Settled Science

[Raoul_Luke]

Adjust this
A month ago, the Bering Sea forewarned of a profoundly low maximum sea ice extent. The waters in the Bering Strait were already nearly ice-free, though scientists expected some ice to grow as more favorable weather patterns set in. But a month later, the ice is gone.

What's more, the ice should be here for months longer. "There should be ice here until May," Lars Kaleschke, a climate scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research

https://news.yahoo.com/satellite-photos-show-pitiful-ice-175918112.html

Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 12.8 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent each September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Is this the same arctic sea ice?

https://granitegrok.com/blog/2018/06/danish-meteorological-institute-arctic-sea-ice-volume-at-11-year-high

 

[middleview]

Is this the same arctic sea ice?

https://granitegrok.com/blog/2018/06/danish-meteorological-institute-arctic-sea-ice-volume-at-11-year-high

Your source is not very reliable. Follow his info to the quote about Denmark cutting back on wind power....the facts are that they are cutting back on subsidies because green energy is competitive with carbon sources there.

After more than four decades of relying on subsidies, Denmark’s renewable energy industry is ready to survive on its own much sooner than anyone expected.

The Danish energy minister, Lars Christian Lilleholt, says that “in just a few years,” renewable energy providers won’t need state support anymore. He says it’s a development he couldn’t have imagined as recently as last year.

“We’re now very close to arriving,” he said in an interview in Copenhagen on Monday, after receiving a set of recommendations from a government-appointed panel on Denmark’s energy future.

The development marks a milestone. But it also comes at a time when the direction of global energy policies is in doubt, with U.S. President Donald Trump questioning the science behind global warming. He’s promised to revive America’s coal industry, and made clear he’s an enemy of wind power.

Lilleholt says the experience in Denmark — home to Vestas Wind Systems A/S (the world’s biggest wind-turbine maker) and Dong Energy A/S (the world’s biggest offshore wind park operator) — demonstrates that coal is no longer cheaper to produce than renewable energy.

What’s more, the development is set to become more pronounced, Lilleholt says. “Everything suggests that technology will help make renewable energy more and more competitive,” he said. And as green energy becomes more efficient, the minister warns that “already today, it’s impossible to build a new coal power plant without support.”

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/04/denmark-to-end-all-renewable-energy-subsidies.html

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Your source is not very reliable. Follow his info to the quote about Denmark cutting back on wind power....the facts are that they are cutting back on subsidies because green energy is competitive with carbon sources there.

After more than four decades of relying on subsidies, Denmark’s renewable energy industry is ready to survive on its own much sooner than anyone expected.

The Danish energy minister, Lars Christian Lilleholt, says that “in just a few years,” renewable energy providers won’t need state support anymore. He says it’s a development he couldn’t have imagined as recently as last year.

“We’re now very close to arriving,” he said in an interview in Copenhagen on Monday, after receiving a set of recommendations from a government-appointed panel on Denmark’s energy future.

The development marks a milestone. But it also comes at a time when the direction of global energy policies is in doubt, with U.S. President Donald Trump questioning the science behind global warming. He’s promised to revive America’s coal industry, and made clear he’s an enemy of wind power.

Lilleholt says the experience in Denmark — home to Vestas Wind Systems A/S (the world’s biggest wind-turbine maker) and Dong Energy A/S (the world’s biggest offshore wind park operator) — demonstrates that coal is no longer cheaper to produce than renewable energy.

What’s more, the development is set to become more pronounced, Lilleholt says. “Everything suggests that technology will help make renewable energy more and more competitive,” he said. And as green energy becomes more efficient, the minister warns that “already today, it’s impossible to build a new coal power plant without support.”

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/04/denmark-to-end-all-renewable-energy-subsidies.html

Where did I ever say I was against renewable energy? Or "for" Trump, for that matter?

 

[middleview]

Where did I ever say I was against renewable energy? Or "for" Trump, for that matter?

I just pointed out that the author of that article is not reliable. He claims the source of his ice data is the Danish institute, but doesn't offer a link to his source. I went to the institute and couldn't find references to thicker sea ice....

