"Most Caribbean coral reefs may disappear in the next 20 years"

[Coops]

There is a disclaimer to the effect that "this article is outdated" on top there. (I did not read the article, I do not read any of them, neither for nor against. I just check that they are not a link in violation of the rules of the forum). No matter anyway, you are entitled to believe that, just don't demand that everybody should agree with you. It is unreasonable to do so.

Coops.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by motaman9

Then....by that same logic....don't we need more than ten or fifteen years of bad news to make a trend OF ANY KIND ??!? Plus it's been FIVE YEARS ....ALMOST SIX.....NOT TWO....You only seem to be seeing what you want to see....if doom and gloom is what you want ? Have at it....I'm done arguing with someone who keeps moving the goalpost.....
Done with you

[a64pilot]

What has been the amount of change of ice on the other pole?

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Coops

There is a disclaimer to the effect that "this article is outdated" on top there. (I did not read the article, I do not read any of them, neither for nor against. I just check that they are not a link in violation of the rules of the forum). No matter anyway, you are entitled to believe that, just don't demand that everybody should agree with you. It is unreasonable to do so.

Coops.

Long ago I gave up hope of persuading folks who "do not read articles". The only people I try to influence are those who are willing to examine empirical evidence, and who are willing to change their minds if the preponderance of rational argument suggests they should.

[John Drake]

Okkkkaaaayyy Let's have fun.

One wonders why global warming activists continue to say that the problem is the "deniers."

In fact, no major political figure denies global warming. GW Bush stated that the science is clear that the earth is warming, all the way back in 2001.

So....this denier stuff, is getting old. OK?

Here is the real problem. Climate changes, we agree, but NONE of the climate change scientists nor the politicians promoting this can agree upon how much is human caused.

But that really does not matter either. Here is why so many point to the promoters of the climate change agenda as frauds:

Answer three simple questions:

1. What is the plan?
2. How much will it cost?
3. How much will it limit climate change?

If you cannot answer those three simple questions, you have nothing.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

What has been the amount of change of ice on the other pole?

Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?

This is a re-post of an article at The Conversation by Guy Williams from the University of Tasmania

Recently NASA reported that this year’s maximum wintertime extent of Antarctic sea ice was the largest on record, even greater than the previous year’s record.

This is understandably at odds with the public’s perception of how polar ice should respond to a warming climate, given the dramatic headlines of severe decline in Arctic summertime extent. But the “paradox of Antarctic sea ice” has been on climate scientists' minds for some time.

Continental v. Sea Ice
First off, sea ice is different to the “continental ice” associated with polar ice caps, glaciers, ice shelves and icebergs. Continental ice is formed by the gradual deposition, build up and compaction of snow, resulting in ice that is hundreds to thousands of metres thick, storing and releasing freshwater that influences global sea-level over thousands of years.

Sea ice, though equally important to the climate system, is completely different. It is the thin layer (typically 1-2m) of ice that forms on the surface of the ocean when the latter is sufficiently cooled enough by the atmosphere.

From there sea ice can move with the winds and currents, continuing to grow both by freezing and through collisions (between the floes that make up the ice cover). When the atmosphere, and/or ocean is suitably warm again, such as in spring or if the sea ice has moved sufficiently towards the equator, then the sea ice melts again.

Antarctic v. Arctic
Secondly, we need to understand that the Arctic and Antarctic climate systems are very different, particularly in sea ice.

In the Arctic, sea ice forms in an ocean roughly centred on the North Pole that is surrounded by continents. A relatively large (though diminishing) proportion of the ice persists over multiple years before ultimately departing for warmer latitudes through exit points such as Fram Strait between Greenland and Svalbard.

In the south, on the other hand, sea ice forms outwards from the continental Antarctic Ice Sheet, where it is exposed to and strongly influenced by the winds and waters of the Southern Ocean. Here, there is a much stronger seasonal ebb and flow to sea ice coverage as over 80% of the sea ice area grows each autumn-winter and decays each spring-summer. This annual expansion-contraction from about 4 to 19 million square kms is one of the greatest seasonal changes on the Earth’s surface.

Area v. Volume
Finally we need to remember that “extent” or “areal coverage” is only one way with which we monitor and study sea ice.

