AGW +2C? +6C? It has happened before.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Does he deny ANY climate change, or the notion that change is totally man made and not natural?

Depends on his mood that day.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,120]

>Does he deny ANY climate change, or the notion that change is totally man made
>and not natural?

That seems to vary from day to day. He will often post articles that talk about (for example) Antarctic ice extent with a comment about "so much for the warmist lies that it's getting warmer." The next day he will post an article about how the climate has changed quickly in the past and so this is little different.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Woah! Ok in recent searches I saw this debate started pre 2007, could be the longest running debate here. Hard to deny the climate isn't changing for whatever reason it is.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 2,150]

Anvilbrother

***>Nu-Uh. That's "ignore." Because he's ignoring your data in favor of his data.

Perhaps. Although his knee-jerk reaction is generally to deny anything that demonstrates climate change, without being in favor of alternative data. (At least until he has time to Google wattsupwiththat.com.)

Does he deny ANY climate change, or the notion that change is totally man made and not natural?

Yes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Does he deny ANY climate change, or the notion that change is totally man made
>and not natural?

That seems to vary from day to day. He will often post articles that talk about (for example) Antarctic ice extent with a comment about "so much for the warmist lies that it's getting warmer." The next day he will post an article about how the climate has changed quickly in the past and so this is little different.

IT depends on how the topic is being framed on a given day

I have always said, the climate changes. This is what it does

I also say man has little if anything to do with it.

I am leaning more all the time to has nothing to do with it

Point of this thread?

The doom and gloom predictions are preceded by the same changes happening before
You know, before man could have been a factor

CO2 has been higher
Temps have been higher
Changes have happened faster
yet some how
today
its different

Oh
And I already posted the faster climate change study.
Done by a college

It changed faster and more radically
Lawrocket has pointed that out too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Anvilbrother

Woah! Ok in recent searches I saw this debate started pre 2007, could be the longest running debate here. Hard to deny the climate isn't changing for whatever reason it is.

the climate changes
always has
always will

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Anvilbrother 0]

Ok thx I'm in the same boat, I know it's changing, but not smart enough to figure out why on my own, and just hope that the people that can do it in an honest manner.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rushmc 23]

Anvilbrother

Ok thx I'm in the same boat, I know it's changing, but not smart enough to figure out why on my own, and just hope that the people that can do it in an honest manner.

It is not about honesty

it is about control and money

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

rushmc

***Ok thx I'm in the same boat, I know it's changing, but not smart enough to figure out why on my own, and just hope that the people that can do it in an honest manner.

It is not about honesty

it is about control and money

BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell made more than $1 TRILLION in profits in the last 10 years. And still received government subsidies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

******Ok thx I'm in the same boat, I know it's changing, but not smart enough to figure out why on my own, and just hope that the people that can do it in an honest manner.

It is not about honesty

it is about control and money

BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell made more than $1 TRILLION in profits in the last 10 years. And still received government subsidies.

And the wackos need a demon to advance the bs they push
Please, continue

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

rushmc

*********Ok thx I'm in the same boat, I know it's changing, but not smart enough to figure out why on my own, and just hope that the people that can do it in an honest manner.

It is not about honesty

it is about control and money

BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell made more than $1 TRILLION in profits in the last 10 years. And still received government subsidies.

And the wackos need a demon to advance the bs they push
Please, continue

What are your credentials that allow you to decide what is science and what is BS?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>It is not about honesty
>it is about control and money

Exactly. Fossil fuel companies lose both due to a better understanding of AGW. So they sow fear, uncertainty and doubt, hoping that most people won't bother to look at the actual science. Often it works - just as it did for tobacco companies in the 1960's and 1970's.

Hopefully, just as people learned the dangers of smoking despite the attempts by tobacco companies to suppress the truth, so people will learn about the risks of AGW despite attempts by fossil fuel companies to cloud the issue.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>It is not about honesty
>it is about control and money

Exactly. Fossil fuel companies lose both due to a better understanding of AGW. So they sow fear, uncertainty and doubt, hoping that most people won't bother to look at the actual science. Often it works - just as it did for tobacco companies in the 1960's and 1970's.

Hopefully, just as people learned the dangers of smoking despite the attempts by tobacco companies to suppress the truth, so people will learn about the risks of AGW despite attempts by fossil fuel companies to cloud the issue.

Not really
You attack capitalism
So, as I stated. , you create evil corps to try and support your cause
And then you sprinkle in tobacco companies to try and make yourself believe what you say

You are only fooling yourself for the most part

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>You attack capitalism

Nope. Indeed, I prefer market-based solutions.

>And then you sprinkle in tobacco companies to try and make yourself believe what you say

Same strategy, same tactics, same goal, same people.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>You attack capitalism

Nope. Indeed, I prefer market-based solutions.

>And then you sprinkle in tobacco companies to try and make yourself believe what you say

Same strategy, same tactics, same goal, same people.

And now your list of evil is complete

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>They usually still smell like shit because of the ass they were pulled out of

So studies from the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science, Lancet, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine are "shit pulled out of someone's ass."

