Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 10 Nov 2015 01:10

disha wrote: Fact is global warming is real and current. We can sink our heads into sand like ostrich and deny the science behind it.

If you read the posts by Satya_anveshi, you would not come to such a hasty conclusion. Clearly the jury is divided. And even if it will be late, I and my future generations would willingly wait it out. It does not mean, we should not do more to prevent the anthropocene epoch for worsening the environment.

disha · Post by **disha** » 10 Nov 2015 06:56

panduranghari wrote:
disha wrote: Fact is global warming is real and current. We can sink our heads into sand like ostrich and deny the science behind it.
If you read the posts by Satya_anveshi, you would not come to such a hasty conclusion. Clearly the jury is divided. And even if it will be late, I and my future generations would willingly wait it out. It does not mean, we should not do more to prevent the anthropocene epoch for worsening the environment.

Sir., if you read the data and that too yearly data from NOAA and other sources and their contributors who are researchers from all around the world for the past decade., you will not come to a hasty conclusion that I came to a hasty conclusion.

Fact is that I have been monitoring this data for a while (for a different reason, to build a big-data warehouse) and the fact is GHG is continuing.

Science of Ozone hole was also questioned, but since it was a small data set and the CFCs (freon for eg.) was identified as the culprit and could be proved in lab tests., the world did get together and CFCs were mostly eliminated after NASA (and US) put its weight behind it. The result is the ozone hole (or rather depletion) has stabilized and will recover. And I have been following ozone depletion since late 80s.

Regarding the jury division., it is clearly divided by 99 to 1. Where 99% agree that there is Greenhouse effect and Human activity is to blame. The remaining 1% deny that it is due to Human activity or there is no GH effect.

Currently GH debate has been embroiled into unnecessary politics by the developed world. Particularly the energy policy and its politics of the west.

Coming to my personal take., yes GH effect is there and yes humans are the cause of it and yes significant population will be effected. And yes, industrialized West has to bear most of the cost. It is a different question on how India should pursue this. The science of GHG should be kept different from the politics of GHGs.

So yes., when you hastily jump to the conclusion that I have hastily jumped to conclusion it is offensive. Particularly for someone who is following this debate with interest since last 3 decades.

To your point, I do agree in principle with this modified point: It does not mean, we should not do more to prevent worsening of the environment.

Or simply: We should do more to prevent worsening of the environment. Starting from reducing emissions of CO2/Methane/Nitrous Oxides due to human activity and trying to restrict global rise of temperature <2* C by 2100.

How we go about reducing emissions is a different issue. As said earlier, the science of GHG has to be differentiated from politics of it.

disha · Post by **disha** » 10 Nov 2015 07:22

There is a well entrenched GH deniers., and for them here is some more sugar coated information (not that I expect them to change their positions)

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015- ... the-world/

Do go through it.

Also regarding the IPCC data which is being talked about., do go through their report for policy makers http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... AL_SPM.pdf

PS: Go through the report in its entirety. And do not miss nuggets as below:

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy
accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale,
the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the
period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed
between the 1870s and 1971. {1.1.2, Figure 1.2}

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 09:32

Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'

A popular weatherman announced Saturday evening he been sacked by leading French news channel France Télévisions for publishing a book which accused top climate change experts of misleading the world about the threat of global warming. - Nov 01, 2015

“My book ‘Climate Investigation’ was published one month ago. It got me banned from the air waves,” said the weatherman, who was put “on leave” from the TV station on October 12.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 09:41

The Climate Change Inquisition Begins -Nov 09, 2015

The investigation is definitely aimed at more companies. According to another New York Times report, “Energy experts said prosecutors may decide to investigate companies that chose to fund or join organizations that questioned climate science or policies designed to address the problem, such as the Global Climate Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council.” This is already having its effect: “Shell announced this summer that it would not renew its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a free-enterprise group that has opposed government mandates, subsidies and other efforts to force or encourage companies to develop and use more renewable energy sources. Occidental Petroleum and several other companies have also left ALEC, but Chevron and Exxon Mobil still support the group.”

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 10 Nov 2015 09:55

Climate change denying is the actual hoax perpetrated on people by vested interests. For instance Koch brothers fund a study which is then quoted extensively and then republican hacks use that to seed doubts and use the familiar rhetoric to build this into a conspiracy so it can be dismissed by hand waving.

Reality is we are already seeing the effects. Animals are migrating to adjust to this climate change. pretty sure they did not watch al gore.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 09:57

This is absolutely not a propaganda:

Climate Change can affect your mojo

Climate Change can impoverish 100s of millions and half a billion homeless

It will affect fall colors and could affect $25-$30 billion fall color tourism

Climate Change Actually Is Moving Mountains

there are many more creative articulations on the affects of climate change.

And NO...none of these articles and/or reports have anything to do with the event below:

US will push for ambitious climate change targets in Paris

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 10:20

UN battle looms over finance as nations submit climate plans - Oct 02, 2015

Divisions over money between rich and poor countries re-emerged as nations submitted their plans for tackling climate change to the UN.
India, the last big emitter to publish its contribution, said it would need $2.5 trillion to meet its targets.

In their written submission, India's proposed climate actions appear to be contingent on getting much of this money from richer countries: "The successful implementation of INDC is contingent upon an ambitious global agreement including additional means of implementation to be provided by developed country parties."

