All Things Environment

[runrussellrun]

That last sentence, what part of my argument isn't pointing out that things have gotten WORSE, not better, in the 50 years the CBF has been around and accomplished little aren't we all getttting? We can't FIX a known problem (chessy bay being nasty), but will tax the poor in the name of globalism.

A headline from the near distant future:

"Measures taken years ago,by quick thinking sciencetist from _____________ (fill in) :

1. ...have dramatically curtailed warming "

2. Prevented castrostophic climate change, but much work yet to be done"

3. along with a government mandated carbon tax, slowed sea level rise to a standstill "

[holmes435]

The CBF is a non-profit, non-government entity. They can lobby and organize but they don't write the laws.

We have fixed quite a lot of small and even bigger environmental issues over the past few decades that we created (a lot of it by just getting our pollution out of the way and letting nature recover on its own). We can do it again. It generally takes legislation though.

[runrussellrun]

The CBF is a non-profit, non-government entity. They can lobby and organize but they don't write the laws.

We have fixed quite a lot of small and even bigger environmental issues over the past few decades that we created (a lot of it by just getting our pollution out of the way and letting nature recover on its own). We can do it again. It generally takes legislation though.

only partially true. Legislation that is nevah enforced, let alone investigated, will nullify, nay make imputenant, any law, no matter how wonderful the prose is.

[MDlaxfan76]

“We believe that clinicians should be aware of the possibility that V. vulnificus infections are occurring more frequently outside traditional geographic areas,” the authors wrote in the report, according to CBS.[/I]

But extremely rare.

So others agree with what I just wrote.

Does it even matter that you are 100% incorrect regarding the spread in the DELMARVA region?

I have no opinion on it, so not sure how I could be "100% incorrect".
I just excerpted from the article you posted.

Really nasty bugs.

You have no opinion on the matter, you just happened to pick that line.

$o, if the $cience is $ettled, why do so many articles, peer reviewed, MSM, etc. include wording related to "further study needed" ? Indeed, why spend one more dollar on settled $cience research. And YOU pretend CONservatives don't have the nerve to do it. Stop funding it, even tho....wait for it......it's $ettled.

Ahhh, I thought you meant why the bugs are further north...warmer waters are habitable for the nasties, apparently, and the water has indeed been warming. Makes sense, but I have no dog in that hunt.

Now, as to why the waters have been warming, sure, I do have some opinions on that issue.

Makes sense to me to acknowledge the science, and the logic, that man is at least partially contributing to factors that are influencing climate, or at least there is enough basis to consider the path we've been on to be problematic enough to be concerned.

Where the science appears less 'settled' is the degree to which man's influence can be moderated successfully, and from a cost-benefit POV what the reasonable trade-offs may be, at a minimum to buy enough time to find future solutions (assuming necessary)...given that there's at least some basis to be concerned that indeed there could be an accelerating, potentially highly traumatic cliff approaching.

But lots to debate in there, far from 'settled'.

Where my opinion hardens would be about those who so cavalierly dismiss the preponderance of scientific analysis indicating very serious risk.

[MDlaxfan76]

The CBF is a non-profit, non-government entity. They can lobby and organize but they don't write the laws.

We have fixed quite a lot of small and even bigger environmental issues over the past few decades that we created (a lot of it by just getting our pollution out of the way and letting nature recover on its own). We can do it again. It generally takes legislation though.

only partially true. Legislation that is nevah enforced, let alone investigated, will nullify, nay make imputenant, any law, no matter how wonderful the prose is.

That's a self fulfilling truism.
So, no argument with that.

Holmes said 'generally' and I'd also quite agree there. As well as the CBF's role as an advocate, not a legislature.

Government can and should play a role in such matters in which 'the tragedy of the commons' otherwise rules.

[cradleandshoot]

This whole conversation about Roy Spencer reminds me of a quote from my major professor (PhD program) who said (actually very late one night as we were trying to take data:

Nothing looks more like a new effect than a mistake.

Spencer is a far outlier, who within the climate investigation community gets the attention he deserves - little. He spends most of his time in a more political stance, and his political connections are definitely far right. He also has dabbled well out of his expertise in backing intelligent design.

