Global warming discussion III

[aleCcowaN]

I'm "accusing" you of quoting from other posters .

Yet, what you're saying continue to be an off-topic. Your use of "cheap" in "cheap energy policies" suggests either "inexpensive", which sends it back to the economics forum or "worth of no respect", what is a matter for the ones dealing with politics.

Your antagonistic approach won't make it on topic here. If your intentions were to dialogue, you would be searching for those specific threads.

 

[CapelDodger]

My point is not what we should "let fossil fuels" alone. I believe we should transition away from them, for obvious reasons. My point is that what we do won't matter when it comes to climate change. Industrializing countries are going to continue to pursue cheap energy policies, as they have been since the early 2000's, and we've shown that we're more than happy to supply them the fossil fuels to do so, even when an "environmentally friendly" party is in power.

That's not an unreasonable position to take, in my opinion.

I would take issue with the idea that an environmentally friendly party (presumably the US Democrats) is "in power" just because it has a Democrat in the White House. Power in the US is famously divided between the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. Of those the Democrats have only one.

 

[macdoc]

Industrializing countries are going to continue to pursue cheap energy policies,

Your error is thinking fossil fuels are cheap ...they are not when all costs are considered.

Hell even the tea party joined with the greenies in Georgia to move solar forward,

Solar needs no subsidies...but then fossil subsidies are ludicrous and needs eliminating.

Fossil age is fading ( ask Australia about coal and China ).

Yes industrial nations will pursue cost effective sustainable energy solutions as Sweden has done so well yet remained top of heap in competitiveness.

Cost effective is carbon neutral - it will take a while

Catch up .....

http://breakingenergy.com/2014/07/3...mate-change-fossil-fuels-and-stranded-assets/
snip

According to a June report by the law firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, “…coal-based electricity generation in the United States has dipped from half to about only one-third since 2007, and profits from the nation’s coal-fired power plants selling electricity in the open market have plummeted from $20 billion in 2008 to $4 billion in 2011. Consequently, plans for more than 150 new coal-fired power plants have been canceled since the mid-2000s and many existing plants have closed… increased supplies of shale gas have made it increasingly difficult for coal mining companies to compete and even survive in the current energy market.”

 

[aleCcowaN]

What?



What is "taking post from others"? Are you accusing me of plagiarizing?

My point is not what we should "let fossil fuels" alone. I believe we should transition away from them, for obvious reasons. My point is that what we do won't matter when it comes to climate change. Industrializing countries are going to continue to pursue cheap energy policies, as they have been since the early 2000's, and we've shown that we're more than happy to supply them the fossil fuels to do so, even when an "environmentally friendly" party is in power.





If you want to become the thread police, start by brushing up on your English. There are many parts of your post where I have no idea what you're talking about.

I can't edit now my previous post, but "antagonistic" is not the right word. Maybe "reactive" fits better. I apologize for behaving antagonistically myself.

I'm not saying you're all over the place nor anything similar. What you're talking about is a worth subject for proper analysis, but you may understand this is not the default thread for anything containing "global warming" in it.

The point is where the watershed is located. Some developments like the Imhofe person stunt implies analysing denialist trickery, and we can't avoid posters to comment anything telling something is being done about global warming. But whether Imhofe is a good person or a sound thinker or holds the correct political notions is out of place here. The same is whether those intended actions are the best policy.

I suggest again searching here for "the economics of global warming". Our search tool allows you to look for global warming or climate change within the whole thread and in titles. It's not difficult to quickly get a dozen suitable threads for the topic you want to talk about.

 

[Fudbucker]

That's not an unreasonable position to take, in my opinion.

I would take issue with the idea that an environmentally friendly party (presumably the US Democrats) is "in power" just because it has a Democrat in the White House. Power in the US is famously divided between the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. Of those the Democrats have only one.

From 2008 to 2010, the Democrats controlled nearly everything. They were even close to having a filibuster proof Senate.

Of course the focus was on health care, but I don't remember any legislation being passed involving either the nascent fracking industry or our coal exports. In fact, while the Dems were in power (2008-2010), fracking continued it's meteoric rise, and we more than doubled our domestic oil production. A 100%+ increase in oil production while the Dems controlled Congress and the Presidency. And the GOP accuses Obama of being "too green"!