Sea ice turns out to be a very complex and variable medium that is very difficult to observe over large-scales. It is also constantly moving and restructuring. Until we achieve the “holy grail” of monitoring total sea ice volume from space and how it changes over time (and there are great steps towards this with European Space Agency’s environmental research satellite CryoSat-II), we are limited to interpreting its global behaviour through area.

What happened this winter?
This winter, the maximum total Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to be 19.47 million square kilometres, which is 3.6% above the winter average calculated from 1981 to 2010. This continues a trend that is weakly positive and remains in stark contrast to the decline in Arctic summer sea ice extent (2013 was 18% below the mean from 1981-2010).

To further complicate this picture, we find this net increase actually masks strong declines in particular regions around Antarctica, such as in the Bellingshausen Sea, which are on par or greater than those in the Arctic.

So while there is much greater attention given to the Arctic decline and the prediction of “ice-free summers” at the North Pole this century, Antarctic climate scientists still have their work cut out to understand the regional declines amidst the mild “net” expansion occurring in the southern hemisphere.

Here are some of the leading hypotheses currently being explored through a combination of satellite remote sensing, fieldwork in Antarctica and numerical model simulations – to help explain the increasing trend in overall Antarctic sea ice coverage:

• Increased westerly winds around the Southern Ocean, linked to changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation related to ozone depletion, will see greater northward movement of sea ice, and hence extent, of Antarctic sea ice.
• Increased precipitation, in the form of either rain or snow, will increase the density stratification between the upper and middle layers of the Southern Ocean. This might reduce the oceanic heat transfer from relatively warm waters at below the surface layer, and therefore enhancing conditions at the surface for sea ice.
• Similarly, a freshening of the surface layers from this precipitation would also increase the local freezing point of sea ice formation.
• Another potential source of cooling and freshening in the upper ocean around Antarctica is increased melting of Antarctic continental ice, through ocean/ice shelf interaction and iceberg decay.
• The observed changes in sea ice extent could be influenced by a combination of all these factors and still fall within the bounds of natural variability.

The take home messages is that while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic, it masks the fact that some regions are in strong decline. Given the complex interactions of winds and currents driving patterns of sea ice variability and change in the Southern Ocean climate system, this is not unexpected.

But it is still fascinating to study.

See Also:
Stronger Winds Behind Mysterious Growth in Antarctic Sea Ice, Study Suggests | NATURE WORLD NEWS

East Antarctic glaciers could be much more vulnerable to climate change than previously thought | SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC | Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing in a Warmer World?

ARS Technica | Antarctica’s exit glaciers: The drunk drivers of climate change

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Coops

I do not mean this to be aimed specifically at you LE and apologise if it appears that way initially, but it seems that the eco evangelistic fervour adopted by some can actually be harmful to the cause and drive people away rather than selling the idea.

No offense taken, and I appreciate the sincerity of your post.

As others have pointed out, the debate around AGW is not a balanced topic, it's science vs the status quo, and there are real repercussions to how we as a society choose to handle this.

[Gadagirl]

It's been over 175 years since Darwin and his theories. Still. Quite a lot of people won't believe that today as well. It's a bell curve thing. Frustrating? Yes.

The health of the coral reefs are not all about global warming, there are several other reasons. So, if people can just read, learn, and experience for themselves the horrible situation, and realize there is a real problem, and that yes, they can do things that will effect a solution, perhaps they might try.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by John Drake

Here is the real problem. Climate changes, we agree, but NONE of the climate change scientists nor the politicians promoting this can agree upon how much is human caused.

No, that's a misstatement. Climate scientists already agree that human activity is having a measurable effect upon the climate. Any remaining disagreement centers around what and how much that effect will be.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Here is why so many point to the promoters of the climate change agenda as frauds:

Answer three simple questions:

1. What is the plan?
2. How much will it cost?
3. How much will it limit climate change?

If you cannot answer those three simple questions, you have nothing.

A completely false construct.

On the most obvious level, diagnosis and cure are separable activities. The accuracy of my observation that your leg is broken doesn't depend on my foreknowledge of how to set it.

A little deeper in... what is this 'agenda' of the vast majority of climate scientists? What will they gain by conning you and I into accepting their conclusions? Why are scientists perpetrating this colossal fraud while the oil lobby only gives us the honest, unvarnished truth about it's All Going To Be Ok?