Meanwhile, you believe anything posted on wattsupwiththat.com or NewsMax 100%.

A perfect example of what RushMC considers "science."

Quote

With Pollution Levels Dropping, is Small Particle Air Pollution Really Killing Americans?

Quote

Unnoticed by most citizens, last week the United States Senate introduced the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2015.” The act is aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency’s practice of refusing to disclose data from scientific studies that support new pollution regulations. The act indirectly questions the EPA assertion that Americans are dying today from small particle air pollution.

Past EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress in 2011, stating, “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” Particulate matter refers to PM2.5, classified by the EPA as particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, much smaller than the eye can see. Particle pollution is a mixture of dust, nitrates and sulfates, metals, pollen, and organic chemicals.

I am interested in what science has to say
You, are not.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/01/with-pollution-levels-dropping-is-small-particle-air-pollution-really-killing-americans/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And I will keep posting
I can post new information
You can not

Quote

Further, EPA is often the funding agency for epidemiological studies that are then used to justify new air pollution regulations. EPA supports such studies either directly or indirectly through grants to organizations such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society. For example, over the last decade the EPA has provided more than $20 million in grants to the American Lung Association, a group that supports EPA efforts for more stringent air pollution regulations.

The result is a massive, costly, and growing burden on American citizens in the name of clean air. NERA Economic Consulting estimates that the Clean Power Plan will cost US citizens some $400 billion in compliance costs over the next 15 years. But the savings from “prevention of premature deaths” from particle pollution are likely imaginary.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

Quote

I can post new information
You can not

Here's some more new science for you to deny:

===================
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Volume 65, Issue 5, 2015

Abstract

There is strong evidence that fine particulate matter (aerodynamic diameter <2.5 μm; PM2.5) air pollution contributes to increased risk of disease and death. Estimates of the burden of disease attributable to PM2.5 pollution and benefits of reducing pollution are dependent upon the shape of the concentration response (C-R) functions. Recent evidence suggests that the C-R function between PM2.5 air pollution and mortality risk may be supralinear across wide ranges of exposure. Such results imply that incremental pollution abatement efforts may yield greater benefits in relatively clean areas than in highly polluted areas. The role of the shape of the C-R function in evaluating and understanding the costs and health benefits of air pollution abatement policy is explored. There remain uncertainties regarding the shape of the C-R function, and additional efforts to more fully understand the C-R relationships between PM2.5 and adverse health effects are needed to allow for more informed and effective air pollution abatement policies. Current evidence, however, suggests that there are benefits both from reducing air pollution in the more polluted areas and from continuing to reduce air pollution in cleaner areas.
====================
Science Direct
February 21, 2014

More efforts, more benefits: Air pollutant control of coal-fired power plants in China

Abstract

Although China has implemented many air pollution control policies, its air pollution problems remain severe with rapid economic development. The strategy of controlling single pollutant in one period and adding another in the next period (i.e., gradual control strategy) adopted in China has achieved some success in reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2). However, this strategy is not effective for addressing compound air pollution issues, which require control of several pollutants simultaneously (i.e., multi-pollutant control strategy). The present study employs a cost-benefit analysis to compare net benefits of a multi-pollutant control strategy and current gradual control strategy of coal-fired power plants in China. The results show that a multi-pollutant control strategy yields more net benefits relative to the current gradual control strategy. The average health benefits of a multi-pollutant control strategy are somewhat higher than that of the gradual control strategy, while the average control costs are also higher than gradual control strategy. The results imply that China should switch from its gradual control strategy to a multi-pollutant control strategy to reduce adverse health effects and increase economic efficiency. Raising electricity prices to offset increased control costs is a potential means of balancing benefits between power plants and electricity users.
=========================

[rushmc 23]

Just doing what you. Please move along. I will follow you

Oh. Link please

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

rushmc

***>They usually still smell like shit because of the ass they were pulled out of

So studies from the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science, Lancet, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine are "shit pulled out of someone's ass."

Meanwhile, you believe anything posted on wattsupwiththat.com or NewsMax 100%.

A perfect example of what RushMC considers "science."

Quote

With Pollution Levels Dropping, is Small Particle Air Pollution Really Killing Americans?

Quote

Unnoticed by most citizens, last week the United States Senate introduced the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2015.” The act is aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency’s practice of refusing to disclose data from scientific studies that support new pollution regulations. The act indirectly questions the EPA assertion that Americans are dying today from small particle air pollution.

Past EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress in 2011, stating, “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” Particulate matter refers to PM2.5, classified by the EPA as particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, much smaller than the eye can see. Particle pollution is a mixture of dust, nitrates and sulfates, metals, pollen, and organic chemicals.

I am interested in what science has to say
You, are not.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/01/with-pollution-levels-dropping-is-small-particle-air-pollution-really-killing-americans/

So why do you keep quoting a political source instead of science sources?

