Persuan Gulf Will Be Too Hot For Humans By Century's End

There is a reasonable consensus. For every 1 individual that denies human driven climate change, there are probably 99 individuals who accept the science. You aren't going to find many, if any, reputable publications that don't point to human driven climate change.

Lets look at it like this, Tennessee, in its football history, has on occasion had losing seasons. But to say that the last several years have been normal is... wrong. Just like saying that the climate has had changes in the past, thus current changes are "normal" is wrong.

In each case there is a driver that is altering the change. In our case, it's Butch Jones. Now there isn't a consensus that he's the current cause. But there doesn't have to be to see that Tennessee isn't normal.

 

I suggest you look at modern DNA analysis. I think you would find it fascinating how it has shown how the animal tree has been fleshed out over the eons.

 

I like the analogy but my beef is that you can't (or maybe I should say it's extremely difficult, in my limited experience) go and find truly unbiased data that isn't backed or funded by one agenda driven group or another (pro OR con). Any articles or studies I read about CC are basically mouthpieces to steer opinion one way or the other. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground or rationality. It's either/or, and that is a huge turn off for me. I realize that we're not going to just wake up one day thirty feet underwater or burn to death over a couple of days time but honestly, I'm 50 years old and not much seems to be tangibly different to me. Hot in summer, cold in winter. Anomalies exist for sure but you can go back to a time before the industrial revolution and the invention of automobiles and find the same sort of anomalies....

 

If you have a couple of good links (or book recommendations) I would indeed be interested to check it out. The subject fascinates me.

 

By the way, thanks guys for being able to have a rational, thoughtful conversation on this subject... That seems to be a real rarity nowadays!! Leave it to the 8th to have a CC discussion stay sane and a thread about Tennessee's injury situation to go comically sideways!!

 

During your life time (and mine, I turn 46 on Saturday), glaciers have retreated at startling rates and unprecedented rates. We know (as well as we can without a time traveling device) that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been in over a million years.

A million. That is longer than homo sapiens have been on the earth by a factor of at least 5. It is no coincidence this is all happening at the same time we started burning coal and oil.

I am not trying to make you have some epiphany and go "My God, I was wrong!", but just be open to the idea that perhaps your Bullshit Detector is just as biased as the humans making the science, and it just might be wrong.

 

You seem to be misinformed. Danson is an actor. The Global Cooling thing was mostly an invention of the media. The warming predictions have been coming true.

 

Oh, I freely admit that it can be off. I read somewhere that Anarctic ice is also at an all time high. I guess my gut on it is that the earth was created to be fluid and flexible. In spite of all the change, there doesn't seem to be a death toll being left in the wake of it. As far as I can tell, record keeping of these phenomena only go back a very short time for many events. Ice core samples and tree ring records interest me but I'm not sure I always would accept their interpretations as the final say.

 

Can you assail it? I'm a climate scientist. I'm listening.

 

Antarctic ice coverage is, volume is not. In fact, there is a real problem of melting under the ice cliffs that will destabilize the ice shelf, accelerating loss of volume. These things get willfully distorted to make it seem murky. It isn't. if I set a scoop of ice cream on a sidewalk, I could claim the amount of ice cream coverage is increasing while it melts. Obviously that isn't a good way to judge whether it is melting or not.

 

But you would admit that misinformation of that ilk (and the doomsday hysteria of CC zealots) are a detriment to the advancement of the notion that CC is a reality, no? All I'm saying is that I (personally) believe there is room for healthy skepticism. I have difficulty finding unbiased info on the subject (from EITHER side) and because of that lack of reasonable middle ground I choose to tend toward what I can tangibly see in my own life experience. I'm completely open to honest to God data, but damn if it isn't hard to find...

 

We will finally bring peace to the Middle East.

 

I'm not trying to assail it. I have admitted that I'm neither a scientist not an expert on much of anything, but as long as I have been alive, summer is still hot and winter is still cold. Anomolies exist for sure but the cause is subject to debate. Just because you can't empirically explain it doesn't mean anything. Religious zealots do it all the time. "I can't explain it so it had to be God"!! Atheists do the same thing... "You can't prove it so it doesn't exist"....

Again, if it could be shown from a source that doesn't have some sociopolitical axe to grind, I'd love to see it. I'm open minded.

 

Summers will always be hot and winters will always be cold. But each will be a degree or two higher (Celsius), and that will mean far less permanent snow, no permafrost, glaciers melting, etc. 2-3 degrees colder and it would be the exact opposite: glaciers in New York, permanent ice in all but the middle oceans, etc.

But there will always be a summer and a winter, simply because of our orbit and the tilt of the earth.

 

It can be. It's a fact. The warming isn't a hot summer or a mild winter in a particular place. This is a global phenomenon with broad subtle impacts that add up.

This article has an animation that shows when a new record global warm temperature was hit. You'll notice a rather pronounced trend: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...as-been-the-hottest-start-to-a-year-on-record


I am not looking to brow-beat or hound you. I just do really think the information is in, and it is a call to action. Whether it is action like 53's where efforts are concentrated in technological solutions, or more politically-controversial mitigation actions, or some mix of the two is a very real conversation worth having. Explaining how we know what we know is worth having. I'm trying to avoid banging my head against a wall in situations where folks aren't really interested in hearing the evidence.

 

It also doesn't help the cause when the eastern USA has been in a cold spell.

 

I'm totally open to seeing bona fide evidence. I just don't want to waste time with junk that's backed by this foundation or that with an axe to grind.

 

Where, then, would you accept evidence from? Not trying to be smart, here, because every place will have some bias in their agenda. NASA? Koch Foundation? IP's House of Numbers?

The thing is, it isn't jus the USA science worshippers getting money from the US government *** saying it is true. It is almost every reputable science academy in the world.

 

You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between what is scientific evidence and what is political propaganda. I find this weird, because the distinction between the two seems rather clear to me.

How can I help you get your brain wrapped around which is which? Help me help you.

 

Some sciences are pretty damn unassailable. There wasn't a great deal of room for argument on our circuits exams in undergrad.