And yes, you can find countless debunkings of his views on the internet, just as you can find those who support him. But the main way to judge him is how he is treated by the climate science community overall, and for the most part they oppose him.

Red Front since you are a fair minded... if someone dimwitted scientist I will share some personal info with you. In 2013 my friends and my wife returned from a vacation in Mexico. Our friends husband struggled with a nagging sore throat while we were there. He was diagnosed by some really talented doctors/scientists at the Wilmot Cancer Center at Strong Memorial Hospital with stage 4 throat cancer. Their treatment involved cutting out part of his jaw, going right in to his neck, cutting out the cancer, followed by chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Our neighbor was not happy with the diagnosis and went to Roswell Park in Buffalo for a second opinion. He was examined there by another group of talented doctors/scientists who disagreed vehemently with the other group of talented doctors/scientists at Wilmot. His treatment at Roswell involved radiation and chemo with no radical surgery involved. 6 yearslater he is cancer free and living life to its fullest. We still wonder why the best and brightest minds of science from 2 different hospitals can't get on the same page on how to handle a case of throat cancer.

I will share some more with you... even more personal because this involves the love of my life my dear wife. In June of this year she was finally diagnosed after countless months of doctor visit after doctor visit after doctor visit with a whole bunch of very talented orthopaedic surgeons and scientists who did not have a clue as to the pain she was in finally insisted/threatened for them to do an MRI. Stunning to all of these surgeons/scientists my wifes pain was an advanced case of avascular necrosis. Her F***ing hip had started to collapse in its socket. When my wife asked her surgeon how this happened he gave a very detailed response to he question. The best and brightest minds of medicine and science have no idea why avascular necrosis occurs... it just happens.


So in case RED you are clueless as to where I am going with this I will fast forward to the new pain my wife has in her knee that was replaced a year ago. A sharp, pointy object pointing out of her knee just below the new knee cap. Damned if any of the 3 orthopods/scientists can figure out what it is. She has been back for one more MRI and last Friday a bone scan and possibly tomorrow the orthopods/scientists may have an idea what is causing the excrutiating pain. Hell no need to worry, the orthopod can just go back into the knee and poke around and see if he can figure it out. Lets back up again Red to your original proclamation as to how F***ing brilliant you are and how knowledgeable you are in your field of expertise. If you are of the same caliber of scientist that I have dealt with recently then nothing coming out of your mouth means anything to me. You are just another Mr Know it All in a long stream of brilliant scientists that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and are just too damn smart to understand they ain't as smart as they think they are. All that aside... I am sure Red you are one hell of a nice guy. I still think you are JHU 72 in disguise but maybe it is just an uncanny resemblance.

Maybe it is too personal for me Red I am fed up to my eyeballs with a very large collection of very smart scientists that have good hearts and good intentions but don't know jack squat about anything. The way I feel about the entire lot of you morons is you can all go to hell right now. The only damn HONEST answer came from my wifes surgeon when he told her flat out we don't know as much as we would like to. That sure as hell builds loads of confidence in the world of science. You all might as well just start using dart boards to answer the tough questions. Carry on with your knowledge and wisdom when it comes to the environment... you can't agree on how to handle a case of throat cancer but you idiots want to convince us all you have the smarts to save the planet...

First, you are making a mistake to conflate medicine 100% with science/scientists. Being a medical doctor is part science and still part art. And a whole lot of symptoms are shared in common with various diseases, syndromes, etc. So getting a definitive diagnosis is not always as straight forward as we would like. And I say this knowing that I have a daughter who is a practicing physician. And that means knowing a bit of how their training works.

And BTW, I have never proclaimed my "brilliance" or anything of that sort. And the mark of intelligence is to actually have some idea of where your limitations are. But I do have a doctorate in physics, and have taught at the college level for now well over 30 years. Including courses in Science and Religion, and history and philosophy of science beyond the more typical physics and astronomy. So I do know more than the average Joe about the work of science, and so I contribute at that level.

Now back to medicine. When a doctor gets it wrong, that error can lead to greater illness, disability or even death. And the variability of the human makes it tough to be absolutely sure every time. In a hard science like physics or meteorology or chemistry, mistakes are often no more than dead end paths to a more final answer.

