Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

Why the need to travel all over the world to conferences with 1000 of printed materials, big limos, private jets, buffet with out of season fruits... to show slides about people using charcoal or wood in African tribes to feed themselves instead of using solar panels?

Skype? Google hangout? I. Don't. Get it.



Sunglasses and light brown mandela T Shirt are not included.
http://youtu.be/IqGA31J-LRQ

i could make another joke here.

But aren't these guys and this mentality, basically somewhat retro?

like 1980s ish, sort of?

i mean, this is straight out, unabashed, 'big government socialism/communism is what we need to save the planet' stuff.

[Wilikon]

Why the need to travel all over the world to conferences with 1000 of printed materials, big limos, private jets, buffet with out of season fruits... to show slides about people using charcoal or wood in African tribes to feed themselves instead of using solar panels?

Skype? Google hangout? I. Don't. Get it.



Sunglasses and light brown mandela T Shirt are not included.
http://youtu.be/IqGA31J-LRQ

i could make another joke here.

But aren't these guys and this mentality, basically somewhat retro?

like 1980s ish, sort of?

i mean, this is straight out, unabashed, 'big government socialism/communism is what we need to save the planet' stuff.

Hopefuly those solar panels are going to be built in Africa, creating jobs etc, not imported from China in containers, on massive dirty ships using oil.

[Wilikon]

The leader of the Antarctic global warming expedition that has been mired in thick Antarctic ice for more than a week and is finally facing a helicopter rescue attempt, is claiming that expanding sea ice is consistent with man-made global warming theory.

Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales (c.turney@unsw.edu.au) “remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas,” according to a Fox News interview.

“Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. Turney explained that “climate change may have prompted the iceberg to shatter and float into the previously open sea where the mostly Australian team finds itself stranded.” “

The ice was swept across to this area by the South-East wind, its pieces creating a knock-on domino effect,” Turney said. “We were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Turney expected to see melting ice. See: ClitanicDisaster: ‘Global warming scientists forced to admit defeat…because of too much ice’ in Antarctica – Will be rescued by helicopter – Chris Turney, a climate scientist and leader of the expedition, was going to document ‘environmental changes’ at the pole - In an interview he said he expected melting ice to play a part in expedition
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/01/clitantic-ship-scientists-trapped-in-ice-claim-expanding-sea-ice-caused-by-global-warming-but-data-and-studies-refute-claims/

Antarctica sea ice reached a 30 year record in extent and volume in 2013.

[Wilikon]

American taxpayers spent $7.45 billion to help developing countries cope with climate change in fiscal years 2010 through 2012, according to a federal government report submitted to the United Nations on a subject that Secretary of State John Kerry described as “a truly life-and-death challenge.”

That sum of $7.45 billion, which reached more than 120 countries through bilateral and multilateral channels, met President Obama’s “commitment to provide our fair share” of a collective pledge by developed nations to provide a total of nearly $30 billion in “fast start finance” (FSF), the report stated.

The pledge was made at a Dec. 2009 U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, and the FSF funding aims to support developing countries adapt to and cope with phenomena blamed on climate change, such as droughts and rising sea levels.

“International assistance for climate change continues to be a major priority for the United States,” the administration said in its “Climate Action Report,” submitted to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on Wednesday.

It noted that since the U.S. ratified the convention in 1992, its international climate funding  had increased from “virtually zero” to an average of $2.5 billion each year in the 2010-2012 FSF period.

“During the period, average annual appropriated climate assistance increased fourfold compared with 2009 funding levels,” the report said. “U.S. climate assistance has increased in the context of an overall increasing foreign assistance budget.”

According to UNFCCC data, of the $7.45 billion in U.S. funding, $4.7 billion was congressionally-appropriated assistance while development finance and export credit support accounted for a further $2.7 billion of public money.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/americans-spent-745b-3-years-helping-other-countries-deal-climate#sthash.6GzvUXtr.dpuf

[Spendulus]

Why the need to travel all over the world to conferences with 1000 of printed materials, big limos, private jets, buffet with out of season fruits... to show slides about people using charcoal or wood in African tribes to feed themselves instead of using solar panels?

Skype? Google hangout? I. Don't. Get it.



Sunglasses and light brown mandela T Shirt are not included.
http://youtu.be/IqGA31J-LRQ

i could make another joke here.

But aren't these guys and this mentality, basically somewhat retro?

like 1980s ish, sort of?

i mean, this is straight out, unabashed, 'big government socialism/communism is what we need to save the planet' stuff.

Hopefuly those solar panels are going to be built in Africa, creating jobs etc, not imported from China in containers, on massive dirty ships using oil.

Yea, that video is total bullshit.  From my travels in Africa, most areas sub Sahara need regular industrial infrastructure - including real power plants, coal, natural gas, oil style. What they don't need is smart ass know it alls coming in and telling them how to continue being dirt poor and being sustainable.

They need a lot more than power infrastructure, but it all starts there.

