Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[SumJongGuy]

My point is the ball is already rolling, it doesn't need government forcing. The free market is powerful.

Just like how we've left coal and petroleum to the totally unregulated free market with zero subsidies or tax breaks right? Take a look back at the diffusion of electricity in homes formerly lit by oil lamps. The new way wasn't cheaper initially, but it was a whole lot safer and better in the end. Still took quite a bit of gubbermint meddling to bring everyone on board with the new technology.

[iceman]

You guys are gonna get this joker a nice bonus check.

[skiballs]

You guys are gonna get this joker a nice bonus check.

Maybe he will buy some solar panels.

[ron johnson]

Just like how we've left coal and petroleum to the totally unregulated free market with zero subsidies or tax breaks right? Take a look back at the diffusion of electricity in homes formerly lit by oil lamps. The new way wasn't cheaper initially, but it was a whole lot safer and better in the end. Still took quite a bit of gubbermint meddling to bring everyone on board with the new technology.

The gov't is already doing what you want.

Do you have any links on the governments involvement in electric lighting? I searched around and couldn't find anything.

[SB]

[SumJongGuy]

Do you have any links on the governments involvement in electric lighting? I searched around and couldn't find anything.

Umm because that happened in the late 1800s before you started saying Al Gore invented the internet. Those history channel shows about Edison and Tesla talk about it some..

[ron johnson]

Umm because that happened in the late 1800s before you started saying Al Gore invented the internet. Those history channel shows about Edison and Tesla talk about it some..

I'm arguing with someone who might have heard something about it on the History Channel, and nothing that happened before the internet is on the internet....

The Gore comment is lost on me.

[WMD]

"Climate change could cost the U.S. up to 10.5 percent of its GDP by 2100, study finds"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...y-study-finds/

[neufox47]

JFC I'm not doing the Greenland thing with you again. The articles the video is criticizing are about melt!! So he makes a video about melt!! You're entire argument is proving his point. What are these news organizations doing publishing these hysterical articles about 1 single day of melt, during a summer of melt within the range of normal, when 33-50% of Greenland's ice loss comes from calving as well?

You have been much less involved in this thread than I, and already two of your statements have proven false - 1. "Most ice loss is from calving not melt," and 2. "Greenland getting that warm is unusual and getting that warm as frequently as it is is very unusual."

The cost of CO2 is subjective, I've made this clear. If you think we are heading toward disaster, and CO2 is the major responsible party, then you will feel differently.

1. I already explained. So I was wrong on the % when pointing out he intentionally omitted 30-50% of the cause of melt. I was going off memory.

2. Again, you are an idiot. “The last time ice loss occurred at such an altitude was in 2012, which was also the last time Greenland experienced a melting event on a similar scale to this summer. The time before that was in 1889, Trusel said.
Before that, it had been nearly 700 years”

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2012GL053611
Article that predates this years melt.

The 2019 melt was one of four significant melt events in the last 800 years. Two of which occurred this decade. If that isn’t very unusual, what is?

[SumJongGuy]

I'm arguing with someone who might have heard something about it on the History Channel, and nothing that happened before the internet is on the internet....

The Gore comment is lost on me.

It's on you to prove me wrong. Even your own initial response proves that coal and crude aren't operating in markets free of government subsidies and other support. Free market my ass..

[ron johnson]

1. I already explained. So I was wrong on the % when pointing out he intentionally omitted 30-50% of the cause of melt. I was going off memory.

2. Again, you are an idiot. “The last time ice loss occurred at such an altitude was in 2012, which was also the last time Greenland experienced a melting event on a similar scale to this summer. The time before that was in 1889, Trusel said.
Before that, it had been nearly 700 years”

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2012GL053611
Article that predates this years melt.

The 2019 melt was one of four significant melt events in the last 800 years. Two of which occurred this decade. If that isn’t very unusual, what is?

Greenland has been warmer than today for 80%+ of the period of human civilization.

Temps have been rising for 150 years. Why would we not expect to see the most melt in this decade?

[ron johnson]

It's on you to prove me wrong. Even your own initial response proves that coal and crude aren't operating in markets free of government subsidies and other support. Free market my ass..

No, its not on me.

Did I say fossil fuels don't get subsidies?

[SumJongGuy]

No, its not on me.

Did I say fossil fuels don't get subsidies?

You said free market capitalism for renewables.. I pointed out that is not the case with the competition. Crude and coal have always been supported by socialism.

[MultiVerse]

Greenland has been warmer than today for 80%+ of the period of human civilization.

Temps have been rising for 150 years. Why would we not expect to see the most melt in this decade?

This is not true for central Greenland and it is not true for the global record. And assuming your chart is based on Easterbrook’s GISP2 Greenland ice sheet regional proxy then that has been debunked and is also not true.

Temps have been rising for 150 years but most of the warming has occurred in the last 35 years.

[From_the_NEK]

I suppose if we keep feeding the troll here in the Padded Room he won't be off on some other fourm spreading mis-information and doubt.
So keep hammering away at him, I'm sure he'll come around!

[ron johnson]

1. I already explained. So I was wrong on the % when pointing out he intentionally omitted 30-50% of the cause of melt. I was going off memory.

2. Again, you are an idiot. “The last time ice loss occurred at such an altitude was in 2012, which was also the last time Greenland experienced a melting event on a similar scale to this summer. The time before that was in 1889, Trusel said.
Before that, it had been nearly 700 years”

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2012GL053611
Article that predates this years melt.

The 2019 melt was one of four significant melt events in the last 800 years. Two of which occurred this decade. If that isn’t very unusual, what is?