And on a more personal level, my (late) wife spent the last three months of her life in the ICU where none of the doctors and nurses caring for her could figure out how to keep her from dying. And I could be bitter about that, but choose not to.

My apologies to you for my rant. I had to take off another day from work today to take my wife to her orthopod to hear the same thing we always seem to hear... nobody knows what the problem is. He may want to do an arthoscopy to see if there has been any relocation on her new knee. My problem with all of you scientists stumbles back to the CC/GW issue. You can scream in my ear that your computer models are like magic crystal balls that can predict what will happen 50 years from now if we don't do everything you tell us all we have to do we are all doomed. The same men and women of science can do xrays, MRI's, CT scans, bone density imaging and use every damn tool available to modern science and still can't give you a solid answer. I am damn sick and tired of hearing doctors tell my wife and I that they just don't know.

I hope you can understand why I don't hardly trust a damn one of you. I am frustrated and pissed off at the entire system. The way I feel right now all your damn computer models are about as useful as all the tests my wife has been through that don't answer one single damn question but always seem to open up new questions that nobody can understand. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to you at the loss of your wife. I am frustrated and angry and taking it out on all the wrong people and not even in the proper forum. I apologize to all of you once again for my ranting. I will get to posting on this thread when I am in a better frame of mind.

[RedFromMI]

This whole conversation about Roy Spencer reminds me of a quote from my major professor (PhD program) who said (actually very late one night as we were trying to take data:

Nothing looks more like a new effect than a mistake.

Spencer is a far outlier, who within the climate investigation community gets the attention he deserves - little. He spends most of his time in a more political stance, and his political connections are definitely far right. He also has dabbled well out of his expertise in backing intelligent design.

And yes, you can find countless debunkings of his views on the internet, just as you can find those who support him. But the main way to judge him is how he is treated by the climate science community overall, and for the most part they oppose him.

Red Front since you are a fair minded... if someone dimwitted scientist I will share some personal info with you. In 2013 my friends and my wife returned from a vacation in Mexico. Our friends husband struggled with a nagging sore throat while we were there. He was diagnosed by some really talented doctors/scientists at the Wilmot Cancer Center at Strong Memorial Hospital with stage 4 throat cancer. Their treatment involved cutting out part of his jaw, going right in to his neck, cutting out the cancer, followed by chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Our neighbor was not happy with the diagnosis and went to Roswell Park in Buffalo for a second opinion. He was examined there by another group of talented doctors/scientists who disagreed vehemently with the other group of talented doctors/scientists at Wilmot. His treatment at Roswell involved radiation and chemo with no radical surgery involved. 6 yearslater he is cancer free and living life to its fullest. We still wonder why the best and brightest minds of science from 2 different hospitals can't get on the same page on how to handle a case of throat cancer.

I will share some more with you... even more personal because this involves the love of my life my dear wife. In June of this year she was finally diagnosed after countless months of doctor visit after doctor visit after doctor visit with a whole bunch of very talented orthopaedic surgeons and scientists who did not have a clue as to the pain she was in finally insisted/threatened for them to do an MRI. Stunning to all of these surgeons/scientists my wifes pain was an advanced case of avascular necrosis. Her F***ing hip had started to collapse in its socket. When my wife asked her surgeon how this happened he gave a very detailed response to he question. The best and brightest minds of medicine and science have no idea why avascular necrosis occurs... it just happens.


So in case RED you are clueless as to where I am going with this I will fast forward to the new pain my wife has in her knee that was replaced a year ago. A sharp, pointy object pointing out of her knee just below the new knee cap. Damned if any of the 3 orthopods/scientists can figure out what it is. She has been back for one more MRI and last Friday a bone scan and possibly tomorrow the orthopods/scientists may have an idea what is causing the excrutiating pain. Hell no need to worry, the orthopod can just go back into the knee and poke around and see if he can figure it out. Lets back up again Red to your original proclamation as to how F***ing brilliant you are and how knowledgeable you are in your field of expertise. If you are of the same caliber of scientist that I have dealt with recently then nothing coming out of your mouth means anything to me. You are just another Mr Know it All in a long stream of brilliant scientists that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and are just too damn smart to understand they ain't as smart as they think they are. All that aside... I am sure Red you are one hell of a nice guy. I still think you are JHU 72 in disguise but maybe it is just an uncanny resemblance.

Maybe it is too personal for me Red I am fed up to my eyeballs with a very large collection of very smart scientists that have good hearts and good intentions but don't know jack squat about anything. The way I feel about the entire lot of you morons is you can all go to hell right now. The only damn HONEST answer came from my wifes surgeon when he told her flat out we don't know as much as we would like to. That sure as hell builds loads of confidence in the world of science. You all might as well just start using dart boards to answer the tough questions. Carry on with your knowledge and wisdom when it comes to the environment... you can't agree on how to handle a case of throat cancer but you idiots want to convince us all you have the smarts to save the planet...

First, you are making a mistake to conflate medicine 100% with science/scientists. Being a medical doctor is part science and still part art. And a whole lot of symptoms are shared in common with various diseases, syndromes, etc. So getting a definitive diagnosis is not always as straight forward as we would like. And I say this knowing that I have a daughter who is a practicing physician. And that means knowing a bit of how their training works.

And BTW, I have never proclaimed my "brilliance" or anything of that sort. And the mark of intelligence is to actually have some idea of where your limitations are. But I do have a doctorate in physics, and have taught at the college level for now well over 30 years. Including courses in Science and Religion, and history and philosophy of science beyond the more typical physics and astronomy. So I do know more than the average Joe about the work of science, and so I contribute at that level.

Now back to medicine. When a doctor gets it wrong, that error can lead to greater illness, disability or even death. And the variability of the human makes it tough to be absolutely sure every time. In a hard science like physics or meteorology or chemistry, mistakes are often no more than dead end paths to a more final answer.

And on a more personal level, my (late) wife spent the last three months of her life in the ICU where none of the doctors and nurses caring for her could figure out how to keep her from dying. And I could be bitter about that, but choose not to.

My apologies to you for my rant. I had to take off another day from work today to take my wife to her orthopod to hear the same thing we always seem to hear... nobody knows what the problem is. He may want to do an arthoscopy to see if there has been any relocation on her new knee. My problem with all of you scientists stumbles back to the CC/GW issue. You can scream in my ear that your computer models are like magic crystal balls that can predict what will happen 50 years from now if we don't do everything you tell us all we have to do we are all doomed. The same men and women of science can do xrays, MRI's, CT scans, bone density imaging and use every damn tool available to modern science and still can't give you a solid answer. I am damn sick and tired of hearing doctors tell my wife and I that they just don't know.

I hope you can understand why I don't hardly trust a damn one of you. I am frustrated and ticked off at the entire system. The way I feel right now all your damn computer models are about as useful as all the tests my wife has been through that don't answer one single damn question but always seem to open up new questions that nobody can understand. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to you at the loss of your wife. I am frustrated and angry and taking it out on all the wrong people and not even in the proper forum. I apologize to all of you once again for my ranting. I will get to posting on this thread when I am in a better frame of mind.

But you are definitely comparing apples to oranges here. Here is maybe a better analogy: think about when we detect the formation of a tropical depression - we can once it has spun up to a tropical storm/hurricane do a fairly good prediction of the set of likely tracks. Not perfect, and we cannot predict everything, but in general, the fact that there is a storm with high winds and a range of possibilities confirms our models. The storm does not magically disappear even if the track starts to veer a bit, or the progression of strengthening/weakening does not exactly match the original predictions (that is why they recalculate and recalculate the models). But the warning does save lives.

The climate predictions have some similarities to this case. Scientists will continually (with more and better data) recalculate and get better predictions, but the general _fact_ of warming is in the data, and the calculations fit those facts.

Now as to dealing with her new knee - a lot more art (exactly how was it installed, was there more damage than usual, is it sized correctly, etc.) is present here than some of the science.

[CU77]

My apologies to you for my rant. I had to take off another day from work today to take my wife to her orthopod to hear the same thing we always seem to hear... nobody knows what the problem is. He may want to do an arthoscopy to see if there has been any relocation on her new knee.

Knee replacement has been possible at all for less than 50 years. Would you rather the scientists had not done the research to figure out how to make replacement knees?

