Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,601
#4,601
MaxamusXIII said:
You really do have a reading comprehension problem don't you.

Add thoughts that aren't there and argue against it .........again
Click to expand...

I'm not adding anything. You said you believe in climate change in terms of the natural variability of the climate. That isn't the same as accepting climate change in the scientific sense, as you are content to accept all sorts of climatic variables and forcings right up until they involve your favorite bipedal mammal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,602
#4,602
Sandvol said:
I'd never support any new taxes. Also, you need to convince all these other guys first. I'd like for Mueller and his group to take a look at fluorocarbons. Mueller seems to be an honest and genuine guy. What do you think of his views about your boy Mann?
Click to expand...
An honest and genuine guy? Is that how you evaluate scientists and their research? If you would have a beer with them? Is it all American Idol to you? America's Next Top Climatologist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,603
#4,603
Mtntrout said:
I'm not adding anything. You said you believe in climate change in terms of the natural variability of the climate. That isn't the same as accepting climate change in the scientific sense, as you are content to accept all sorts of climatic variables and forcings right up until they involve your favorite bipedal mammal.
Click to expand...

kangaroos? :)
 
#4,604
#4,604
volinbham said:
Even respected scientists who dare question the whole set of dire predictions across the range of life are attacked and have their motives questioned.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is accurate. One can crack open a professional ecology or biology journal and see lively debates about the possibility or not of major impacts on a particular species or community even in the same paper.

Now, if someone stands up and says "climate change poses no threat" then ya, they'll generate some rolling of eyes and aren't likely to be asked to review any papers on the subject. If someone stands up and says "I think the orange-crested yodel sparrow will be able to adapt and thrive in the projected conditions over the next 100 years, no one will accuse them of having an agenda. They'll just evaluate their reasoning and data. And they may be right. There will be winners and losers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,605
#4,605
Mtntrout said:
I don't think that is accurate. One can crack open a professional ecology or biology journal and see lively debates about the possibility or not of major impacts on a particular species or community even in the same paper.

Now, if someone stands up and says "climate change poses no threat" then ya, they'll generate some rolling of eyes and aren't likely to be asked to review any papers on the subject. If someone stands up and says "I think the orange-crested yodel sparrow will be able to adapt and thrive in the projected conditions over the next 100 years, no one will accuse them of having an agenda. They'll just evaluate their reasoning and data. And they may be right. There will be winners and losers.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to people like Judith Curry and other "luke-warmists" who question the orthodoxy of the apocalypse or even the certainty with which the basic relationship is extended into predictions of calamity.
 
#4,606
#4,606
Mtntrout said:
Saying something is consistent with models as a counter to the insinuation or claim that it is not doesn't make that something "evidence" of climate change, it is evidence that it isn't inconsistent with it.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I've seen cases though where it is presented as evidence of. Typically this is in the form of science/news writers overstating the science or not understanding the distinction you make.
 
#4,607
#4,607
Mtntrout said:
An honest and genuine guy? Is that how you evaluate scientists and their research? If you would have a beer with them? Is it all American Idol to you? America's Next Top Climatologist?
Click to expand...

No, he seems like he is a genuine scientist. He is not an alarmist. He is not saying we have to panic or implement cap and trade. He is just saying there is a correlation with temperature rise and CO2 the past 200 years or so. And, he believes it appears to be caused by man. He is not making any claims to what this implies. That is all he is saying. He is not a supporter of IPCC or their models. He believes Mann and others of his ilk have discredited themselves.
 
#4,608
#4,608
Mtntrout said:
I'm not adding anything. You said you believe in climate change in terms of the natural variability of the climate. That isn't the same as accepting climate change in the scientific sense, as you are content to accept all sorts of climatic variables and forcings right up until they involve your favorite bipedal mammal.
Click to expand...

And I said I did not know what it would take to change my mind about man made climate change as the current group has a history of cooking the books. You responded as if I'd said "I ain't changing my mind" hence your reading comprehension problem.
I spend more time explaining what was said to you than actually discussing the topic. My continued discourse with you clearly means I'm the one whose not picking up on the problem as I keep doing it.
 
#4,610
#4,610
Sandvol said:
No, he seems like he is a genuine scientist. He is not an alarmist. He is not saying we have to panic or implement cap and trade. He is just saying there is a correlation with temperature rise and CO2 the past 200 years or so. And, he believes it appears to be caused by man. He is not making any claims to what this implies. That is all he is saying. He is not a supporter of IPCC or their models. He believes Mann and others of his ilk have discredited themselves.
Click to expand...

He seems genuine because of what he says. In other words, you are running in a circle and aren't actually evaluating the science at all but rather what message you prefer. Sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,611
#4,611
Mtntrout said:
He seems genuine because of what he says. In other words, you are running in a circle and aren't actually evaluating the science at all but rather what message you prefer. Sad.
Click to expand...

You say some pretty silly things. There are a lot of outstanding scientists who don't agree with you. This interglacial is no warmer than the last interglacial and it is less warm than during the medieval warming period. We don't have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem. Humans thrive during interglacial periods. Don't be so desperate for this one to end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,612
#4,612
volinbham said:
Is it not the same thing - the climate change is a RESULT of CO2. Acidification is a RESULT of CO2. Climate change is not a CAUSE of acidification. They are both outcomes of the same root cause. CO2 is a causal agent for any number of phenomena but it would be wrong to then assert those phenomena cause each other since CO2 was involved.

Just because 2 items have the same CAUSE does not mean one causes the other. You know that.

You repeatedly hammer people for making statements not supported by the science but you give this a pass.