But I concede your point that the Democrats really only had control for two years, and the GOP fought Obama on everything. And during those two years, health reform dominated everything.

I just am cynical when it comes to either party's commitment to the environment. The Dems actually believe in environmentalism, but it's like the quote in the movie Wall Street:

"The main thing about money, Bud, is that it makes you do things you don't want to do."
And there's a lot of money when it comes to fossil fuels. Trillions are at stake.

Perhaps this kind of topic does deserve another thread. AleCcowan is probably right about that. The topic here seems to be to provide evidence for climate change and global warming. I can always resurrect the old thread in the politics section if I want to talk about it.

This will be my last post on anything to do with the politics or economics of combating climate change.

 

[Fudbucker]

I can't edit now my previous post, but "antagonistic" is not the right word. Maybe "reactive" fits better. I apologize for behaving antagonistically myself.

I'm not saying you're all over the place nor anything similar. What you're talking about is a worth subject for proper analysis, but you may understand this is not the default thread for anything containing "global warming" in it.

The point is where the watershed is located. Some developments like the Imhofe person stunt implies analysing denialist trickery, and we can't avoid posters to comment anything telling something is being done about global warming. But whether Imhofe is a good person or a sound thinker or holds the correct political notions is out of place here. The same is whether those intended actions are the best policy.

I suggest again searching here for "the economics of global warming". Our search tool allows you to look for global warming or climate change within the whole thread and in titles. It's not difficult to quickly get a dozen suitable threads for the topic you want to talk about.

We got off on the wrong foot.

You lumped me in with the warming deniers here, which really pissed me off. Climate change is THE issue we should be talking about. Last January was the second hottest January on record (globally). As a species we're committing slow suicide. I honestly think there's some horrible feedback loop out there (like sublimation of frozen methane) just waiting to be triggered by us. I also think we're too dumb, as a species, to stop it at this point.

So I apologize for my tone, and I shouldn't have made fun of your English. I can't speak another language to save my life. Friends?

 

[CapelDodger]

From 2008 to 2010, the Democrats controlled nearly everything. They were even close to having a filibuster proof Senate.

Nearly. Close, but no cigar.

These are peculiar times; obstructonism as a principle, rather than as a targeted policy, is not normal in US politics.

Of course the focus was on health care, but I don't remember any legislation being passed involving either the nascent fracking industry or our coal exports. In fact, while the Dems were in power (2008-2010), fracking continued it's meteoric rise, and we more than doubled our domestic oil production. A 100%+ increase in oil production while the Dems controlled Congress and the Presidency. And the GOP accuses Obama of being "too green"!

The War on Coal, the War on Oil, the War on Christmas - poke the parrot and hear it squawk.

There was no way to stop any of that. It could only be stopped by doing something, and the GOP have put a stop on anything being done. There have been executive orders to minor good effect, and EPA activities, but all-in-all you're in cowboy country. The political units that can actually get things done are the States and cities.

But I concede your point that the Democrats really only had control for two years, and the GOP fought Obama on everything. And during those two years, health reform dominated everything.

Getting that is almost miraculous in the circumstances.

The good thing is, of course, that not everything is about the US. And what's mostly about the US outside the US is the President. Outside the US we like him a lot.

I think Paris will reveal a lot about how well powerful politicians are taking on board the realisation that AGW is going to complicate their careers, not the next generation's. The future has arrived, and that uncertainty which was once a comfort is now a horrible threat.

 

[CapelDodger]

My position is that the AGW denial project has had no practical impact on the global response. From the establishment of a committee to produce a report - the first response to anything - in 1988 to Paris 2015 when something serious might start to be done is less than thirty years. That's a rapid response, given the inertia of political and diplomatic establishments.

The era of "more research is required" would have happened anyway, and naturally takes time. The silver lining is that more research has been financed and done, and the most awesome thing in our immediate universe - the ocean - is at last getting some of the attention it deserves.

This was never going to work out well; I was certain of that thirty years ago. The question has always been how bad it will get.

 

[Fudbucker]

Nearly. Close, but no cigar.

These are peculiar times; obstructonism as a principle, rather than as a targeted policy, is not normal in US politics.

The War on Coal, the War on Oil, the War on Christmas - poke the parrot and hear it squawk.

There was no way to stop any of that. It could only be stopped by doing something, and the GOP have put a stop on anything being done. There have been executive orders to minor good effect, and EPA activities, but all-in-all you're in cowboy country. The political units that can actually get things done are the States and cities.

Getting that is almost miraculous in the circumstances.

The good thing is, of course, that not everything is about the US. And what's mostly about the US outside the US is the President. Outside the US we like him a lot.

I think Paris will reveal a lot about how well powerful politicians are taking on board the realisation that AGW is going to complicate their careers, not the next generation's. The future has arrived, and that uncertainty which was once a comfort is now a horrible threat.

Yeah, I'm waiting to see how that will go. Who likes being a pessimist? It would be nice if we got some good news.

 

[Haig]

you have a very poor understanding.

That remains to be seen macdoc as we have just past the very weak maximum of Solar Cycle 24 and the coming Solar Cycle 25 will settle matters I'm sure (as I understand it)

Would you care to outline where the pause in the ocean heat has shown up???

So you imagine the Sun's heat has only been diverted to the world's oceans in the last 18 years to cause The Pause ? Didn't the Sun heat the world's oceans in the 20th century ?

You do understand that atmosphere is tiny portion of the energy balance??

You do understand our Sun was much more active in the 20th century ? And now, the Solar experts say, our variable star is heading into a much quieter phase.

"I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything quite like this," says Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.

-- snip--

"Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics, from the University of Reading, thinks there is a significant chance that the Sun could become increasingly quiet.

An analysis of ice-cores, which hold a long-term record of solar activity, suggests the decline in activity is the fastest that has been seen in 10,000 years .

"It's an unusually rapid decline," explains Prof Lockwood."

are these inconvenent facts undermining your poorly supported "understanding"

Are these above and below inconvenient facts undermining your poorly supported "understanding" macdoc ?

As the Sun becomes less active in the last two decades ALL the planets have been changing in the solar system. The Earth is changing too BUT thanks to our "heat sink" five oceans, including the Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, Pacific and Southern it's at a more gradual pace. This lag is ALL down to the fact that surface of the planet is approximately 71% water.

The science confirming this is HERE in the links of a previous post. Deal with it !

The Sun changes and the whole solar system changes too and YOU think Planet Earth is immune

BTW ...it's the 21st Century for a while now ....it's getting hotter, we're responsible ....the sun is going the other way. Occam's Razor rules.

Sure we are 15 years into the 21st Century .... it's NOT getting hotter Globally, we're in the Pause / Hiatus.

You think a "calculated" global temperature increase of Two Hundredths of a Degree with an error bar of One Tenth of a Degree is getting hotter ???? FFS get a grip! we're NOT responsible man ... the Sun is becoming less active, coronal holes are moving more to the lower latitudes directing their powerful Alfvén waves towards Earth as appears to have happened in Maunder Minimum / Little Ice Age times ... Occam's Razor rules does rule ! your weak argument has been shredded and will be snuffed out in Solar Cycle 25

New Insights On How Solar Minimums Affect Earth

"Usually, at solar minimum, the coronal holes are at the sun's poles," says Giuliana de Toma, a solar scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research whose research on this topic helped provide insight for this paper. "Therefore, Earth receives wind from only the edges of these holes and it's not very fast. But in 2007 and 2008, the coronal holes were not confined to the poles as normal."

Those coronal holes lingered at low-latitudes to the end of 2008. Consequently, the center of the holes stayed firmly pointed towards wind at Earth begin to slow down. And, of course, the geomagnetic effects and sightings of the aurora along with it.

Sun's Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century December 2013

The sun's current space-weather cycle is the most anemic in 100 years, scientists say.

Our star is now at "solar maximum," the peak phase of its 11-year activity cycle. But this solar max is weak, and the overall current cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, conjures up comparisons to the famously feeble Solar Cycle 14 in the early 1900s, researchers said.

"None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle. So we will learn something," Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University told reporters here today (Dec. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

There are more and more papers coming out in recent years showing the Sun's importance in climate change here is just one of the most recent ones ...

Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic First published online February 2015

Abstract Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes. However, the mechanisms for sun-climate links remain a topic of debate. Here we present a high-resolution summer sea-surface temperature (SST) record covering the past 9300 yr from a site located at the present-day boundary between polar and Atlantic surface-water masses. The record is age constrained via the identification of 15 independently dated tephra markers from terrestrial archives, circumventing marine reservoir age variability problems. Our results indicate a close link between solar activity and SSTs in the northern North Atlantic during the past 4000 yr; they suggest that the climate system in this area is more susceptible to the influence of solar variations during cool periods with less vigorous ocean circulation. Furthermore, the high-resolution SST record indicates that climate in the North Atlantic regions follows solar activity variations on multidecadal to centennial time scales.

 

[Haig]

My position is that the AGW denial project has had no practical impact on the global response. From the establishment of a committee to produce a report - the first response to anything - in 1988 to Paris 2015 when something serious might start to be done is less than thirty years. That's a rapid response, given the inertia of political and diplomatic establishments.

The response is showing

They used to be against us, but now Hollywood is on the side of the angels in mocking global warming

Cultural Tipping Point Reached – Hollywood has started mocking global warming

The science of climate has had intense scrutiny for the last ten years and more with the result that we now know why the planet warmed in the second half of the 20th century and why it is going to cool instead from here. Yet the meme of global warming continues, seemingly unstoppable and immune to facts.

Politically, global warming peaked out at COP 15 in Copenhagen in December 2009 when heads of state of countries accounting for the bulk of the world’s GDP were in attendance. They don’t bother to attend now – it is mainly time-servers who turn up. But global warming’s momentum is still resulting in destructive and pointless legislation and regulation in the English-speaking parts of the planet.

Climatic Jihad?

After years of claiming the science is settled and unprecedented man-made catastrophes are occurring right now, Climate Crisis, Inc. is increasingly desperate. Polls put climate change at the bottom of every list of public concerns. China and India refuse to cut energy production or emissions. Real-world weather and climate totally contradict their dire models and forecasts. Expensive, subsidized, environmentally harmful renewable energy makes little sense in world freshly awash in cheap, accessible oil, gas and coal.

Perhaps worse, Congress is in Republican control, and in 23 months the White House and Executive Branch could also shift dramatically away from the Freezing-Jobless-in-the-Dark Side of the Force.

telling comment ...

"Newsel February 28, 2015 at 11:15 am
Well said:

“And let honest science decide what our energy and economic futures will be.”

Unfortunately, probably not going to happen any time soon. To much money, pride, jobs, gravy train rides and entrenched positions involved. We will no doubt be seeing more of the witch hunting and a section of the scientific community that imputes that the increase is hidden in the deep ocean etc. etc.. On the plus side, if the observed data continues to contradict the warming models are forecasting, maybe laws such as the UK’s Climate Change Act will be repealed (hopefully before the UK is bankrupt), the UNFCCC torn up, the UN’s Green Fund defunded and the support infrastructure disbanded and the money saved better directed to assist those that need it. "

 

[Haig]

How our Variable Star affects our Planet and climate

New Sunspots, Sun Pole Flip Update | S0 News February 27, 2015

M7 Earthquake, Sun is Waking Up | S0 News February 28, 2015

 

[bit_pattern]

You do understand our Sun was much more active in the 20th century ? And now, the Solar experts say, our variable star is heading into a much quieter phase.

"I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything quite like this," says Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.

-- snip--

"Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics, from the University of Reading, thinks there is a significant chance that the Sun could become increasingly quiet.

An analysis of ice-cores, which hold a long-term record of solar activity, suggests the decline in activity is the fastest that has been seen in 10,000 years .

"It's an unusually rapid decline," explains Prof Lockwood."

I imagine with this much pent up anticipation the disappointment when the impending ice-age never actually eventuates must be on par with that felt by those apocalypse groups who confidently predict the end of the world by a certain date. I mean, it really is the same level of cray cray.

 

[bit_pattern]

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth... Anyone under the age of 30 has never lived through a colder than average month.

http://www.iflscience.com/environme...verage-temperatures-means-climate-has-changed

If you’re younger than 30, you’ve never experienced a month in which the average surface temperature of the Earth was below average.

Each month, the US National Climatic Data Center calculates Earth’s average surface temperature using temperature measurements that cover the Earth’s surface. Then, another average is calculated for each month of the year for the twentieth century, 1901-2000. For each month, this gives one number representative of the entire century. Subtract this overall 1900s monthly average – which for February is 53.9F (12.1C) – from each individual month’s temperature and you’ve got the anomaly: that is, the difference from the average.

The last month that was at or below that 1900s average was February 1985. Ronald Reagan had just started his second presidential term and Foreigner had the number one single with “I want to know what love is.”

 

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, I'm waiting to see how that will go. Who likes being a pessimist? It would be nice if we got some good news.

At my age all I ask is that it be interesting.

 

[CapelDodger]

Haig : you'd be hilarious if "Climatic Jihad" wasn't so offensive. As it is, you rank lower than dirt.

 

[Haig]

I imagine with this much pent up anticipation the disappointment when the impending ice-age never actually eventuates must be on par with that felt by those apocalypse groups who confidently predict the end of the world by a certain date. I mean, it really is the same level of cray cray.

Let me fix that for you

"I imagine with this much pent up anticipation the disappointment when the impending ice-age Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming never actually eventuates must be on par with that felt by those apocalypse groups who confidently predict the end of the world by a certain date. I mean, it really is the same level of cray cray"

It's ironic though that an Ice Age, even a Little Ice Age, is far harder to endure than CAGW can actually be.

Haig : you'd be hilarious if "Climatic Jihad" wasn't so offensive. As it is, you rank lower than dirt.

Let me fix that for you

CapelDodger : you'd be hilarious if "Climatic Jihad" "Denier" wasn't so offensive. As it is, you rank lower than dirt.

The thing is I'm just a messenger not a hypocrite doing the actual deed !


btw: anybody seen the movie ‘Kingsmen: The Secret Service’ … it’s a brilliant movie. Samuel L Jackson’s take on the global warming myth is superb!

Kingsman: The Secret Service | Official Trailer 2 [HD] | 20th Century FOX

 

[bit_pattern]

Fudbucker - Australia is feeling the ground shake as the sleeping dragon awakens

The downturn in the Australian coal industry has deepened, with three major mining companies warning on Friday that more jobs will be cut, mines will close and assets will be written down to a shadow of their former value.
Rio Tinto, Glencore and Brazilian miner Vale have all reiterated their pessimistic view of the coal sector's future, revealing major changes to their local operations.
Glencore has made the most aggressive move, announcing that it will cut its Australian coal output by 15 million tonnes in 2015, or more than 20 per cent when compared to 2014 volumes.
In a move that is likely to put more than 100 jobs on the line, Glencore said the cuts would "more closely align" its coal output with customer demand, and some expansion projects would be slowed.

(...)

Coal prices started falling rapidly in 2012 as demand from China started to ease to more moderate levels, leaving many coal miners stuck with expensive boomtime cost arrangements.
Mr Warren said the closures were "a sign that economic rationality is starting to bite home.".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/mini...-the-abyss-20150227-13qibm.html#ixzz3T5dnEOoI

 

[Warmer1]

How our Variable Star affects our Planet and climate

New Sunspots, Sun Pole Flip Update | S0 News February 27, 2015

M7 Earthquake, Sun is Waking Up | S0 News February 28, 2015

Here's a great video on a page from Haig's source "Suspicious Observers" nut job website explaining that the Earth's magnetic poles are about to reverse.

"(1:35) Now, are you ready for this? The big news today (October 15th) is about Earth's magnetic field…confirmation of the worst kind.
(1:42) First, the unstable magnetic field at Earth, right now, is precisely the fore-telling of full magnetic reversal.

http://www.suspicious0bserverscollective.org/

It amazes me how Haig cannot tell the difference between respected scientific institutions and internet kook sites.

If you need another laugh check out Haig's sources' core "scientific" team -Oh it's Ben Davidson, his wife and two dogs!!!

This is comedy folks! Pass the Koolaid.

 

[Warmer1]

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at Earth's surface

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

"Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. They measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth's surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America."

[snip]
"The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2."

.