[compro01]

Yea, that video is total bullshit.  From my travels in Africa, most areas sub Sahara need regular industrial infrastructure - including real power plants, coal, natural gas, oil style.

How exactly is solar not "real power plants"?  They're in some of the most solar-dense areas of the planet.

[Schleicher]

Antarctica sea ice reached a 30 year record in extent and volume in 2013.

Record volume?
Link please.

Three years of observations by ESA's CryoSat satellite show that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing over 150 cubic kilometres of ice each year - considerably more than when last surveyed.

https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/missions/esa-operational-eo-missions/cryosat

[Wilikon]

Antarctica sea ice reached a 30 year record in extent and volume in 2013.

Record volume?
Link please.

Three years of observations by ESA's CryoSat satellite show that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing over 150 cubic kilometres of ice each year - considerably more than when last surveyed.

https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/missions/esa-operational-eo-missions/cryosat

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/

[Snowfire]

Re the Antarctic phenomenon, the counterintuitive phenomenon of expanding ice with rising temperatures in fact makes sense in light of the following:

1) The sea contains salt water, which melts/freezes at -10C (more or less.)
2) Onshore glaciers contain fresh water, which melts/freezes at 0C.
3) Fresh water is less dense than salt water, and will overrun it in a sheet when discharged into the sea (such as near rivers or glaciers.)
4) Increasing temperatures cause increasing discharge of fresh water into Antarctic waters.
5) Because this causes a drop in offshore salinity, the surface melting point rises significantly--more than the temperature itself rises in the short term.
6) Rising melting point results in more ice, even though the temperature is actually higher.

It is significant that some in near-Antarctic waters this year have described the sea water as "almost fresh enough to drink;" this has not historically been the case.

[Schleicher]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/

Misleading title is misleading.
They are talking about a single glacier.

In January 2012 the dramatic cooling of the ocean around the glacier is believed to be due to an increase in easterly winds caused by a strong La Ninã event in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Normally the winds flow from the west.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=2452

[AnonyMint]

Who knows? May be in 50 years, technology will become so advanced that humans may be able to live in very high temperatures as well.  

George Carlin summed it up best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

Amazing the bullsh8t people can preoccupy themselves with thus wasting capital because there is a 200 year debt bubble funding their nonsense.

As I explained on my blog, Knowledge accumulates from accretive learning activity with high utility, not from debt-funded socialist theoretical masturbation.

To the commentator upthread with multiple master's degrees who believes warming is real. Of course you are brought up in the socialist's "education" system. So of course you are believe it because you can't see the forest from the trees. I guess you conveniently forget ClimateGate that they fabricated the data. They were even moving thermometers from shaded treed areas to direct sunlit concreted locations. All of you "scientists" are incentivized to jump on board the delusion, because your bread is buttered by the debt-based system. As well I explained in my upthread comments, that we can cherry pick data and studies to paint any picture we want to. It is modeling masturbation.

Just don't forget that accumulated debt is future taxation and eugenics or megadeath every time throughout human history.

Carbon tax on breathing will work well to help the socialism kill itself (although I doubt the delusion will get that far any time soon).

[Wilikon]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/

Misleading title is misleading.
They are talking about a single glacier.

In January 2012 the dramatic cooling of the ocean around the glacier is believed to be due to an increase in easterly winds caused by a strong La Ninã event in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Normally the winds flow from the west.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=2452

Here is another misleading title of doom:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/global-warming

Floods. Droughts. Heat waves. Monster wildfires. Climate change is not just about polar bears, the iconic symbol of a melting Arctic. Global warming affects the entire planet.

In fact, if our chief scientist, Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, had his way, every news report on the latest weather disaster would end with these words:

"Events like these will continue to increase in number and severity as the world continues to warm."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compared with:

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/15/global-population-of-polar-bears-has-increased-by-2650-5700-since-2001/

The poster boys of climate change thrive in the icy Arctic: Polar bears defy concerns about their extinction
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436882/The-poster-boys-climate-change-thrive-icy-Arctic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html

[Spendulus]

.....
The poster boys of climate change thrive in the icy Arctic: Polar bears defy concerns about their extinction
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436882/The-poster-boys-climate-change-thrive-icy-Arctic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html

Now just watch someone who's drank the cool aid come in with the line that 'yeah, the bear population is increasing, but it's going to decrease...'

side note:  as an amateur photographer, I've always thought that bear picture was a really great shot.

[Spendulus]

Re the Antarctic phenomenon, the counterintuitive phenomenon of expanding ice with rising temperatures in fact makes sense in light of the following:

1) The sea contains salt water, which melts/freezes at -10C (more or less.)
2) Onshore glaciers contain fresh water, which melts/freezes at 0C.
3) Fresh water is less dense than salt water, and will overrun it in a sheet when discharged into the sea (such as near rivers or glaciers.)
4) Increasing temperatures cause increasing discharge of fresh water into Antarctic waters.
5) Because this causes a drop in offshore salinity, the surface melting point rises significantly--more than the temperature itself rises in the short term.
6) Rising melting point results in more ice, even though the temperature is actually higher.

It is significant that some in near-Antarctic waters this year have described the sea water as "almost fresh enough to drink;" this has not historically been the case.

No, this isn't the way it works.

Antarctica always operates sort of in reverse:  N Pole loses ice, S pole gains ice.  Yes sea ice has it's own characteristics, but...we're talking ice here thick enough to stop these ships.  That's not the 'large coverage of thin ice' issue that's seen at the N Pole, which is short lived and which does not compensate for multi year ice.

This is the real thing.

Oh, one more thing.  The proof or disproof of your suggested method 1..6 is whether your theory explains events AT BOTH POLES, and I have to say it this way.  Because otherwise, warmers would propose some other chain of events to explain whatever is convenient where ever they want.

[Spendulus]

Antarctica sea ice reached a 30 year record in extent and volume in 2013.

Record volume?
Link please.

Three years of observations by ESA's CryoSat satellite show that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing over 150 cubic kilometres of ice each year - considerably more than when last surveyed.

https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/missions/esa-operational-eo-missions/cryosat

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/

This is specific to the West Peninsula, has nothing to do with the entirety of Antartica.

[Spendulus]

Yea, that video is total bullshit.  From my travels in Africa, most areas sub Sahara need regular industrial infrastructure - including real power plants, coal, natural gas, oil style.

How exactly is solar not "real power plants"?  They're in some of the most solar-dense areas of the planet.

well....

that's actually a really good question.  Solar requires a backbone power system, for night and cloudy days.   The best power system will always be somewhat site dependent.  One place has closeby coal, another has natural gas right there.  For example.  To bring an area into the 20th century you need real power, such as what drives our cities and their infrastructure - their refineries, their water system, their hospitals, their concrete plants, etc.

Then with that developed infrastructure and the wealth from it, if they want, they get some of the niceties - after the essentials.  Solar is in that 'nicety' category.  There are exceptions.  A remote located gate opener, some street lights, many applications it works fantastic in.

[Wilikon]

Just this week we had dozens of Global Warming-believing scientists, who specialize in researching ice melt in Antarctica, run into a helluva lot more Antarctic ice than their research told them would be there. So much more ice that their ship and three ice-breaking rescue vessels were stuck in ten feet of it for days (two of the vessels are still stuck). As I write this, the big news of the weekend is a cold snap across much of the country with temperatures reaching 20 and 30-year lows. And yet, despite all of what should be good news, the Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change community is not celebrating. 
Not only are Climate Change Truthers not celebrating, they are hysterical with worry that unexpected Antarctic ice discoveries and American winters returning to the normalcy those of us of a certain age remember, might hurt their religion crusade. The media is so worried they have coordinated a cover-up of the news from Antarctica and those of us pointing to what one might call the "science" of colder temperatures and increased Arctic ice are being mocked for doing so.
Granted, more ice in one area of a vast South Pole is not empirical proof that all is well in the Antarctic, but it is a great way to call attention to the fact that according to NASA, "In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum and set a new record."

Who is anti-science now?



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/04/ice-and-cold-global-warming-believers-are-todays-climate-deniers

[Wilikon]

.....
The poster boys of climate change thrive in the icy Arctic: Polar bears defy concerns about their extinction
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436882/The-poster-boys-climate-change-thrive-icy-Arctic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html

Now just watch someone who's drank the cool aid come in with the line that 'yeah, the bear population is increasing, but it's going to decrease...'

side note:  as an amateur photographer, I've always thought that bear picture was a really great shot.

Yes! I wish I could have taken that pix with my old Nikon gear (that I do not have anymore)

[Spendulus]

.....

Who is anti-science now?
....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/04/ice-and-cold-global-warming-believers-are-todays-climate-deniers

Ban the banners!

Ban them from Reddit!

[Snowfire]

No, this isn't the way it works.

Antarctica always operates sort of in reverse:  N Pole loses ice, S pole gains ice.  Yes sea ice has it's own characteristics, but...we're talking ice here thick enough to stop these ships.  That's not the 'large coverage of thin ice' issue that's seen at the N Pole, which is short lived and which does not compensate for multi year ice.

  The proof or disproof of your suggested method 1..6 is whether your theory explains events AT BOTH POLES

The Arctic does not have enough tidewater glacier frontage for the meltwater effect to be anything like what it is in the Antarctic. You may verify this yourself by looking at a map. There are a few rivers draining into the Arctic Ocean, but they drain relatively modest watersheds and their contribution to any increase is likewise limited.  Thus, one would not expect much effect on sea ice from accelerated melt except right around Greenland (and that area has in fact lost less sea ice than the rest of the Arctic.) Much of the Arctic coast is tundra (polar desert) and has very little to contribute in the way of meltable ice.

And the "suggested method" is not mine. While I cannot tell you for certain who first articulated it, it has been quite widely discussed, and I find the physics of it difficult to refute.