 

[Winston]

Adjust this
A month ago, the Bering Sea forewarned of a profoundly low maximum sea ice extent. The waters in the Bering Strait were already nearly ice-free, though scientists expected some ice to grow as more favorable weather patterns set in. But a month later, the ice is gone.

What's more, the ice should be here for months longer. "There should be ice here until May," Lars Kaleschke, a climate scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research

https://news.yahoo.com/satellite-photos-show-pitiful-ice-175918112.html

Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 12.8 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent each September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Lol you are a simpleton class 1. The Bering sea melts every year, you are just too dumb to know it, if it didnt we would not have deadliest catch

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I just pointed out that the author of that article is not reliable. He claims the source of his ice data is the Danish institute, but doesn't offer a link to his source. I went to the institute and couldn't find references to thicker sea ice....

It's not necessarily "thicker" so much as it is "consistent:"

http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/

That graph doesn't scream "WE MUST END CAPITALISM NOW!!!!" to me like it probably does to you. It's slightly below the 2004 - 2013 average. And some think we're headed into another mini-ice-age:

https://newspunch.com/nasa-lack-sunspots-mini-ice-age-earth/

So lets wait and see what it looks like in another decade before we panic. And sure, lets stop subsidizing carbon and let renewable energy compete.

Or we can always go nuke:

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2019/04/17/artificial-intelligence-accelerates-efforts-develop-clean-virtually-limitless

Win win!

But that doesn't grow government and give it more control of the economy so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you are against that...

 

[EatTheRich]

It's not necessarily "thicker" so much as it is "consistent:"

http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/

That graph doesn't scream "WE MUST END CAPITALISM NOW!!!!" to me like it probably does to you. It's slightly below the 2004 - 2013 average. And some think we're headed into another mini-ice-age:

https://newspunch.com/nasa-lack-sunspots-mini-ice-age-earth/

So lets wait and see what it looks like in another decade before we panic. And sure, lets stop subsidizing carbon and let renewable energy compete.

Or we can always go nuke:

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2019/04/17/artificial-intelligence-accelerates-efforts-develop-clean-virtually-limitless

Win win!

But that doesn't grow government and give it more control of the economy so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you are against that...

There have already been many decades. Including the one and a half you post about where, if you cherry-pick the endpoints, the decline isn’t as dramatic as in prior decades (but still unmistakeable).

 

[middleview]

It's not necessarily "thicker" so much as it is "consistent:"

http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/

That graph doesn't scream "WE MUST END CAPITALISM NOW!!!!" to me like it probably does to you. It's slightly below the 2004 - 2013 average. And some think we're headed into another mini-ice-age:

https://newspunch.com/nasa-lack-sunspots-mini-ice-age-earth/

So lets wait and see what it looks like in another decade before we panic. And sure, lets stop subsidizing carbon and let renewable energy compete.

Or we can always go nuke:

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2019/04/17/artificial-intelligence-accelerates-efforts-develop-clean-virtually-limitless

Win win!

But that doesn't grow government and give it more control of the economy so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you are against that...

unreal...how you equate a desire to improve the environment to being anti-capital is beyond me...you guys do that a lot...use idiotic rhetoric when you really have nothing else.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

unreal...how you equate a desire to improve the environment to being anti-capital is beyond me...you guys do that a lot...use idiotic rhetoric when you really have nothing else.

It's obvious - a simple carbon tax would work but the left demands more severe government interventions like "cap and trade" and/or joining global "accords" that give government control over large swaths of the economy. The "idiotic rhetoric" here is yours that suggests all you care about is "improving the environment."

 

[Queen Titania]

Temperatures were also much higher.

Co2 levels follow temp levels by about 800 years --- so what is your point?

 

[Queen Titania]

unreal...how you equate a desire to improve the environment to being anti-capital is beyond me...you guys do that a lot...use idiotic rhetoric when you really have nothing else.

The environment is another question - the only important one.

 

[Queen Titania]

It's obvious - a simple carbon tax would work but the left demands more severe government interventions like "cap and trade" and/or joining global "accords" that give government control over large swaths of the economy. The "idiotic rhetoric" here is yours that suggests all you care about is "improving the environment."