My problem with all of you scientists stumbles back to the CC/GW issue. You can scream in my ear that your computer models are like magic crystal balls that can predict what will happen 50 years from now

Absolutely no one says anything like this. What scientists do say is that the risk of various highly adverse effects are much more likely if we don't cut down on greenhouse gas emission.

I sympathize with your frustration with doctors and medicine. IMO, they do the best they can to figure out what treatment is likely to work best for a particular patient, but it's far from perfect. My wife and I have had plenty of frustrations of our own with getting effective treatments for various chronic conditions.

But I think the analogy of medicine to climate science is actually a pretty good one. Just like in medicine, climate science is far from perfect. Just like in medicine, it's getting better and better: treatments for all sorts of things that were available in the 70s are much less effective, overall, for most people, than treatments that are available today. Just like climate science today is much better than it was in the 70s.

So when you go off on how climate scientists know nothing because they were worried about global cooling in the 70s, it's like saying that no one should ever get a knee replacement today because they couldn't be done in the 70s.

[runrussellrun]

Ahhh, I thought you meant why the bugs are further north...warmer waters are habitable for the nasties, apparently, and the water has indeed been warming. Makes sense, but I have no dog in that hunt. Why are you using my dog, than, to hunt. don't hunt if you have no dog.

Now, as to why the waters have been warming, sure, I do have some opinions on that issue. Great, lets read them.

Makes sense to me to acknowledge the science, and the logic, that man is at least partially contributing to factors that are influencing climate, or at least there is enough basis to consider the path we've been on to be problematic enough to be concerned. no kidding. Which factors?

Where the science appears less 'settled' is the degree to which man's influence can be moderated successfully, and from a cost-benefit POV what the reasonable trade-offs may be, at a minimum to buy enough time to find future solutions (assuming necessary)...given that there's at least some basis to be concerned that indeed there could be an accelerating, potentially highly traumatic cliff approaching. could, if, when, possibly...who cares. No one disputes the pollution of the chessy bay. How does one "accelerate" water quality, especially BAD quality. All this other stuff is pretty useless.

But lots to debate in there, far from 'settled'. Debate about what?

Where my opinion hardens would be about those who so cavalierly dismiss the preponderance of scientific analysis indicating very serious risk. risk of what

Do you have a well, for water?
Do you have a septic, or sewer?

[MDlaxfan76]

Ahhh, I thought you meant why the bugs are further north...warmer waters are habitable for the nasties, apparently, and the water has indeed been warming. Makes sense, but I have no dog in that hunt. Why are you using my dog, than, to hunt. don't hunt if you have no dog.

Now, as to why the waters have been warming, sure, I do have some opinions on that issue. Great, lets read them.

Makes sense to me to acknowledge the science, and the logic, that man is at least partially contributing to factors that are influencing climate, or at least there is enough basis to consider the path we've been on to be problematic enough to be concerned. no kidding. Which factors?

Where the science appears less 'settled' is the degree to which man's influence can be moderated successfully, and from a cost-benefit POV what the reasonable trade-offs may be, at a minimum to buy enough time to find future solutions (assuming necessary)...given that there's at least some basis to be concerned that indeed there could be an accelerating, potentially highly traumatic cliff approaching. could, if, when, possibly...who cares. No one disputes the pollution of the chessy bay. How does one "accelerate" water quality, especially BAD quality. All this other stuff is pretty useless.

But lots to debate in there, far from 'settled'. Debate about what?

Where my opinion hardens would be about those who so cavalierly dismiss the preponderance of scientific analysis indicating very serious risk. risk of what

Do you have a well, for water?
Do you have a septic, or sewer?

I confess, I couldn't figure out what you are actually saying or asking in the above comments.

Bugs spreading into newly warmer regions...ok, bugs don't do well in colder waters, do better warmer.

Warmer waters because global temperatures rising, water current patterns changing, etc. I buy that as well.

And yes, there's all sorts of legitimate (IMO) opportunities to discuss rates of change, possible accelerations in those rates, and what, if anything, we might do to prevent such changes, and at what cost.

But yeah, the preponderance of scientific analysis is that the cliff scenario is real...if you don't understand how that could be calamitous, not to mention just a slower progression that becomes overwhelming, then I'd just say I give up trying to have a rational discussion with you.

Last, I have no idea what your last two questions have to do with the price of eggs in china, but I happen to be on a well, and on septic.