And what are your credentials for discerning between good science and BS?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

A recent article in SciAm:
=====================================
Stable Antarctic Ice Is Suddenly Melting Fast

Multiple glaciers, previously frozen solid, are adding vast quantities of water to the ocean

By Mark Fischetti
May 21, 2015

Sea levels worldwide will rise higher than anticipated, thanks to a new once-stable region of Antarctica that is suddenly melting, and at a fast rate. Analysis of satellite data shows that although the massive ice sheet on the southern Antarctic Peninsula, made up of multiple glaciers, was rock solid from 2000 to 2009, since then it has begun to melt rapidly. The glaciers, stretching along 750 kilometers of coastline, are shedding 60 cubic kilometers of ice into the ocean each year—about 70,000 Empire State Buildings of ice annually.

The onset of such rapid loss “came as a surprise to us," says Bert Wouters, a fellow at the University of Bristol in England, who led the analysis, published in the May 22 Science. In just a few years, he says, the dynamics of the region “completely shifted."

The surface of some of the glaciers is dropping by as much as four meters each year, as measured by remote-sensing instruments on the CryoSat 2 satellite. The ice loss is so great it is also causing changes in Earth’s gravitational field, which have been detected by GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellites.

Wouters says the glaciers’ quick disappearance is not caused by a reduction in annual snowfall or by warmer air temperatures. It is caused by thinning ice shelves; bulky glacial sheets on land transition into large, flat ice shelves that float on the ocean. When the shelves are thick, they slow or even stop the glaciers they are connected to from gently sliding into the sea, at the mercy of gravity. But if the shelves thin too much they can no longer hold back the enormous ice mass on land, and the glaciers accelerate their march into the ocean. This mechanism already has allowed glaciers in other regions of Antarctica to speed up their progress toward the sea.

Overall, the ice shelves along the southern Antarctic Peninsula have lost almost one fifth of their thickness since the early 1990s. Scientists say the likely cause is a change in winds across the Southern Ocean, a result of climate change. The shifting winds are pushing warmer water toward the ice shelves, melting them from below, and against the glacial ice along the coast, melting it as well. Around 2009, Wouters says, thinning of the ice shelves and melting of the glaciers “passed a critical threshold which triggered the sudden ice loss.”
========================================

[rushmc 23]

billvon

A recent article in SciAm:
=====================================
Stable Antarctic Ice Is Suddenly Melting Fast

Multiple glaciers, previously frozen solid, are adding vast quantities of water to the ocean

By Mark Fischetti
May 21, 2015

Sea levels worldwide will rise higher than anticipated, thanks to a new once-stable region of Antarctica that is suddenly melting, and at a fast rate. Analysis of satellite data shows that although the massive ice sheet on the southern Antarctic Peninsula, made up of multiple glaciers, was rock solid from 2000 to 2009, since then it has begun to melt rapidly. The glaciers, stretching along 750 kilometers of coastline, are shedding 60 cubic kilometers of ice into the ocean each year—about 70,000 Empire State Buildings of ice annually.

The onset of such rapid loss “came as a surprise to us," says Bert Wouters, a fellow at the University of Bristol in England, who led the analysis, published in the May 22 Science. In just a few years, he says, the dynamics of the region “completely shifted."

The surface of some of the glaciers is dropping by as much as four meters each year, as measured by remote-sensing instruments on the CryoSat 2 satellite. The ice loss is so great it is also causing changes in Earth’s gravitational field, which have been detected by GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellites.

Wouters says the glaciers’ quick disappearance is not caused by a reduction in annual snowfall or by warmer air temperatures. It is caused by thinning ice shelves; bulky glacial sheets on land transition into large, flat ice shelves that float on the ocean. When the shelves are thick, they slow or even stop the glaciers they are connected to from gently sliding into the sea, at the mercy of gravity. But if the shelves thin too much they can no longer hold back the enormous ice mass on land, and the glaciers accelerate their march into the ocean. This mechanism already has allowed glaciers in other regions of Antarctica to speed up their progress toward the sea.

Overall, the ice shelves along the southern Antarctic Peninsula have lost almost one fifth of their thickness since the early 1990s. Scientists say the likely cause is a change in winds across the Southern Ocean, a result of climate change. The shifting winds are pushing warmer water toward the ice shelves, melting them from below, and against the glacial ice along the coast, melting it as well. Around 2009, Wouters says, thinning of the ice shelves and melting of the glaciers “passed a critical threshold which triggered the sudden ice loss.”
========================================

Happened in the past
Happening again
Nothing new here (if the stuff you post is true)

I notice no link again
You sure are special

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

kallend

So why do you keep quoting a political source instead of science sources?

Hmmm
Interesting political discussions and follow up comments
Dont you think?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/01/a-way-to-calculate-effective-n/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>I notice no link again

Here you go! Good luck in learning how the Internet pipes work.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Stable+Antarctic+Ice+Is+Suddenly+Melting+Fast

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>I notice no link again

Here you go! Good luck in learning how the Internet pipes work.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Stable+Antarctic+Ice+Is+Suddenly+Melting+Fast

Ah
so you will not provide it

You sure are special

Unles you can do it in a snide form

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln