea level rise, neglects to tell you that scientists also know that the elevation in that area is dropping. Sea level seems to rise when the land drops, but sea level NEVER seems to be dropping when the land is being elevated. Its a very strange war of words. I've visited many ancient harbor sites around the world. Some are under water, some are 12 feet above what the sea level was 2000 years ago, and some are exactly at the right level to be working harbors today, 2000 years after they were created without any alterations. We haven't had an independent measuring stick until very recently using satellites and super computers to normalize a base line Ocean Level. Are oceans rising... probably,.... at a few centimeters a century.

 

[Chris616]

These are good questions.

I believe it's changing, but whether it's from human activity or just a natural cycle, I can't make an educated decision. Unfortunately, for me, some of the science and their sources are questionable. Every time I see a claim that touts the "impact of climate change", it's all negatives. I never see anything that might "improve" with warmer temperatures. Certainly, with changing temperatures and rainfalls, some areas will no longer be fruitful for farming. But wouldn't there be areas that would become more fruitful?

You're right. There will undoubtedly be some places that become better for farming and living and others worse. There isn't really any upside to the worst problem of increasing sea levels, though.


As CO2 levels increase and oceans warm, wouldn't algae and other photosynthetic organisms increase, which in turn would consume more CO2?

From what I've read, exactly how much more CO2 the oceans can absorb is one of the unknowns that accounts for the variations in climate change projections. More research is needed. One thing is known. As ocean CO2 levels increase, some of the CO2 reacts with H2O to form carbonic acid, so the oceans will gradually before more acidic. More research is required on what impact that will have.

For me, do you try to stop climate change or are your efforts and resources better spent adapting too it? Because if you fail at stopping climate change, you'll still be paying to adapt to it anyway. So why not make the more cautious and fiscally responsible decision and focus your efforts solely on adapting to it? For our world leaders to be advocating otherwise, leaves a tiny voice in the back of my head that tells me this is really about making social changes in the modern world, NOT about combating climate change.

If you want to make some real impact on adapting to climate change, revise building standards for coastal areas and flood plains. Revise the flood plain maps and limit building in those areas. Revise storm water runoff and impermeable surface standards. Revise wind load standards. Revise electrical distribution and transmission standards so lines are underground where practical. These all seem like the cheapest and easiest things to fix.

That might be a prudent approach if the earth did not have ice caps that would melt as a result of a warming planet. We can adapt to the other changes to the climate like more hurricanes in the southeast, more wildfires in the west, etc. Rising sea levels won't be a significant event in our lives, but it will be an absurdly expensive problem for our descendants. In comparison our generation can solve the problem at only a moderate cost, if we are willing.

Text in red is by me
Chris

 

[tjkubota93]

If 90% of the ice caps are underwater and ice takes up more room than liquid water, if the ice caps melt than the water level should go down right?

We did an experiment in grade school. The level of water in a glass of ice water went down when all the ice melted.

 

[Tractor Seabee]

Through all the rhetoric on both sides of the alleged problem there is a missing link.

Archaeological and geological findings now trace the beginnings of our civilization all the way back to before the beginnings of enduring means of communication. Both scientific studies and narratives found in the Jewish bible and the writings of other rulers tell about these climate phenomena.

With all the knowledge base available I have yet to see a graphical plotting of world climates over at least the last 7,000 years we have mans records plus scientific data. Scientists claim to have solved the mysteries of the planet called earth going back mega thousands or id it millions. Is it because they don't want us to know what we are experiencing is just part of natural climate cycles?

Until such a chart is published I am staying on the fence leaning over to the skeptic side.

Ron

Ron

 

[JasperFrank]

You can "hang" climate change on any thing.... and sometimes this can be infuriating. For instance, there's been a great deal of press lately regarding the loss of the first glacier, Okjokull, in Iceland, DUE to climate change. Yet it seems NO ONE in the press did any further research on Ok . Or even mention that Iceland has a history of forming and losing glaciers over time. Both Forsaelujokull and Snotarjokull disappeared long before Okjokull. Ok is almost laughable as an example of climate change. Its a volcano and its in an active volcanic zone known to be over a magma chamber. Ok has probably gained and lost its glacier many times over the millennia. Its most recent glacier was only 700 years old. This is why nearby Prestahnukur NEVER had any glaciers even though it is 400 feet taller than Ok. I'll bet that no one that has read the articles on the loss of Okjokull ever even considered the more likely explanation of its loss being due to shifted ground heating from this magma chamber. This must be putting some Icelandic volcanologists in the weird position of staying quiet or risking controversy by countering the popular climate change narrative that has been set in stone by the press.. A few months ago there was another sensational story of the loss of the first mammal species to go extinct due to climate change. It was a family of rats on a tiny island called Bramble Cay near Papua New Guinea. Even the smallest amount of independent background research on this rat destroys the climate change narrative and the supposition that the rat was native to Bramble Cay, or even a unique species in the first place. Google Earth Bramble Cay. Its not even part of the great barrier reef! So its good to be skeptical of claims made regarding the effects of climate change. I've just pointed out only two of the very popular claims that turned out to be absolute fabrications when one really looks at them closely. Click Bait just runs with the PR provided. Its easy, so it is the narrative. As is showing photos of Iceland and Greenland in the middle of high summer. Oh My, things are melting... in high summer.... who figured.. The new narrative is to build 1000's of Atmospheric Scrubbers. These use gobs of energy and the CO2 collected gets sold to Oil Companies to use in injection wells, fizzy drink makers, dry ice makers and Pot farms; all of which release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. All for a supposed 20 PPM decrease of CO2. People have figured out how to make a buck. Well, it seems like we are at 400 PPM right now, meaning that we lost 15 PPM in 1/2 a year and no body did any thing? No trillions of dollars spent? Then there is the Green New Deal, most of which I agree with, aside from the crazies that have hijacked THAT program using Climate Change as a central issue. They NEVER state how many new Lithium and Cobalt mines will be needed to go all Electric/Zero Carbon. And our favorite Virtue Signaler, Greta Thunberg just arrived in New York on a 4 million dollar carbon fiber sail boat, owned by a Prince of Monaco, one of the richest families in the world, to tell us we should not fly on jets, even though the entire crew of "The Wily One II" flew back to Europe on a private jet, and will fly back to the US later to take Greta to South America where she can have another PR encounter. This is crazy. There's lots more crazy, but I've been told I should use paragraphs.

 

[gsganzer]

Perhaps land levels were 800- feet lower than they are today, thus explaining why coral fossils are found at 800+ feet. It's called "Plate Tectonics". 100 million years ago Texas was 2,500 feet deep. :scubadiver:

Western Interior Seaway - Wikipedia

Dang it! I was 145 million years too late on owning beach front property!

Reminds me of the Gilligans Island episode where they thought the island was sinking. Turns out Gilligan was using the professors measuring stick to anchor his lobster pot. Problem was, Gilligan kept anchoring his pot farther out, so he could catch bigger lobsters.:laughing: