Certainly does. Involves every major scientific group, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, and the governments of most developed countries. Thank god we have a few people with no knowledge or ability to tell us the truth or we would all be fooled.
literally millions of scientific researchers, their assistants, their families, academic associations, universities, various government agencies, so now tens of millions of co-conspirators and no one has leaked the secret for this socialist wealth redistribution it's nearly impossible for three people keeping a conspiracy a secret when only they and their families know
I think it's time for a bit of common sense here — something that seems sorely lacking in this forum. There are places in the world where you should live, and there are places where you should not live. For example, at this point in time, no one should live in Northern Siberia. There's lots of space in Southern Siberia. It's warmer down there. It's also closer to all the things you need to live. There are better roads. It's easier to get stuff. Now, maybe you don't know all the details of where you should live and why. You're not an expert on everything, and neither am I. So we have this handy invention that lets us figure out where we should live, what we should eat, what we should drive, and where we should work. It's called prices. When things are expensive, that lets us know that we should change our ways. In a free environment, water will always be more expensive in a desert than in an area with 10,000 lakes. Similarly, if you live in a certain area, and you find that the cost of flood insurance is $20,000 a year, that might be a good sign that you shouldn't live there. Insurance companies are not stupid. They hire the best actuaries around, and they know which places are likely to flood and which are not. That information is transmitted to you through prices. Now, I realize that prices are not popular. There will always be people who want to live in Las Vegas and have cheap water. There will always be people who want to live on the side of a volcano and have cheap volcano insurance. There will always be people living along the San Andreas Faultline and complaining about the high cost of earthquake insurance. There will always be people who will get pissed off when a natural disaster disrupts transportation and pushes the price of gas to $10 a gallon. Sadly, these people will often push for governmental interference with prices. That's how we have NFIP and laws against "price gouging" during emergencies. The result of this is that people will live in places (such as New Orleans) when they shouldn't. You should not build a house below sea level. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. And yes, I realize that if sea levels rise, these people are going to be wiped out. This is another reason that they shouldn't be living there in the first place. Nevertheless, it amazes me the nonsense getting preached in this forum. If we believe in AGW, we are certain that a specific rise in the sea levels will occur by 2100. That may be, but let me make myself clear — I plan on being very, very dead by 2100. So the argument that I need to play double or triple for gasoline NOW to prevent a nebulous something that may happen AFTER I'M DEAD just doesn't make any kind of sense to me. Plus, it wasn't that long ago that alarmists were agitating that we would run out of copper. The numbers made sense — houses needed a lot of copper for the phone lines and all of that. Now, however, we use fiber optics. And, I don't even HAVE a home phone. The only people who have home phones any more are old people who are stuck in their ways. So really, there's no way of knowing that by 2050 we won't all be running on portable cold fusion devices that produce absolutely zero CO2. Accordingly, I'm disinclined to engage in all those pseudo-religious practices such as recycling and buying ethanol. When I was a kid, we recycled aluminum cans because you got real money for them. Nowadays, we won't bother. Prices, you see. Now, I suppose that I'll get yelled at by a bunch of people who will slap a label on me line "denier." I don't deny. I don't accept. I don't even care — I live 4200 feet above sea level. So I'm far more concerned about real issues. Sorry, guys.
The problem is the notion of a tipping point. We may already be past the point of no return. We don't know if it is humanly possible to reverse the trend now. As the arctic and large glaciers melt, exposing the dark surface beneath, the impact and positive feedback mechanism for warming accelerates. If you don't believe you have a responsibility to your kids or humanity, and it is just all about you, then don't worry about it. If you are bigger than that, then do what you can. At this point we are likely seeing the effects of warming - stronger hurricanes, wildfires, drought, famine... Real issues? It doesn't get any more real.
Well, I couldn't help but notice that you didn't respond to any of the points that I made in my post. However, I will respond to yours starting with the tipping point. We may already be past the point of no return. If so, then that's even more reason to not care! Why should I pay extra for gasoline if we're already past the tipping point and nothing I do will help? We can only hope! When I woke up, it was 12ºF. I could use some global warming right about now!! To my kids? Absolutely. On the other hand, all of them will be dead by 2100, too. Well, the youngest might be celebrating his 100th birthday from his space station apartment for all I know. No one can know the future. The strongest recorded hurricane was in 2005. That was 13 years ago. If hurricanes are getting steadily stronger, why haven't we seen a new record in the past 13 years? The worst drought recorded was in 1879 in China. Why haven't we broken that record? The worst famine was in 1845. Why haven't we broken that record? The worst wildfire ever happened in 1871.
what you overlook...there hundreds of millions living in places were either safe at the time, had no way of knowing what could happen in the future, had historical or scientific knowledge of what had happened in the past...and once those hundreds of millions are in place "prices" come into effect, how do you pay for moving hundreds of millions of people and the infrastructure they will require?... perhaps you haven't noticed the hostile reaction from segments of the population to even modest increases in "prices" via carbon/pollution tax, politicians cower at the thought of losing their jobs/pensions if the deniers won't vote for them... the objective is indeed to replace fossil fuel burning with cleaner technology but that can't happen without voluntarily ending their resistance to clean energy...it is happening but will it come in time to prevent ecological collapse, I'm not optimistic..."price" is important but it's not the only solution, it needs to be combined with education of deniers otherwise we're trying to move our ship forward with the anchor out I live at 4,000 ft too but it's not because my parents knew what was coming it was just fate/luck
Sometimes, you have to give a poster points for pure hutzspah... To put a superfine point on it... We haven't actually observed either stronger, or more hurricanes. In fact, we have see fewer, as well as fewer strong storms. If folks actually applied a little "science" here, this would be the obvious outcome. Why? Homogeneity works. The less dissimilar the less likely you'd see convergence development. So, as a byproduct of more similar heat distribution, the "fuel" for strength is actually removed. Similarly, wild fires are (in the US) much less likely, and vastly less common than they used to be. This is also something of a curse, as super crappy forest management has artificially attempted stop this trend. Which leads us to drought. Simply put, this is unlikely. If as it warms, and more H2O are suspended in the atmosphere, you get more precip. As glaciation retreats, more overall water to work with, and more precip. The offset is the residual effect of albino that the additional cloud coverage produces, and the amount of cooling this then creates over time. ( of course depends of when, or where your clouds are...) So, the real observations are that the sea isn't actually rising more than the 2-4 millimeters a year that frankly don't represent a world ending or life threatening trend even for those who insist on living at the edges of land. We have much more likely tectonic reasons for being worried about proximity to the ocean than sea state rise. I would point out that while we might see a super short duration low cycle in arctic and Greenland glaciation and ice extent, that the southern hemisphere is packing on the ice, in fact producing record ice extent and depth that exceeds the losses in the N hemisphere (at least according to NOAA). And yet, we see endless, breathless hyperventilation about the consequences of all of this water. So, what we're left with is, a gross misstatement of the facts used by folks who would use the data as the hammer they have chosen to effect political change in areas where they disagree. It's like having to endure the way mothers speak to their small children when the basic premise of the conversation is "because I told you so", and nothing more.
Fwiw, yes, the moon is the major factor But it turns out that there other factors That impact the height of tides because, somewhat surprisingly, the ocean is not flat One impact is the gulf steam ocean circulation currents http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html IF the gulf steam breaks down due to arctic icemelt, on result could be water from the gulf piling up on the eastern coast.... resulting in higher tide heights
I don't. You see, I take responsibility for myself (along with my wife and kids). I don't care about millions of people who probably haven't even been born yet and who might or might not have to relocate in the event that there is runaway global warming. Yes, that's the beauty of the price system. When people find out how much beachfront property in Malibu costs, they decide that it would be better to simply live elsewhere. This is how we rationally allocate scarce recourses. It's far better than long lines and shortages, the experience of many people in socialist nations. It's not "resistance to clean energy." I would gladly switch to a "clean energy" car if it were viable. However, my car can drive me from here to Las Vegas with no more than a 5-minute stop for fuel whereas a "clean energy" car would require at least 30 minutes on a "fast" recharge (and I'm not even sure that such a station exists between here and Vegas). Plus, my Toyota has the advantage that if I get into an accident there's no chance that the battery will get punctured and cause me to burn alive. Despite what Hollywood might have you believe, your average car doesn't explode every time it gets into an accident. Not to mention the point that my car is much cheaper than an electric one and the electric one isn't necessarily clean. For all I know, the electricity used to recharge one is created by burning gasoline, gas, or coal. That doesn't sound that clean to me.
The term "tipping point" may have different meanings to different people. For example, the Arctic is likely at a tipping point where the decline in sea ice extents is going to accelerate the warming up there. However, this is an example of a tipping point that is already considered by the IPCC. The tipping points most scientists are concerned with is the ones that haven't already been baked into the IPCC's estimates. The IPCC is largely silent on most tipping points. The ones which cause the most warming are believed to stay inert until at least 2C of warming has already occurred. The IPCC only predicts 3C of warming and so they largely ignore these tipping points. A lot of scientists are saying this is flawed analysis because the tipping point activations could be lower than 3C.
The strongest hurricane was Patricia in 2015. It had a pressure of 872mb whereas Wilma in 2005 had 882mb. Anyway, the scientific consensus is that tropical cyclones will likely become less frequent but stronger on average when they do occur. However, it's not expected that a signal in the frequency or intensity will become evident until about 2050. So we probably have a couple more decades before this question can be answered either way.
That doesn't count because it's in the Pacific and thus will never affect the US. Really, if we want to be technical, we need only concern ourselves with the strongest landfall hurricanes. The strongest landfall hurricane was the "Labor Day" hurricane in 1935 with a landfall pressure of 892mb. Somehow, despite all the breathing and driving we've been doing since 1935, we haven't been able to surpass that number.
I know. Which is why more scientists should research tipping points and the IPCC put more focus on them instead of assuming they won't activate.
What I mean is that if you have 11 published studies in highly respected peer-reviewed journals, at least 6 of those studies will be false. That's what I mean when I say that most published research findings are false.
Yeah, I mean, that's why consensus is an important part of science. Also, depending on the precise meaning of false that percentage could be closer to 100% since few publications are ever perfect.
Of course CO2 has been locked in a relatively narrow range during this time. What happens when we build towards Mesozoic era CO2 levels with the Sun being 2% brighter?