"I am telling the world that the bill for climate action is not just $100bn; it is in trillions of dollars per year," said Prakash Javadekar.
"Countries will take up their own responsibility; but the world that is historically responsible for carbon emissions, what we are suffering today, the climate change - they must at least walk the talk on $100bn."

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 10:40

More IPCC Inadequacies And Failures: Precipitation - Nov 04, 2015

The IPCC know droughts are a problem because they exploited the threat by incorrectly claiming warming will cause more droughts. This is counter-intuitive because higher air and water temperatures will result in more evaporation and higher atmospheric moisture content, more clouds, and more rain. The IPCC said that warming caused more evaporation when it suited their argument. When it was determined that there is an upper limit to the temperature increase from increasing CO2 (Figure 1) they claimed, incorrectly, that water vapor creates a positive feedback.

The contradiction in their claim is because they also argued that the amount of water vapor humans add to the atmosphere is of no consequence. However, they claim that 95% of the temperature increase since 1950 is due to human addition of CO2. If humans caused the temperature increase, then they are responsible for increased evaporation and higher atmospheric water vapor. This selective application of principles is just one proof of the political objective of their science.

Lack Of Data

The data to create the models and predict the weather or the climate is inadequate for temperature, it is even worse for precipitation. With temperature, they assumed that the record of one station was representative of a 1200km radius region. I urge people to draw a 1200km radius circle around any location and determine the unreality of that claim. { familiar example of Garden / Room with fireplace given earlier. }The lack of precipitation data is a much bigger problem.

The IPCC focus on CO2 and temperature was political. While focusing on human causes of climate change, they ignored the one variable, precipitation, so critical to human existence. Now they are trying to shift the focus away from temperature to precipitation. It can’t work because there are even fewer precipitation data and less knowledge about the mechanisms.

disha · Post by **disha** » 10 Nov 2015 10:58

Satya_anveshi wrote:Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'

Weather channel boss

Sir, are you serious that you are bringing in "weather channel" boss to this debate!

Satya_anveshi wrote:More IPCC Inadequacies And Failures: Precipitation - Nov 04, 2015

The IPCC know droughts are a problem because they exploited the threat by incorrectly claiming warming will cause more droughts. This is counter-intuitive because higher air and water temperatures will result in more evaporation and higher atmospheric moisture content, more clouds, and more rain. The IPCC said that warming caused more evaporation when it suited their argument. When it was determined that there is an upper limit to the temperature increase from increasing CO2 (Figure 1) they claimed, incorrectly, that water vapor creates a positive feedback.

Is that an opinion or data or an opinion masquerading as a data point? I will leave it at that.

Since the article - hosted as a guest commentary on a barely reputable site jumps from point to point. Now who is the guest - "Dr." Tim Ball. This guy Tim Ball is a colourful character., he claimed PhD in "climatology" when he had a Doctorate in Geography (with such a stretch, I can claim PhD in Nuclear Science). Of course he greatly exaggerated his research and teaching capabilities and had to retract several articles. Now just check up the controversies he landed himself into and he basically frequents the CT sites.

Like Alien abductions. Sir, to quote Dr. Ball is to lose complete credibility. To start with, just check his funding sources.

I am surprised that this thread has become a purveyor of shoddy CT. Where dubious articles are pulled from CT websites to buttress a claim against GHG.

disha · Post by **disha** » 10 Nov 2015 11:07

Satya_anveshi wrote:This is absolutely not a propaganda:

Sir, #mediapimps are everywhere. There are blonde, blue-eyed english speaking #mediapimps as well.

Take example of this:

Climate Change Actually Is Moving Mountains

Fact is - climate change does move mountains (by long term erosion for example).

Question is - is the climate change related to Greenhouse Gas? No. The "climate change" is not GHG based "climate change".

The above article is pure TRPing (tm). To catch a reader's attention and then make the reader go

there are many more creative articulations on the affects of climate change.

And there will be charlatans who will sell pills to overcome "effects of climate change on men and women". That does NOT mean there is no ocean warming or global warming due to GHG.

The points are simple

1. There is runaway emissions of GHGs caused by Humans
2. GHGs are causing ocean warming at a global scale
3. The impacts of such a GHGs is unknown but most models predict a dire change.
4. Do we go from a known world to an unknown world? Our very existence depends upon that question.

The policy to deal with the above and the politics around it are different.

disha · Post by **disha** » 10 Nov 2015 11:11

Satya_anveshi wrote:UN battle looms over finance as nations submit climate plans - Oct 02, 2015

Divisions over money between rich and poor countries re-emerged as nations submitted their plans for tackling climate change to the UN.
India, the last big emitter to publish its contribution, said it would need $2.5 trillion to meet its targets.

"I am telling the world that the bill for climate action is not just $100bn; it is in trillions of dollars per year," said Prakash Javadekar.
"Countries will take up their own responsibility; but the world that is historically responsible for carbon emissions, what we are suffering today, the climate change - they must at least walk the talk on $100bn."

I like Prakash'ji. Only hitch - instead of $2.5 T he should have asked for $2.99 T

Yes., India must say that it is cognizant of its responsibility and the bill is high AND the rich countries should pay for it. Till then it will (and must) pollute the climate till hell heats up.

Simply, if in a room - if everybody farts., there is no point in being the nice guy and control your farts. You must fart big, loud and the stinkiest. The rest will respect you only then and fall back in line.

That sir is in nutshell the politics of GHG.

As I said earlier., the politics of GHG must be separate from the science of GHG.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 10 Nov 2015 11:14

If there is a real issue to be debated it is about how to avoid traps by developed nations to freeze India and similar countries development in the name of addressing climate change. This is already happening with the aid of assorted NGOs and the activism that tend to put obstacles on Indian projects.

The response to that should be based in what makes sense to us all things considered - mitigating effects by planting trees elsewhere for ex.

The response should not be denying science and facts.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 11:27

Ohhh bringing weather channel founder's comment *along* with news about french weatherman's is debate? Context is lost?

And somehow I am to believe a postor named "disha" with unknown "haisiyat" gets to laugh at the mention of a person who owns the effing weather channel, which *benefits* on the scare stories related to weather. I may not give a shyte about Coleman but what gives you an idea that I give any shyt about you

If a person like Putin comes along and says global warming is fraud then a person of unknown haisiyat called "disha" gets to laugh? If bunch of US presidential candidates call global warming is fraud then you get to laugh and it is supposed to mean something?

And most viewed website on climate is "barely reputable site now" and who the F is stopping you from posting and/or correcting whatever you like. This thread is as much your's as anyone else's.

I may not be GW denier or as someone called science denier, but shitjob posts like yours is sure coming across as from science jihadis.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 11:30

NASA data is used to make a case for ice sheet melting due to man made causes.

Jokers swallow the theory wholesale.

NASA revises its findings and calls ice sheet melting to be more complicated and cautious on conclusions.

Jokers still keep swallowing and lecture that others are denying science and facts.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 11:36

In case anyone missed, below is from my first post on this thread:

Despite all this, our case (Indian case) is unique. We know this is a scam. I am sure NaMo knows it too. But yet, we have to play this game because overall (even if there is 5% of truth) it will still be better for planet. It will make us adopt Solar quickly, it will probably make our environment (not temperature) cleaner; it will tie the western nations in their own game, it will probably make the western nations' objection to our Nuke industry more difficult (not that we care if it isn't), it will for now appear that we are going along until we sort out other bigger problems etc. So, basically, it gels with how we view our duty towards our planet. Nothing to do with the veracity of claim regarding climate change.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Nov 2015 11:46

Saars,
go easy on labels: science deniers or jokers or $hitjobs ...etc.

All people have freedom to make up their minds and form opinions and change opinions. But facts are facts and unchangeable.

Luckily for us, the following question is not a matter of opinion:
Is there global warming or not?
If there is global warming, then how much and for how long?

These questions are to be answered to be simple facts, not opinions.

The global warming theory is based on opinions of scientists. Thats why global warmers keep talking about 'consensus'. They insist consensus because its opinions. If had facts on their side, they wouldn't need the consensus of opinions.

Temperature record has been kept from 1850 in England. There is an error of +or-1 degree in these readings. From 1978, they have been measuring troposphere temperature. What do these records show?

From 1880 - 1940, there was an increase of half a degree of temperature. From 1940 - 1975, there was a drop in temperatures. From 1992, they have been officially claiming that there will be global warming and carbon dioxide is linked to it. But, there has been a 'pause' from 1998.

The computer models have failed to predict the temperature.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 11:48

Simply, if in a room - if everybody farts., there is no point in being the nice guy and control your farts. You must fart big, loud and the stinkiest. The rest will respect you only then and fall back in line.

That does not happen in isolation. It happens by showing the other guy's story having many holes. And making as many people aware of those holes is good and will act as negotiation leverage. Otherwise we will be road-rolled over.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Nov 2015 12:28

disha wrote:
johneeG wrote:OK, so how long will it take for the apocalypse to arrive according to global warming theory? At what point will we clearly know one way or other?
80-400 years. By that time it will be too late.

Al Gore said in his nobel speech in 2006 that the worst will come true in 22 years at the most and most likely within 7 years. In 2015, 9 years after those apocalyptic predictions, nothing has changed.

Lets say that this whole thing is proved to be a false alarm, will there be any punishments for anyone? The scientists, corporates, ...etc. who supported this great alarm without adequate caution?

disha wrote:The problem with "Ocean Warming" (I do not call it global warming., calling it ocean warming is better)., is that it may lead to a runaway green house effect and we may end up like Venus., only with a large amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

Roger Revelle, (Al Gore said that Roger was his mentor), found that carbon di oxide is not being absorbed by the ocean as previously thought. And he suggested that this may lead to greenhouse effect. Al Gore ran with this. Later, Roger Revelle tried to caution that this 'greenhouse effect' thing is not really well established thing. But, by then, Al Gore had made up his mind and pronounced that Roger had gone senile.

disha wrote: Here are the local changes you already see:

Extreme weather:

1. Never before seen cyclone on Yemen
2. Algae bloom in Washington

There always are some natural catastrophes long before manmade industrialization.

disha wrote: Changes in Ice melts:

1. Arctic ocean and Greenland ice sheets are shrinking precipitously.

Actually, this is the most convincing part of the global warming denial. The ice sheet melt during summers and increase during winters. The global warming theory was predicting that the arctic ice sheet would melt or is melting. But, its just not a fact.

The above picture shows more ice sheets in arctic according to NASA in 2013 than 2012.

disha wrote:Effect of this is seen on Polar bear populations.

Polar Bears are actually thriving. Their numbers today are substantially more than what they were around 1950. They were estimated to be around 5000-8000. But, in 2005, there were around 20,000 polar bears.

disha wrote:Ocean acidification

1. Effects of ocean acidification is yet to be measured!

Roger Revelle, (Al Gore said that Roger was his mentor), found that carbon di oxide is not being absorbed by the ocean as previously thought. And he suggested that this may lead to greenhouse effect. Al Gore ran with this. Later, Roger Revelle tried to caution that this 'greenhouse effect' thing is not really well established thing. But, by then, Al Gore had made up his mind and pronounced that Roger had gone senile.

disha wrote: Other effects include migration of diseases, species (plant and animal and bird alike).

Fact is global warming is real and current. We can sink our heads into sand like ostrich and deny the science behind it.

Global warming is not a bad thing if it happens. Earlier, the temperatures were substantially higher than today. An umbrella was must in Bhaarath. And Europe was warm in medieval period. Roman Warm Period Medieval Warm Period Then, it became colder. If its again becoming hot, then its not a bad thing. But, there is no indication to show that its becoming hot.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Nov 2015 20:08

Vikings grew barley in Greenland
February 3, 2012 - 05:15
A sensational find at the bottom of an ancient rubbish heap in Greenland suggests that Vikings grew barley on the island 1,000 years ago.
Keywords: Agriculture, Archaeology, Geography, History
SendPDFPrint
By: Sybille Hildebrandt
Excavating a rubbish heap at a Viking farm on Greenland. Peter Steen Henriksen is in the excavation hole, while archaeologist Caroline Polke Paulsen works outside. One of the sample bags contains the barley remains that the researchers found. (Photo: Inge Kjær Kristensen).

The Vikings are both famous and notorious for their like of beer and mead, and archaeologists have discussed for years whether Eric the Red (ca. 950-1010) and his followers had to make do without the golden drink when they settled in Greenland around the year 1,000.

The Greenland climate was mild when they landed, but was it warm enough for growing corn?

Researchers from the National Museum in Copenhagen say the answer to the question is ‘yes’. In a unique find, they uncovered very small pieces of charred grains of barley in a Viking rubbish heap on Greenland.

The find is final proof that the first Vikings to live in Greenland did grow barley – the most important ingredient in brewing beer, making a form of porridge or baking bread, traditionally seen as staple foods in the Vikings’ nutritional diet.
Each side of the grain of barley is only a couple of millimetres long, and the grain weighs less than 0.01 mg – yet the find is an archaeological sensation. (Photo: Peter Steen Henriksen)

“Archaeologists have always believed that the Vikings tried to cultivate the soil on their farms in fertile southern Greenland,” says Peter Steen Henriksen, who holds an MSc in agriculture. “But this hasn’t been proved until now.”

Settling in a harsh environment

Henriksen, an archaeobotanist at the National Museum's Environmental Archaeology and Archaeometry section (NNU) in Copenhagen, led an expedition to Greenland to study how the Vikings tackled the task of settling in a cold and harsh environment.

“Now we can see that the Vikings could grow corn, and this was very important for their nourishment and survival,” he says.

The find also substantiates a well-known text from about 1250, ‘King's mirror (Konungs skuggsjá)’, which mentions in passing that the Vikings attempted to grow corn on Greenland. It is the only report about cultivating barley that we have from that time.
A well-preserved Viking ruin, excavated in 2011. (Photo: Peter Steen Henriksen)

Researchers believe the Vikings probably grew barley in small quantities, compared with the large, billowing cornfields we have today, and sowed barley in small enclosures that were no bigger than their ability to irrigate the corn and keep hungry animals out.

Well-preserved Viking farms

Henriksen and his colleagues were in Greenland in 2010 and 2011 to search for signs of agriculture at Viking farms at the island’s southernmost point.

“We carried out several excavations at 12 different ruined Viking farms, even though they were abandoned 700 to 800 years ago,” says the researcher. “Many of the farms were well preserved. The peat and stone walls can still be seen, and in some places they’re a metre and a half high.”

Rubbish heaps a mine of knowledge

The researchers had little chance of finding the remains they wanted in what was left of the stone buildings, and Greenland’s soil is too thin to preserve remnants of Viking agriculture. Further traces that might have existed have been destroyed by the weather and not least by modern agricultural activities – today’s Greenland sheep farmers have settled in the same places as their Viking forebears.
Facts

Erik Thorvaldsson (950 – c. 1003), known as Erik the Red, is remembered in medieval and Icelandic saga sources as having founded the first Nordic settlement in Greenland.

The Icelandic tradition indicates that he was born in the Jæren district of Rogaland, Norway.

The appellation 'the Red' most likely refers to his hair color.

Source: Wikipedia

But the Vikings were mortals, like the rest of us, and needed somewhere to get rid of their rubbish. The researchers found rubbish heaps close to the Vikings’ farms.

Barley at the bottom of the heap

The rubbish heaps – containing old food, household rubbish and ashes from the fires – were quite large, which was not surprising as the Vikings had inhabited the farms for many decades. As the contents rotted, the rubbish heaps subsided, and are now only about a metre thick.

“We excavated the rubbish heaps down to the bottom layers, which date from the time the settlers arrived,” says Henriksen, whose team took 300 kg of samples for further analysis. “The sample we took from the bottom layer of a heap contained grains of corn. The grains had been close to a fire and were charred, which preserved them.”

From their shape and size, the grains of corn were identified as barley with complete certainty. And they came from agricultural production.

Facts

Previous pollen analyses showed it was probable that Eric the Red and his followers grew corn, but these analyses have never been regarded as decisive.

Peter Steen Henriksen and his colleagues looked for more solid evidence such as seeds, grains of corn and other plant remains.

Wild barley is not strong enough to grow in Greenland, says Henriksen, who also rules out imported barley, as even small quantities of grain would be too much for the cargo hold of the Vikings’ ships.

“If the corn had been imported, it would have been threshed, so finding parts of grains of barley is a very strong indication that the Vikings grew their own corn,” he adds. The find also confirms researchers’ theory that the Vikings tried to continue the form of life they knew so well from their original homes.

Little Ice Age stopped corn cultivation

The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today, and the southernmost tip of the great island was luscious and green and no doubt tempted Eric the Red and his followers. This encouraged them to cultivate some of the seed corn they brought with them from Iceland.

The Vikings also tried to grow other agricultural crops. Their attempts to grow these crops and barley did not last long, however, as the climate cooled over the next couple of centuries until the Little Ice Age started in the 13th century.
Facts

Mead is an alcoholic drink produced by fermentation of a solution of honey and water; barley mash may also be an ingredient, and it is then removed immediately after the fermentation process. Beer is brewed using malt, which is sprouted barley.

“The Vikings couldn’t cultivate very much in the last decades they were in Greenland because the climate was too bad,” says Henriksen. “Corn needs a long growing season, and if that season is too short you can’t harvest seed for the next season.”

At some point the Vikings were no longer able to maintain the seed production for their food and drink, and that made it more difficult for them to survive.
The mysterious end of Greenland’s Viking era

The cold climate may have finished off not only the barley but also the Vikings on Greenland themselves.

When Eric the Red arrived in Greenland, the island’s original inhabitants, the Inuit, had already died out because of the harsh climate. Perhaps the Vikings suffered the same fate, or perhaps the cold caused them to abandon their life on Greenland and move on.

According to written sources, the Vikings in Greenland were last heard of in 1408. After that they disappeared; no-one knows when, where or how.

Link

So, it was warm from 900 CE to 1400 CE. Then the cold started.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 10 Nov 2015 20:42

panduranghari wrote: Clearly the jury is divided. And even if it will be late, I and my future generations would willingly wait it out. It does not mean, we should not do more to prevent the anthropocene epoch for worsening the environment.

No the jury is not divided. Those days are long past. Overwhelming consensus that warming is human created. The arguments are about what the effect is and what we can do about it. Which is what your second part is about.

You can speak for yourself but your future generations will feel differently. We regret do we not that our ancestors wiped out so many species and animals, wiped out so many forests and drained so many rivers. At least they have the excuse that they lacked awareness, what excuse would we have.

I’m still not convinced that we can actually head it off in any case. And this from a guy who has solar panels on his house and drives electric cars. Though that does not mean that we should not try. The numbers are scary. And I have a feeling me may be on for the ride. I’m not sure if even the entire world has enough money to stop burning fossil fuels. The temptation is too great and access too easy.

In my life time we will see 2-3 feet of sea level rise. This would mean the end of Marina beach and Besant Nagar beach (already a struggle to maintain sand), the end of Rameshwaram and Dhanushkodi, End of the Shore temple off mahabalipuram and the loss of most of the Sethu islands. It would mean the flooding of pulicat lake and the loss most of the coral island off the gulf of mannar. The only coral reef off mainland India. Much of the coastal cities of TN would then be stuck in a life or death struggle with the sea from Chennai to Nagapattinam to Thoothukudi. It is at least worth exploring options....
------------------

Gus wrote:If there is a real issue to be debated it is about how to avoid traps by developed nations to freeze India and similar countries development in the name of addressing climate change. This is already happening with the aid of assorted NGOs and the activism that tend to put obstacles on Indian projects.

I think we should demand the rich countries subsidize anything we do. We can definitely start by asking them to provide a renewable energy fund to subsidize our future power needs.

chaitanya · Post by **chaitanya** » 10 Nov 2015 20:57

johneeG wrote: Actually, this is the most convincing part of the global warming denial. The ice sheet melt during summers and increase during winters. The global warming theory was predicting that the arctic ice sheet would melt or is melting. But, its just not a fact.

The above picture shows more ice sheets in arctic according to NASA in 2013 than 2012.

JohneeGji, you cannot take a single year's change and claim that the arctic ice cover isn't reducing. This is a known phenomenon and has been clearly documented by remote sensing satellites for years. It has also become a geopolitical issue, as the retreating ice has opened up new shipping lanes and opened up previously inaccessible undersea oil fields.

Additionally, as there are no time stamps on that picture it becomes hard to discern what time of year those were taken.

Please see this animation from NASA of remote sensing data from 1979 to 2014: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Please see this series of images from the NOAA: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

Also, a humble request: there is a lot of noise on this topic out there, especially in the media. Can we please stick to more authoritative, primary sources?

disha · Post by **disha** » 10 Nov 2015 21:14

JohneeG'

Please do not fall into the trap of intuit related politics of polar bear hunting.

On the polar bear part., see this article http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04/09 ... cov/185580

And sir, do not quote a single image to prove your point on arctic ice sheets. That was plain wrong.

Here is the actual raw data http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. Please go through that.

Satya-anveshi'ji.,

Which CEO of weather channel you are referring? Mike Kelly or David Kenny? David Kenny came from Akamai Technologies and has background in Digital Advertising. Mike Kelly is a considered an expert in digital media and cross platform media advertising. Both of them are experts in their own fields that is ad marketing.

Calling ad marketing experts as weather scientists is a stretch.

Are you saying that article pieces on Global warming pen'ed by the experts in media and cross-channel marketing & advertising are expert opinions?

Sir., I have a suggestion - I have posted URLs that point to decadal data in earlier posts. Go through the data. If at all, you will find that the real scientists try as much to stick with data and form a conservative opinion based on the data available.

Do not rely on opinion pieces selectively pulled to confirm your bias.

Gus'ji is very correct and has pointed this out which is worth repeating:

If there is a real issue to be debated it is about how to avoid traps by developed nations to freeze India and similar countries development in the name of addressing climate change. This is already happening with the aid of assorted NGOs and the activism that tend to put obstacles on Indian projects.

The response to that should be based in what makes sense to us all things considered - mitigating effects by planting trees elsewhere for ex.

The response should not be denying science and facts.

chaitanya · Post by **chaitanya** » 10 Nov 2015 21:18

Satyaji, you have been claiming that there are 'vested interests' pushing for climate change research to show that humans are altering the environment, or that there is propaganda out there in favor of climate change:

Big business and funding:
This whole thing is a big business with many jobs involved. So, you can't expect them to tell you facts which might jeopardize their jobs. And funding is given only to those scientists who support this theory and not to those who oppose it. The developed countries are putting sanctions on the developing countries in the name of 'carbon emissions' without proving that these emissions will lead to any change in climate.

Unfortunately, the combined net worth of all fossil-fuel based companies around the world totally rebukes this argument. While possibly inaccurate, this list of the largest oil and gas companies by revenues should give you an order of magnitude estimate about the size of this industry. The combined revenue of the list here is more than double the size of India's GDP (roughly 5.7 trillion USD). This excludes coal mining operations, coal and gas powerplants, etc. The industry is enormous.

A comparable chart (once again, source may be wrong, but should be good for an order of magnitude) shows the following: http://www.statista.com/statistics/2328 ... rket-size/

We can safely say that the clean energy market is easily 20 times smaller than the fossil fuel market (and probably more).

disha · Post by **disha** » 10 Nov 2015 21:22

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Gus wrote:If there is a real issue to be debated it is about how to avoid traps by developed nations to freeze India and similar countries development in the name of addressing climate change. This is already happening with the aid of assorted NGOs and the activism that tend to put obstacles on Indian projects.
I think we should demand the rich countries subsidize anything we do. We can definitely start by asking them to provide a renewable energy fund to subsidize our future power needs.

Theo' saar., demanding will lead us no where. The developed nations will lead us down a garden path (agree with rest of your post though).

---------------------
---------------------

The only way it works is to behave like an umerican here., India must take this position:

India has the right to emit as much GHGs per capita as Americans, Australians and Canadians. India will strive to match per capita emissions of US, Australia and Canada. Whichever is higher

Now we can negotiate. If Australians do not want us to emit more GHGs., let them give us Uranium and we keep the plutonium. Same with America., they can as well send in some plutonium to start our 3rd generation thorium reactors.

And Canadians can give us zero-interest loans to install nuclear power plants and solar plants. The rest of the Europe can give us technologies (free) for setting up Solar Cell manufacturing.

Till that time, we *must* emit GHGs to develop our economy.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 10 Nov 2015 22:21

Thanks for the replies.

Shyam Saran has more or less elaborated on what Disha ji has said in the aforementioned post. He said it in the Climate change talks and even Ombaba could not find fault in the Indian position.

Disha ji we can put the politics aside but the vested interests wont. And that is the main reason why the last 2 climate change talks were deemed a failure. Remember even if we had UPA govt. then, Indian representatives built a very good case. So its not who is leading the climate change talks from India, the west does not wish to leave politics aside.

And before the west uses Indian LeM to push their nefarious agenda in India, we have to use what works for us i.e. the west does not want us to develop.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Nov 2015 22:30

Theo_Fidel wrote:

No the jury is not divided. Those days are long past. Overwhelming consensus that warming is human created. The arguments are about what the effect is and what we can do about it. Which is what your second part is about.

Thats the whole issue: its based on 'consensus'. Regardless of percentage of consensus, opinion does not convert into fact.

Theo_Fidel wrote:In my life time we will see 2-3 feet of sea level rise. This would mean the end of Marina beach and Besant Nagar beach (already a struggle to maintain sand), the end of Rameshwaram and Dhanushkodi, End of the Shore temple off mahabalipuram and the loss of most of the Sethu islands. It would mean the flooding of pulicat lake and the loss most of the coral island off the gulf of mannar. The only coral reef off mainland India. Much of the coastal cities of TN would then be stuck in a life or death struggle with the sea from Chennai to Nagapattinam to Thoothukudi. It is at least worth exploring options....

IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers

I have listened to many such apocalyptic predictions and most of them never came true. Unfortunately or fortunately, scientists are not prophets to give predictions. Their job is to collect the data(facts) and give an explanation. If the facts don't fit the opinions, the opinions would be wrong.

Here is a clear fact: 1940 - 1975, temperatures dropped when there was tremendous industrialization. Conclusion: No global warming. And industrialization(carbon or anything else) does not have any connection to temperatures.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Nov 2015 22:32

chaitanya wrote:Satyaji, you have been claiming that there are 'vested interests' pushing for climate change research to show that humans are altering the environment, or that there is propaganda out there in favor of climate change:

Big business and funding:
This whole thing is a big business with many jobs involved. So, you can't expect them to tell you facts which might jeopardize their jobs. And funding is given only to those scientists who support this theory and not to those who oppose it. The developed countries are putting sanctions on the developing countries in the name of 'carbon emissions' without proving that these emissions will lead to any change in climate.
Unfortunately, the combined net worth of all fossil-fuel based companies around the world totally rebukes this argument. While possibly inaccurate, this list of the largest oil and gas companies by revenues should give you an order of magnitude estimate about the size of this industry. The combined revenue of the list here is more than double the size of India's GDP (roughly 5.7 trillion USD). This excludes coal mining operations, coal and gas powerplants, etc. The industry is enormous.

A comparable chart (once again, source may be wrong, but should be good for an order of magnitude) shows the following: http://www.statista.com/statistics/2328 ... rket-size/

We can safely say that the clean energy market is easily 20 times smaller than the fossil fuel market (and probably more).

Yep, it seems that Repubs are into Oil thing and Democrats are into this global warming thing. Both are big guys running their empires.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Nov 2015 22:38

chaitanya wrote:
johneeG wrote: Actually, this is the most convincing part of the global warming denial. The ice sheet melt during summers and increase during winters. The global warming theory was predicting that the arctic ice sheet would melt or is melting. But, its just not a fact.

The above picture shows more ice sheets in arctic according to NASA in 2013 than 2012.

JohneeGji, you cannot take a single year's change and claim that the arctic ice cover isn't reducing. This is a known phenomenon and has been clearly documented by remote sensing satellites for years. It has also become a geopolitical issue, as the retreating ice has opened up new shipping lanes and opened up previously inaccessible undersea oil fields.

Additionally, as there are no time stamps on that picture it becomes hard to discern what time of year those were taken.

Please see this animation from NASA of remote sensing data from 1979 to 2014: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Please see this series of images from the NOAA: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

Also, a humble request: there is a lot of noise on this topic out there, especially in the media. Can we please stick to more authoritative, primary sources?

Disha saar,
These numbers seem to start from 1979. So, we don't know what is the actual standard of the ice that should be on arctic. I just posted how in the past vikings used to grow barley greenland. Today greenland is covered in ice. Even in NASA's animation, there doesn't seem to be anything conclusively. The ice seems to be growing and decreasing in different years without any clear trend.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 23:07

chaitanya wrote:Please see this animation from NASA of remote sensing data from 1979 to 2014: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

A_Gupta wrote:NASA on the uncertainties behind Greenland and Antarctic ice:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... r_ice2.php

chaitanya wrote: Satyaji, you have been claiming that there are 'vested interests' pushing for climate change research to show that humans are altering the environment, or that there is propaganda out there in favor of climate change
.
.
We can safely say that the clean energy market is easily 20 times smaller than the fossil fuel market (and probably more).

Did you miss the trillions of dollars of potential compensation being demanded by Shri. Javadekar and his request to developed countries to begin walking the talking with $100B to start. Energy firms are not sole stakeholders of this game.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 10 Nov 2015 23:25

So now we have these same "believers" saying India *must* emit until we get compensated.

Russia will probably want to limit the cap to their USSR standards which means going *up* in emissions from current levels.

China can't possibly emit more than it does today but it will hardly agree to reduce.

All developed countries will hardly give up their current emission levels, which are already unsustainable and which have bought us to this point. They will probably agree to reduce *only* if others reduce. If US did not have a chance to succeed in this game, Obama will not quote his climate change diplomacy as his achievement.

I am seeing quite a parallel of this climate change hoopla vs ISIS support of US. For last few years, whoever implied US as potential sponsor would risk to be called CT nut and I suspect that still is the case today amongst many. But after last 30-45 days of unraveling anyone with few gray cells will get the plot. This too shall come to pass when it gets neck deep for critical stakeholders.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 11 Nov 2015 00:13

Rupert Murdoch bought the National Geographic Magazine and immediately sacked a large number of the award winning staff.
What does that have to do with climate change?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11 ... Geographic

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 11 Nov 2015 00:18

A detailed discussion of Antarctic ice measurements:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ntarctica/

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 11 Nov 2015 00:23

declines in the US co2 emmissions....

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2 ... emissions/

A close examination of energy use in different sectors suggests that the transition from coal to natural gas for electricity generation has probably been the single largest contributor to the decline, but a combination of many other factors accounts for the majority of reductions. These include people driving less and flying less, using less electricity (particularly for industrial activities), driving more fuel-efficient cars, and a large increase in the use of wind power for electricity. Some of those factors also stem from the economic slowdown, but all combined, these factors have produced a dramatic and largely unexpected decline in U.S. CO2 emissions.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Nov 2015 00:37

still has a long way to go till it catches up with Indian emission standards.

Atish · Post by **Atish** » 11 Nov 2015 00:52

Ok here is a basic primer to get the debate on some solid grounds.

There are multiple questions:

1. Is there warming overall?

Answer: Not clear there is overall warming. Some glaciers are growing, some are declining. Accurate data only available for short period (few years or decades). Some cooling and warming over decades is par for the course.

2. Is the warming human created (Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW)

It will be very surprising that all human activity would have zero effect on the climate. So the answer will be a qualified yes. Qualified because the extent for which it counts is not known. There is no consensus on this issue. You see you gotta count the people (climate scientists in particular) who are not sure about AGW not as a MAYBE but a NO. This is because its a single sided hyptheses. Some believe the data is adequate, some dont.

3. Does the human activity generated AGW present a serious danger to ecology (devastation, floods, riosing sea levels etc etc)

The answer to this question is an unqualified NO. Anybody who is looking at the data and say that he can say with any certainty that its gonna cause serious problems is neither a good scientist nor a statistician.

Its point 3 that is VITAL. The problem is the debate is often degenerated into 1 and 2.

Concentrate on POINT 3. There is no evidence for the same. Gaia worshippers, leftist politicians and people with developed world bias want to throttle our energy consumption for the sake of their own convenience.

Is it a coincidence that DDT was found to be a problem when malaria and other mosquito borne diseases were wiped out from the white people areas? How come CO2 is a major problem only when the poor countries like India are getting their act together. These racist buggers want us to pay. We must be sure we dont.

The American and European populations have already been brainwashed completely on this issue. Let them destroy their own economy. These dumb people are against energy as we know it today and plumping the future of their children in pie in the sky tech. They dont like coal. oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, dams (they built all their dams already), hydropower or anything that is on the horizon for the next few decades. Where is energy gonna come from - sun, wind - well these tech dont have a chnace to even fulfill 5% of needs even if trillions of dollars are poured into them. Without massive subsidies they are a dead duck. even after 90% drop in solar panel price they are waaayyyy too expensive.
.
All of life is a struggle against entropy. Without energy we are dead, we will be like animals or stone age people.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 11 Nov 2015 03:28

India Is Caught in a Climate Change Quandary - Nov 10, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/busin ... .html?_r=0

“Today, I see the carbon space occupied by the developed world,” Prakash Javadekar, the environment minister, said in an interview with The Associated Press in September. “We are asking the developed world to vacate the carbon space to accommodate us. That carbon space demand is climate justice.”

After so many failed rounds of diplomacy, everyone involved is eager to declare the coming meeting a success. So far, 129 countries accounting for nearly 90 percent of greenhouse gas emissions have submitted plans to contribute to the cause.

While the progress is undoubtedly real, the central challenge remains unresolved. Countries are not being asked to make legally binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. They will show up, instead, with “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to the mitigation effort.

India has come up with a mitigation contribution plan for the Paris meeting. It aims to get 40 percent of its electricity from nonfossil fuels by 2030 and to reduce its emissions intensity by 33 to 35 percent from 2005 to 2030. It also offers to vastly increase its forest cover.

The plan, however, pointedly notes that India’s energy consumption amounts to only 0.6 metric tons of oil equivalent per person, about a third of the world average. It explains that “no country in the world” has ever achieved the development level of today’s advanced nations without consuming at least four tons.

“India has a lot to do to provide a dignified life to its population and meet their rightful aspirations,” it states.

And yet, there is still a significant risk that India will say no to the West’s climate change agenda. “It plays hugely well domestically,” Mr. Ramesh told me. “One should never discount that possibility.”

It is NOT India that is caught in quandary you idiots. It is you who F'up all this while and are in quandary that India will do what you all did.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 11 Nov 2015 07:36

Supposedly peer babas reviewed:
Impact of Current Climate Proposals - Nov 09, 2015
Bjorn Lomborg
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12295/full

Abstract
This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small. The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

Gives a idea of the impact the proposed climate change initiatives will drive. In the year 2150 it will be even bigger cluster fk to measure, validate, and agree on whether or not temperatures have come down as expected and whether or not they were because of initiatives that were agreed at the Paris Conf in Nov 2015

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 11 Nov 2015 07:49

Interesting take on the above paper from wattsupwiththat.com is the below:

The sum total of the entire restructuring of the US energy production will be to make the air around our feet as cool as the air around our heads.

Atish · Post by **Atish** » 11 Nov 2015 07:55

My worry is that NaMo great man that he is, is not a scientist or an engineer. This whole earth worshipping thing unfortunately fits well with ancient Hindu thinking of respecting the earth. Maybe he is just putting up a front, but he talks of the dangers of global warming often. Somebody has to give him the real picture.