Take your time, but show all work.

[crazyoldboatguy]

===Long ago I gave up hope of persuading folks who "do not read articles". The only people I try to influence are those who are willing to examine empirical evidence, and who are willing to change their minds if the preponderance of rational argument suggests they should ===

Long ago I gave up on reading the articles that were claimed to be scientific and neutral. Claims made were continuously shifted as the evidence was challenged. The logic in these articles are sometimes based on circuitous bibliographies written by folks who have made their careers with fear mongering (remember when we were told during the first oil "shortage" that we were going to run out of oil by the end of the century?). So many scientists who would study and challenge the accepted theory are threatened with loss of grants and funding on which they make their living. Evidence is fabricated, massaged and manipulated so that the regular Joe or Jane has no way of knowing the claims are suspect let alone that they should be skeptical.

It was only a few years ago that scientists claimed humans could not exceed the speed of sound, or that they could even fly, for that matter. Indeed, during the 1980s, scientists were sounding the warning bells of an imminent Ice Age due to the climate (weather?) changes they saw around the world. The Army Corps of Engineers was predicting, during that same time, that the rising levels of the Great Lakes were sure to continue until, within the 50 years following their initial prediction, they lake levels would easily rise an additional 15 feet. For those not familiar, the Great Lakes have only recently rebounded somewhat from record low levels.

Given that mishmash, I don't read any of what passes for scientific treatises anymore. I can't get that wasted time back and refuse, like Coops, to waste what time I have left on this mortal coil to do so. BTW, using a term like "denier" is objectionable. A term used to describe people who refuse to accept the truth of the Holocaust. To use that term here is a sure way to put me off from pretty much everything else that comes after it. OK?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

BTW, Artic sea ice is within two standard deviations of the long term average. Nothing to be alarmed about here.

Check the Antarctic sea ice trend! On pace to exceed the all time measurement record.


https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by John Drake

...In fact, no major political figure denies global warming. GW Bush stated that the science is clear that the earth is warming, all the way back in 2001.

So....this denier stuff, is getting old. OK?

Here is the real problem. Climate changes, we agree, but NONE of the climate change scientists nor the politicians promoting this can agree upon how much is human caused.

But that really does not matter either. Here is why so many point to the promoters of the climate change agenda as frauds:

Answer three simple questions:

1. What is the plan?
2. How much will it cost?
3. How much will it limit climate change?

If you cannot answer those three simple questions, you have nothing.

If you agree that global warming is happening...
If you agree that it's serious...
If you agree that it's been triggered by humans burning carbon-based fossil fuels...

And if you want to cut to the chase and implement the fastest, most effective solution...

Then the solution is a tax on carbon...

THINK PROGRESS | In-Depth Analysis: How A Progressive Carbon Tax Will Fight Climate Change And Stimulate The Economy

…Given the track record of climate legislation in Congress—including the failed effort to pass the cap-and-trade bill in 2009—enacting a carbon tax poses more of a challenge than either expanding the regional carbon-pricing actions or using the Clean Air Act to regulate all power plants. While both of these alternatives are steps in the right direction, a national carbon tax would be able to address more than just our environmental concerns. In addition to mitigating the effects of climate change, a carbon tax could help solve our country’s budget crisis and provide revenue for new job-creating investments in clean energy infrastructure. By raising new funds, driving new investments, and reducing the likelihood of the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, a carbon tax is a tool that can take on our country’s three most pressing challenges: the deficit, joblessness, and the climate crisis…

Key principles for a progressive carbon tax

• Be sufficiently robust that it leads to meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas pollution, getting us on a path that helps us avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change…
• Encourage businesses to make new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions…
• Reduce—not increase—economic vulnerability of low-income households by ensuring that they are fairly compensated for any increase in energy prices.
• Have appropriate mechanisms to protect existing American businesses and prevent so-called pollution leakage to countries without similar systems in place…
• Reduce the budget deficit to prevent draconian cuts in vital domestic programs by raising revenue from the tax.

Why a carbon tax is the best solution
…A carbon tax does have a critical distinction from cap-and-trade. With the carbon tax, the price is fixed, and the market responds by reducing carbon pollution to a point where it is cheaper to pay the tax than reduce the pollution. With cap-and-trade, though, the amount of pollution reduction is set by law, while the market responds by setting a price for pollution at the point that reflects the amount of pollution that must be reduced. The difference is cost certainty versus emissions-reduction certainty….