[runrussellrun]

Ahhh, I thought you meant why the bugs are further north...warmer waters are habitable for the nasties, apparently, and the water has indeed been warming. Makes sense, but I have no dog in that hunt. Why are you using my dog, than, to hunt. don't hunt if you have no dog.

Now, as to why the waters have been warming, sure, I do have some opinions on that issue. Great, lets read them.

Makes sense to me to acknowledge the science, and the logic, that man is at least partially contributing to factors that are influencing climate, or at least there is enough basis to consider the path we've been on to be problematic enough to be concerned. no kidding. Which factors?

Where the science appears less 'settled' is the degree to which man's influence can be moderated successfully, and from a cost-benefit POV what the reasonable trade-offs may be, at a minimum to buy enough time to find future solutions (assuming necessary)...given that there's at least some basis to be concerned that indeed there could be an accelerating, potentially highly traumatic cliff approaching. could, if, when, possibly...who cares. No one disputes the pollution of the chessy bay. How does one "accelerate" water quality, especially BAD quality. All this other stuff is pretty useless.

But lots to debate in there, far from 'settled'. Debate about what?

Where my opinion hardens would be about those who so cavalierly dismiss the preponderance of scientific analysis indicating very serious risk. risk of what

Do you have a well, for water?
Do you have a septic, or sewer?

I confess, I couldn't figure out what you are actually saying or asking in the above comments.

Bugs spreading into newly warmer regions...ok, bugs don't do well in colder waters, do better warmer.

Warmer waters because global temperatures rising, water current patterns changing, etc. I buy that as well.

And yes, there's all sorts of legitimate (IMO) opportunities to discuss rates of change, possible accelerations in those rates, and what, if anything, we might do to prevent such changes, and at what cost.

But yeah, the preponderance of scientific analysis is that the cliff scenario is real...if you don't understand how that could be calamitous, not to mention just a slower progression that becomes overwhelming, then I'd just say I give up trying to have a rational discussion with you.

Last, I have no idea what your last two questions have to do with the price of eggs in china, but I happen to be on a well, and on septic.

I have no clue what you are talking about her. Cliff scenario? Never heard of it.
Sure, I could type in "cliff scenario" in an internet search engine to start to get a grasp as to what you are talking about, but if you think you evah "discuss" instead of "talk at" us....try again.

Is an asteroid a "cliff scenario?

How about Yellowstone blowing up?

cat. 6 Hurricanes? (gee, when will we learn about the NEW cat 6 hurrican classification )

[RedFromMI]

Officially, there are not Category 6 hurricanes on the Saffir-Simpson scale. There has been speculation that we might start seeing storms intense enough (greater than 175 mph winds) to necessitate adding another level.

[HooDat]

There is a entertaining book called Rivers by Michael Farris Smith. It is about a quasi apocalyptic US Gulf Coast that has been abandoned by the US government in the face of relentless intense hurricane landings (like every few weeks) that have made everything from Georgia to the Texas coast a lawless zone.

Great bit of fiction writing.

[runrussellrun]

Officially, there are not Category 6 hurricanes on the Saffir-Simpson scale. There has been speculation that we might start seeing storms intense enough (greater than 175 mph winds) to necessitate adding another level.

Do you think I make this stuff up as I go ?

[Trinity]

ARCTIC INFERNOS: Enhanced satellite images show wildfires across parts of the Arctic, including Alaska, Siberia and Greenland, with a U.N. agency reporting 100 intense fires in the past six weeks and scientists blaming climate change. @DavidMuir reports. abcn.ws/2YaDiHD

[MDlaxfan76]

By 'cliff' I'm simply referring to the hypothesis that damage could accelerate from its own momentum.

For instance, the unlocking of gasses from the permafrost melting from global warming could well dwarf emissions more directly attributable to man's burning of energy and feeding.

The 'cliff' is when the momentum gains enough steam that it's irreversible by simply curtailing man's current emissions or even from recapturing such emissions.

So, instead of slow progression in heat and rising waters, the whole process becomes much faster.

In addition to aggregate heat and rising water levels, another result could be greater frequency and levels of extreme weather. Certainly damaging.