But tax is all that man made climate change was invented for, isn't it? A world wide tax which punishes developing countries and keeps them in poverty and under Corporate thumb.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

But tax is all that man made climate change was invented for, isn't it? A world wide tax which punishes developing countries and keeps them in poverty and under Corporate thumb.

I think it was invented for control. A tax is the lightest form of control (vs. regulation) and that is why the left is dead set against it (except as a part of a more robust intervention regime that includes regulation and international accords).

 

[middleview]

I think it was invented for control. A tax is the lightest form of control (vs. regulation) and that is why the left is dead set against it (except as a part of a more robust intervention regime that includes regulation and international accords).

So you are in favor of more taxes....odd. I'm in favor of evaluating all forms of incentives.

Trump is getting rid of clean air and water regs. No wonder you love the guy.

 

[EatTheRich]

Co2 levels follow temp levels by about 800 years --- so what is your point?

It’s a positive feedback loop. In the past, CO2 rise followed small temperature increases and in turn set off much bigger temperature increases. Today, the CO2 rise comes first.

 

[EatTheRich]

But tax is all that man made climate change was invented for, isn't it? A world wide tax which punishes developing countries and keeps them in poverty and under Corporate thumb.

Nope, the climate change is an unanticipated and natural side effect of fossil fuel combustion.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

So you are in favor of more taxes....odd. I'm in favor of evaluating all forms of incentives.

Trump is getting rid of clean air and water regs. No wonder you love the guy.

I'd like to implement a carbon tax and use the proceeds to pay down the debt. And you are "in favor" of "regulation" which you euphemistically call "incentives."

 

[middleview]

I'd like to implement a carbon tax and use the proceeds to pay down the debt. And you are "in favor" of "regulation" which you euphemistically call "incentives."

1. China and India are huge polluters. My co-workers who went to Singapore said they couldn't even breathe when they went outside. In Bejing everyone wears masks because the air quality is so bad.

2. If the US taxes carbon, but our trading partners do not then our businesses are at a disadvantage.

International treaties are necessary. Pollution doesn't know borders. I was in the area between Italy and Switzerland and saw the results of pollution on forests there.

Incentives to buyers of non-polluting cars or solar power for homes do not have to make it illegal to have gas or electric furnaces or gas powered cars. Rules to improve gas mileage on cars are not anti-capital. Rules that forbid burning off natural gas at oil wells or in refineries are not anti-capital. Treaties that stop burning forests are not anti-capital.

 

[EatTheRich]

1. China and India are huge polluters. My co-workers who went to Singapore said they couldn't even breathe when they went outside. In Bejing everyone wears masks because the air quality is so bad.

2. If the US taxes carbon, but our trading partners do not then our businesses are at a disadvantage.

International treaties are necessary. Pollution doesn't know borders. I was in the area between Italy and Switzerland and saw the results of pollution on forests there.

Incentives to buyers of non-polluting cars or solar power for homes do not have to make it illegal to have gas or electric furnaces or gas powered cars. Rules to improve gas mileage on cars are not anti-capital. Rules that forbid burning off natural gas at oil wells or in refineries are not anti-capital. Treaties that stop burning forests are not anti-capital.

“Anti-capital” in this case means not supplied by the “free market” and not available under a capitalist political system. If you claim basic safety regulation is not anti-capital, you need to demonstrate that by effecting such regulation.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

1. China and India are huge polluters. My co-workers who went to Singapore said they couldn't even breathe when they went outside. In Bejing everyone wears masks because the air quality is so bad.

2. If the US taxes carbon, but our trading partners do not then our businesses are at a disadvantage.

International treaties are necessary. Pollution doesn't know borders. I was in the area between Italy and Switzerland and saw the results of pollution on forests there.

Incentives to buyers of non-polluting cars or solar power for homes do not have to make it illegal to have gas or electric furnaces or gas powered cars. Rules to improve gas mileage on cars are not anti-capital. Rules that forbid burning off natural gas at oil wells or in refineries are not anti-capital. Treaties that stop burning forests are not anti-capital.

So in other words, you not only want to control Americans through regulation, but rather all the people of the world. And when those nations don't enforce the rules, then what? Don't tell me, let me guess - we go to WAR!!! Am I right?