As I said, taking one melt day out of the entire year is cherry picked nonsense. The surface mass balance for 2019 is now at the 1981-2010 mean:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

[ron johnson]

You said free market capitalism for renewables.. I pointed out that is not the case with the competition. Crude and coal have always been supported by socialism.

Of course its the case with the competition. They have been getting more support than fossil fuels for the past 10 years.

Or are you implying that with zero fossil fuel subsidies we would have had wind and solar 50 years ago?

I don't know why I waste my time with you.

[ron johnson]

This is not true for central Greenland and it is not true for the global record. And assuming your chart is based on Easterbrook’s GISP2 Greenland ice sheet regional proxy then that has been debunked and is also not true.

Temps have been rising for 150 years but most of the warming has occurred in the last 35 years.

I've already been through this with you. It's hard to debunk Easterbrook when we have an independent proxy suggesting it was even warmer, and in this case neufox and I are talking strictly about Greenland: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ancien...y-thought.html

"...most of the warming has occurred in the last 35 years."

-Not true, about half a degree pre 1940, half a degree post 1940.

[Benny Profane]

I just have to drop into this conversation and mention that I was watching CNN the other day, and they had a reporter up in Greenland because, you know, Trump, and they did this really stupid thing where they showed a glacier calving in, you know, August, and spent the next few minutes with the CLIMATE CHANGE! shit. My palm is still stuck to my forehead.

[MultiVerse]

I've already been through this with you. It's hard to debunk Easterbrook when we have an independent proxy suggesting it was even warmer, and in this case neufox and I are talking strictly about Greenland: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ancien...y-thought.html

"...most of the warming has occurred in the last 35 years."

-Not true, about half a degree pre 1940, half a degree post 1940.

Yep, you keep making the same false assertions. Your article doesn't support the idea that "Greenland has been warmer than today for the majority of the past 10,000 years." Instead, what the article says, even according to your own quotes last time, is it looks like Greenland is more sensitive to warming than previously thought. So it makes sense to see evidence of warmer/warming in the past/present at higher latitudes.


Also from your quoted phys.org article:

There is one caveat. Well-known changes in Earth's orbit caused warming during the early Holocene and Last Interglacial periods. Today, warming stems from man-made sources and is happening much faster than warming during those interglacial periods. That means there is a chance that Earth might not respond to current-day warming in the same way.

"Past climate is our best analog for future warming, and our results hint that land at these very high latitudes in the Arctic may warm even more than predicted in the coming century," Axford said. "But nothing in Earth's past is a perfect analog because what's happening today is totally unprecedented."

According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years:

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

[ron johnson]

Yep, you keep making the same false assertions. Your article doesn't support the idea that "Greenland has been warmer than today for the majority of the past 10,000 years." Instead, what the article says, even according to your own quotes last time, is it looks like Greenland is more sensitive to warming than previously thought.


Also from your quoted phys.org article:

There is one caveat. Well-known changes in Earth's orbit caused warming during the early Holocene and Last Interglacial periods. Today, warming stems from man-made sources and is happening much faster than warming during those interglacial periods. That means there is a chance that Earth might not respond to current-day warming in the same way.

"Past climate is our best analog for future warming, and our results hint that land at these very high latitudes in the Arctic may warm even more than predicted in the coming century," Axford said. "But nothing in Earth's past is a perfect analog because what's happening today is totally unprecedented."

According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX :

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

It certainly does support the idea that Greenland has been warmer than today for the majority past 10,000 years. It supports the GISP data, which shows that its been warmer for the majority of the past 10,000 years: "This confirms controversial geological records constructed from ice cores taken nearby, which also indicated significant warming during these time periods."

The quotes from Axford sound like someone trying to keep his job. I challenge you to show me how the 1 degree of warming in the past 150 years is happening much faster, let alone unprecedented, compared to the past.



Edit: I guess you edited your post after I responded? I'm pretty sure the NASA GISS comment wasn't in there before.

In any case, take a look at the GISS data yourself. It doesn't even show what they are saying. It has steady temps 1880-1920, ~.6' warming 1920-1945, steady temps 1945-1980, then ~.5' warming 1980-today.

[MultiVerse]

Nope. Your phys.org article says that Greenland has been warmer in the past not that Greenland has been warmer for the past 10,000 years.

From your article:

During the Last Interglacial, global sea levels increased by 15 to 30 feet, largely due to thinning of Greenland and Antarctica's ice sheets. But now Northwestern's team believes northern Greenland's ice sheet experienced stronger warming than previously thought, which could mean that Greenland is more responsible for that sea-level rise.

[ron johnson]

Nope. Your phys.org article only shows that Greenland has been warmer in the past not that Greenland has been warmer for the past 10,000 years.

Get real. The article confirms the early Holocene GISP data, but somehow we are supposed to believe that the the rest of the GISP data is false?

[SkiCougar]

man, if you guys would just keep your offices and houses at 78 and sleep at 82; we'd have no problems; think how much CO2 the country would not burn.

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/de...0a1z9dIV3vVYP/

"According to Consumer Reports, the program, overseen by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, suggests that cost- and energy-conscious homeowners keep their thermostats set to 78 degrees or higher during the summer. The recommended minimum temperatures are even higher for when you're out of the house or asleep, at 85 and 82 degrees, respectively."

[The AD]

man, if you guys would just keep your offices and houses at 78 and sleep at 82

Kind of strange people would have a problem with 78 during the day. Most people would consider that to be a perfectly comfortable temperature outdoors in the shade, so why do they need to keep their house cooler? 82 seems pretty hot for sleeping, though. Glad that's not something we have to deal with in Seattle (yet).