Another would be that the relatively precipitous changes would be too fast for evolutionary adjustment by many species, disrupting interdependent ecosystems at a pace at which such would be existential for many other species.

So, yeah, a big deal if such a 'cliff' is reached. For all we know, that cliff may have already occurred (ie permafrost gas release), but hopefully that's not yet the case.

[runrussellrun]

ARCTIC INFERNOS: Enhanced satellite images show wildfires across parts of the Arctic, including Alaska, Siberia and Greenland, with a U.N. agency reporting 100 intense fires in the past six weeks and scientists blaming climate change. @DavidMuir reports. abcn.ws/2YaDiHD

the black and white images from Shackeltons drone are on display at the Smithsonian......

......or, put another way....What the heck does fake "record HIGH temps" have to do with wildfires? Kiln dried wood burn better?

Peshtigo.....a deadly fire, but what a great name for a band. When did Peshtigo fire happen? exactly

How about Chinchaga? The "largest" wilfire evah. Fonzi of Milwaukee hadn't learned to ride a motorcyle yet.

Remember, you science folks who use proxy temps to support your carbon tax plan...........is there ANY scientific evidence that the earths magnetic poles have SHIFTED?

exactly

[runrussellrun]

By 'cliff' I'm simply referring to the hypothesis that damage could accelerate from its own momentum. beyond fixibility?

For instance, the unlocking of gasses from the permafrost melting from global warming could well dwarf emissions more directly attributable to man's burning of energy and feeding. permafrost melting: changing solids to liquids to a gas all at once?
You know, a 1/4 teaspoon of caffine will kill you, but who's NOT drinking caffenine write now?
The 'cliff' is when the momentum gains enough steam that it's irreversible by simply curtailing man's current emissions or even from recapturing such emissions.

So, instead of slow progression in heat and rising waters, the whole process becomes much faster. where have YOU observed rising waters? Bo Brooks and the Baltimore/Canton Prominade flooding at every HIGH tide now? (why did Baltimore spend 100's of millions on a waterwalk if it's only to be submerged. Any waterfront development going on in Baltimore? It's friggin laughable, the hypocrites.

In addition to aggregate heat and rising water levels, another result could be greater frequency and levels of extreme weather. Certainly damaging.

Extreme weather? Some boaters won't going out unless the water looks like glass. Bet they think 3-4 foot seas are EXTREME (matter of experience, opinion )

Another would be that the relatively precipitous changes would be too fast for evolutionary adjustment by many species, disrupting interdependent ecosystems at a pace at which such would be existential for many other species. oh well, survival of the fittest. The daily temperature SWING at latitude 42. long 71 is.....on average.....30 degrees each day. What dies?

So, yeah, a big deal if such a 'cliff' is reached. For all we know, that cliff may have already occurred (ie permafrost gas release), but hopefully that's not yet the case.

Please start culling your posts, mdlaxfan, C&S, etc. You can HIGHlite the repeated/replied sections and DELETE them.

Did you hear Sen. Gillabrand call for a tax on the poor? That is exactly what her plan is to stop climate change. TAX the carbon. What part of this "solution" offered up as a tax theft aren't you folks getting.

[Trinity]

The current melt rate in Greenland is what's projected for around the year 2070 as global warming worsens — using the most pessimistic model, @xavierfettweis said.

That melting has global implications for sea level rise.

[ABV 8.3%]

The current melt rate in Greenland is what's projected for around the year 2070 as global warming worsens — using the most pessimistic model, @xavierfettweis said.

That melting has global implications for sea level rise.

Based on the middleground timelines of the Democratic Presidential candidates, do we have the energy infrastructure to be able to produce enough kW to charge all those driverless trucks and plug in stations for the 100's of millions of vehicles on the road? Is this even discussed, planned for? Will this apply to the shipping industry? I don't know what the percentage of power boats that use electric motors (mostly for trolling), but does the plan to get off of fossil fuels encompass boats? How about our railroads? What size will an electric, battery powered, locomotive have to be?

All this back and forth is stupid. Can any of these plans actually be implemented? Vagueness is NOT a plan.

Picketts charge sure looked good on paper, but the arrogance of Lee and the mythical prowess of Jeb Stuarts calvary never thought they would run into a crazy group of guys on horsy's, led by STD carrier Custer.