I wasn't equating it to anything else (Willie Soon). I'm pointing out that the translation of scientific finding to public consumable fact is often incorrect. I chose to very recent examples in this thread.
Click to expand...
In response to Soon you said there were “peddlers of falsehoods on both sides of the issue” citing ocean acidification, hence why it seems you’re equating them.

Global warming and ocean acidification are both examples of environmental degradation resulting from CO2 emissions. They are closely related. Saying climate change causes ocean acidification is at worst a minor technical slip-up. I don’t hammer people for petty crap like that; heck, I wouldn’t even mention it. I hammer people for egregious errors.

This is getting old again so I’ll agree to disagree and let it go
volinbham said:
To explain my last post I'll try this tact.

The 97% consensus refers to the link between human actions adding CO2 to the climate and some degree of warming effect as a result.

As you move from that to the ramifications to nature, weather, etc you also move away from 97% consensus or "settled science".

For example - the article a few pages back "linking" extreme weather event frequency to climate change is NOT at the same level of consensus or settled science that the core relationship is. It is speculation based on some correlation findings.

Just as it is wrong to point to a record cold winter snow as DISPROVING the basic CO2 relationship to warming; it is wrong to treat all implications of climate change as having consensus or being settled science.

So that's why we end up with "denier" labels being applied to anyone who questions any of the wide ranging implications that are presented as being the direct result of climate change. Even respected scientists who dare question the whole set of dire predictions across the range of life are attacked and have their motives questioned.
Click to expand...
See post #4581 regarding the correct definition of denier.

The IPCC clearly states what we think we do and don’t know and with how much certainty. There is always more back-and-forth on the frontiers of science, but don’t get boggled down by the finer details. The big picture is there; it's been there for some time. Earth warms, ice melts, sea levels rise. The rest is gravy.
 
#4,613
#4,613
LouderVol said:
in the case of previous cap and trades there was an existing viable alternative. as much as i love sustainable energy it isn't there yet. And the tax just limits growth it won't necessarily cut back the actual emissions. corporations would just have to spend more money. while it is an incentive to stop it doesn't actually fix it. some corporations will be able to beat their chest and say I only spent $10 on the tax/trade while others are still at $1,000,000 plus range. you are just finding out who doesn't mind paying some amount of money to keep doing things the same way.

The fixes i am talking about are finding cleaner burning fuels, or other sources, sustainable or not, finding more efficient methods of making stuff(less energy intensive) better buildings, better infrastructure. (nuclear is one, and there is tidal, geo thermal etc-none exist at the level they need to right now) the actual usage of the energy is only the tail end of a problem that extends beyond GW and that is waste and inefficiency. heck i think they are even working on road material that collects energy from the cars driving.Piezoelectric Roads in Israel and California: Powering Up Cities as You Drive : The Environmental Blog
we, as society, need a violent push into the future. the stuff is out there, the technology and science is proven (case dependent of course) the change has to be a society level, people not driving 45 minutes to work so they can live in the burbs on 3/4 acre they never use beyond mowing in a 3000sqft house filled with crap they used once. more mass transit, and better stuff so we don't have to keep making the same crap and crap choices every few years.

i hadn't heard about china's cap and trade, i will believe the results when i see them. they are very much a country that says one thing but what they actually do is completely another or a way to b@st@rdize what they said. the cap and trade if it happens will be good for China not good for the world.
Click to expand...
Can you explain the bolded?

I agree with the needed fixes, but I don’t think we’ll get that violent push into the future without some monetary incentive i.e. carbon pricing
 
#4,615
#4,615
Sandvol said:
I'd never support any new taxes. Also, you need to convince all these other guys first. I'd like for Mueller and his group to take a look at fluorocarbons. Mueller seems to be an honest and genuine guy. What do you think of his views about your boy Mann?
Click to expand...
My boy? Don’t know, don’t really care.

So do you think ozone depletion was an environmental scare too? Acid rain? One of these days you’ll clarify you’re positions…

Anywho, I didn’t ask if you’d support new taxes, I just asked if you would take cap-and-trade seriously (as opposed to the nonsensical smearing in the past). What if Fred Singer backed cap-and-trade?
Sandvol said:
No, he seems like he is a genuine scientist. He is not an alarmist. He is not saying we have to panic or implement cap and trade. He is just saying there is a correlation with temperature rise and CO2 the past 200 years or so. And, he believes it appears to be caused by man. He is not making any claims to what this implies. That is all he is saying. He is not a supporter of IPCC or their models. He believes Mann and others of his ilk have discredited themselves.
Click to expand...
Source?

Richard Muller: I Was Wrong on Global Warming

Bill Clinton Praises His New Climate Change Hero
 
#4,616
#4,616
Are Siberia's mysterious craters caused by climate change? Scientists find four new enormous holes in northern Russia

  • Four new craters have been spotted by scientists in the Yamal peninsula, in Siberia
  • May be caused by gas from underground and fear craters becoming more common due to rising temperatures
  • Bright flash of light seen close to one crater which led to theories that buried gas pockets in the soil may be igniting
  • Another new crater has been found less than six miles from a major gas plant and experts have called for an urgent investigation into the phenomenon
Click to expand...
 
#4,618
#4,618
I'm becoming extremely tempted to go through and count out the number of "it's hot today" vs "it's cold today" posts in this thread. I'm guessing it is 95 % or more "it's cold today" silliness. I'll go ahead and count up the number of "but we're just giving it back!" posts too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,621
#4,621
#4,625
#4,625
First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet's energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at the Earth's surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.

They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top