• How to collect the revenue…
• How much should the tax be?…
• Who should have to pay?…
• How should the tax be collected?…
• Where the revenue goes…
• Minimizing harm…
• Investments in clean energy…
• Reducing the deficit…
• Conclusion…

FORBES | A Conservative, Small-Government Strategy For Fighting Climate Change

This guest post was written by Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who is executive director of the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, an educational campaign devoted to free enterprise energy and climate solutions.

…Conservatives have the answer to energy and climate and it doesn’t grow government. We need to leave behind the science denial of the past few years and the knee-jerk embrace of fossil fuels. We need to rally around a superior solution…

Do a revenue-neutral tax swap that reduces taxes on income and shifts the tax onto carbon dioxide, thereby attaching to fossil fuels an approximation of the cost of their negative externalities. [Note: Make sure to keep this revenue-neutral. You may have to add revenue elsewhere in a grand bargain, but the goal of this tax swap is the correction of a market distortion, not the raising of revenue.]

Eliminate all subsidies for all fuels, thereby correcting yet another market distortion called government failure.

Re-examine and streamline EPA regulations as we tax energy pollution, crafting a more logical approach to a cleaner environment that combines measurable outcomes with the transparent and accountable price signal from a carbon tax.

NEW YORK TIMES | Our Carbon, Our Climate, Our Cash

A new Climate Protection Act introduced by Senators Bernard Sanders, the independent from Vermont, and Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, proposes such a tax [on carbon consumption]. About 60 percent of the revenues would be returned directly to consumers, 25 percent allotted to deficit reduction and 15 percent devoted to investments in renewable energy.

The bill’s sponsors aim to win the support of the American people rather than influential industry lobbying groups. Is this aim a strength or a weakness? The way you answer this question depends on who you think will throw the most weight behind climate-change legislation. It also depends on who you think “owns” our atmosphere and who you believe should get compensated when it is compromised…

Evidence of political traction comes from a recent proposal from the California Public Utilities Commission incorporating a dividend-based approach. It calls for distribution of some revenues from the auction of carbon emission permits to industries to be distributed equally to every residential utility account. The commission noted that this policy “comports with the idea of common ownership of the atmosphere given that residential ratepayers will ultimately bear the increased costs...”

NEW YORK TIMES | In Energy Taxes, Tools to Help Tackle Climate Change

…Dealing with global warming will be expensive. The price tag last year for the drought was about $35 billion, according to the reinsurer Aon Benfield. Hurricane Sandy cost a further $65 billion. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that last year ranked as the second-costliest in terms of natural disasters since 1980 — lagging only 2005 when Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans…

For all the damage wrought by Sandy and Katrina, weather disasters in recent years have cost us probably less than a tenth of 1 percent of our economic product. Yet, according to Professor Nordhaus, “Damages will rise more sharply than the temperature curve…”

The reluctance is not because we have no idea how to finance these efforts. We do. Top economists agree a tax on fuels and the carbonthey spew into the atmosphere would be the cheapest way to combat climate change. Most advanced countries rely on some variant of this tax. The question is whether the prospect of more droughts and more powerful hurricanes will push Americans to embrace it, too.

Among the 34 industrialized nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, these taxes average about $68.4 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. The United States, by contrast, has a gas tax to pay for highway improvement, and that’s about it. Total federal taxes on energy amount to $6.30 per ton…

Carbon Tax: How to Deal with a Sagging Economy, Tax Reform, and Climate Change in One Fell Swoop

It can seem counter-intuitive, but passage and enactment of a carbon tax would have far-reaching positive effects on the US economy and society, stimulating investment, innovation and economic growth, and making US business and industry more competitive. So asserts 35-year energy and aerospace industry veteran Jim Hartung, now the president of energy information services provider GlobalEnergySolutions.org...

Opponents have pounced on the counter-intuitiveness of carbon tax proposals, asserting they would further stifle economic recovery and growth by raising energy costs, disproportionately affecting lower income Americans. Exactly the opposite would be true, Hartung argues in his Sept. 13 op-ed on Energy Pulse...

Hartung explains the three principles upon which his carbon tax proposal is based:

1)It should include both a tax and tax credit. Entities that extract carbon from the ground, import carbon, or emit other greenhouse gases are taxed. Entities that remove carbon from the atmosphere or prevent it from ever entering the atmosphere receive a tax credit.

2)The level of the tax and tax credit should reflect the external costs of fossil fuels, such as the indirect costs of oil imports, air pollution, and global warming.

3)The tax and credit should begin at a reasonable starting level and increase slowly to their full level over several years, so energy consumers have time to adjust to the true cost of energy...

Each substantial in their own right, the benefits of such a carbon tax encompass:

Energy efficiency improvements...
Enhanced energy security...
Enhancing US competitiveness...
Adding to US’ comparative advantage in energy...
Reductions in air pollution...
Stopping global warming...
Boosting economic growth...
Tax reform and simplification...

[crazyoldboatguy]

When the largest consumer of coal/greatest producer of CO2 emissions from that coal usage (China - bringing on line coal electric plants at an amazing pace) agrees to the same carbon restrictions as well as Russia doing to same then I will sit up and take notice. Otherwise, it really looks a political cudgel being used to blunt the economic power of the USA. Remember, CO2 emissions are world wide, right?

Do you really think that folks here are unaware of the same tired talking points that are being presented here? Where do you think we have been hiding? The south Pacific? Oh, wait…...

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by crazyoldboatguy

When the largest consumer of coal/greatest producer of CO2 emissions from that coal usage (China - bringing on line coal electric plants at an amazing pace) agrees to the same carbon restrictions as well as Russia doing to same then I will sit up and take notice. Otherwise, it really looks a political cudgel being used to blunt the economic power of the USA. Remember, CO2 emissions are world wide, right?

Do you really think that folks here are unaware of the same tired talking points that are being presented here? Where do you think we have been hiding? The south Pacific? Oh, wait…...

Time to sit up and pay attention, Crazy Old Boat Guy.

China reconsiders carbon tax, citing Australia's planned repeal | SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

China is reconsidering plans for a carbon tax as local air pollution trumps concerns over climate change and some rich nations back away from imposing a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, a top official said.


Premier Li Keqiang last week declared war on pollution, which is expected to speed up the process of turning China's limited environmental levy into a full-blown tax targeting the nation's major polluters...

THE WORLD BANK | Tackling Climate Change with a Robust Carbon Price

In order to better understand the impact of climate change on development, the World Bank commissioned a scientific report, Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must Be Avoided. The report concluded that the world will warm by 4°C, on average, by the end of this century with devastating consequences if we don’t take concerted action now…

But we recognise that our work, alone, is not enough. We need a global response that will drive mitigation action in top emitting countries, get incentives and prices right, and get finance flowing to drive low-carbon growth. We need a response equal to the scale of the climate problem, a response that puts us on a new path to ending poverty and building shared prosperity.

In our view, that global response should include supporting the removal of harmful fossil fuel subsidies and placing a robust and predictable value on carbon. We are committed to continue working with others to pursue both ideas…

As these developments unfold, we believe it is worth exploring the idea of a globally-networked carbon market with: pricing and exchange rates to support fungibility across asset classes; a reserve carbon “currency” for conversion and trading of emission reduction assets; and services and institutions to support a market of global scale. Of course, the principle of environmental integrity would need to underpin any effort of this sort…

China is showing extraordinary leadership in this field. China’s seven pilot programmes – capturing between them five cities and two provinces with a total population of 246 million and accounting for a cumulative GDP of $1.6 trillion – are planned to launch this year. Shenzhen will launch its pilot in June 2013; Beijing and Shanghai will follow shortly thereafter. These pilots will pave the way for establishing a national carbon market, and China is already looking ahead to how it might link its ETS with others…

[crazyoldboatguy]

China showing leadership. I'll believe it when I see it, not from some posturing articles. China is showing, with real action, not blowhard rhetoric, that it is quite willing to impose her leadership by militarizing the western Pacific in ways that, were it the US doing it, the blogosphere would be ablaze. Just ask Vietnam, the Phillipines, Japan and South Korea what the benign, benevolent China is doing in the South China Sea.

Again, posting stuff that many folks here have seen time and again, whether they be true believers or heretics, comes across as patronizing. Tiresome.