Global warming discussion III

[a_unique_person]

Yes, and your point is ?

I have no idea what your point is. The earth has cold regions and hot regions as a result of several climate drivers.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yes, and your point is ?

Pretty sure you don't - otherwise you wouldn't be calling an apple "alarmist" because you have a "sceptical" orange on hand. They are two different things, you seem to think they're the same. My point is that you have a severe deficiency in understanding of the data being presented and lack the wherewithal for rational discourse.

 

[Haig]

I have no idea what your point is. The earth has cold regions and hot regions as a result of several climate drivers.

I don't have an idea what your point is ?

I was referring to this point

Don't you know the difference between an average temperature and temperature anomaly?

Yes, and your point is ?

These points are interesting ...

In the climate debate, hear both sides

Conclusion

The Met Office makes very large sums every year out of climate change. It is part of an international network of governmental and corporate interests that benefit greatly from giving a narrowly one-sided view of global warming science.

The wider range of scientific facts and results than that which Mr Varley chose to put forward surely demonstrates that – at the very least – there are two sides to the climate question. And it is equally surely the duty of the Met Office to take a neutral, fair and balanced scientific stance.

On the evidence here presented, Mr Varley has misled his readers by not presenting a balanced account of the state of global warming science. He is by no means unique. Profiteers of doom all over the world have taken advantage of the near-universal ignorance of science among politicians, press and public. That ignorance is costly, not only in treasure but also in lives. It is too often falsely claimed that climate change harms the poor. There has not been enough change to harm anyone, nor will there be. However, misguided policies to make the rich richer by addressing the non-problem that was global warming are already making the poor poorer still.

 

[Haig]

Pretty sure you don't - otherwise you wouldn't be calling an apple "alarmist" because you have a "sceptical" orange on hand. They are two different things, you seem to think they're the same.

No I don't.

My point is that you have a severe deficiency in understanding of the data being presented and lack the wherewithal for rational discourse.

You can't see or don't want to see the larger picture but it will become inescapable to even you soon. Just pointing to counter arguments is a valid response imo

 

[bit_pattern]

No I don't.

Then why do you think that posting an image of the average temperature map for 15 years somehow rebuts a map showing a 65 year temperature anomaly?

You can't see or don't want to see the larger picture but it will become inescapable to even you soon. Just pointing to counter arguments is a valid response imo

A 15 years average supposedly rebutting a 65 year anomaly is not "the larger picture" and nor is it a "counter argument". You are a very confused individual, which probably goes a long way to explaining why you believe the whackadoodle stuff you do.

 

[Haig]

Then why do you think that posting an image of the average temperature map for 15 years somehow rebuts a map showing a 65 year temperature anomaly?

This shows the present ...

The other shows the past.

It's a question of balance

A 15 years average supposedly rebutting a 65 year anomaly is not "the larger picture" and nor is it a "counter argument". You are a very confused individual, which probably goes a long way to explaining why you believe the whackadoodle stuff you do.

That's correct The 65 year anomaly is not "the larger picture" I won't embarrass you by spelling it out any further.

For your information I don't "believe" in the way that you suggest. I follow the empirical facts and the skeptics have it sussed very well imo

 

[Trakar]

This shows the present ...

only if you are looking poorly constructed graphing misrepresenting an incomplete and heavily distorted dataset.

try something using much more complete datasets and more accurately presented in a statistically proper manner:

Or in the context of climate relevant time periods:

The other shows the past.

It's a question of balance

denial of reality is not "balanced."

That's correct The 65 year anomaly is not "the larger picture" I won't embarrass you by spelling it out any further.

For your information I don't "believe" in the way that you suggest. I follow the empirical facts and the skeptics have it sussed very well imo

The mainstream climate science community is the only truly skeptical body involved in this discussion.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/

 

[Fudbucker]

Terrifying article of the effects of warming, degree by degree:

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm

Is that accurate? It reads like a horror story, one which will occur during my lifetime (although near the end of it).

 

[Trakar]

Terrifying article of the effects of warming, degree by degree:

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm

Is that accurate? It reads like a horror story, one which will occur during my lifetime (although near the end of it).

Here's an apt companion piece to that one:

"The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit"

And a video for the visually inclined - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=529Og_YR0IU#t=29

 

[macdoc]

I'd say it's not far off tho the ice loss number is lower than reality....mass loss is 400 cu km annually and climbing.
He dropped a decimal or two on that.

He does not cover off the extra water vapour in the atmosphere either which will have some very odd affects not entirely understood.
We are getting more intense rain and snow events even tho we are not getting MORE such events.

Getting a month of rain in two days overwhelms water control systems - we have two such events in Ontario last year costing millions of dollars in damage......just over abundant Tstorms - no cyclone or any such.

Bombay got hit with such a storm in 2005 - where just under a meter of rain fell in 24 hours....and again....not a cyclonic storm.
It broke the records byt 250% for a 24 hour period.

Urban systems just cannot cope.

Brisbane in Australia got hammered by rain that normally is much further north around Cairns.
Cairns has the urban system to deal with monsoon rains.....Brisbane ...1600 km further toward the pole does not.

Already the US Navy is incurring 10s of millions in costs as their infrastructure is slowly inundated with rising sea levels.....FLorida in particular and Miami will really get hit ...much sooner than people think.
Combination of thermal expansion and glacial contributions...fortunately the atmosphere is picking up some of that and amazingly - two years there was so much monsoon rain picked up by the aquifers it showed up in the sea level record.

Too bad the conditions are not there in the S West US to recharge the Ogalala aquifer which going out of business.

Combination of drought and drained aquifer.......the future has arrived already for some places.

 

[Trakar]

I'd say it's not far off tho the ice loss number is lower than reality....mass loss is 400 cu km annually and climbing.
He dropped a decimal or two on that...

I think the mistake he is making, is that he is comparing what equivalent prehistoric (slow/complete) climate equilibrium states look like to what the next several generations of humanity will witness as pace of warming continues to accelerate faster than planetary climate can adjust. As to what we can say about weather and climate much beyond the next century or several,...we are entering unprecedented times in the history of the planet's biosphere,..welcome to the anthropocene.

 

[The Atheist]

Here's an apt companion piece to that one:

"The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit"

I actually came in to post that, so you beat me to it. I thought it was a very good precis of where we stand.

The way I see it, there is an inevitable tipping point - a place in the future at where the damage to the climate is irreversible and catastrophic.

Given that we have made less than no progress by now, I believe we are inexorably headed to that point.

 

[macdoc]

I think you are incorrect on "no progress".
You may be correct on "heading there".

Emissions are dropping in some regions and overall last year finally flat lined instead of the rate of emissions increasing.

China is on a crash course to get dirty coal out of play with peak coal for them as soon as 2016.

US emissions are way down. Euro of course continues to progress as do many states and provinces in North America.
Too little too late ?? maybe.

 

[The Atheist]

I think you are incorrect on "no progress".
You may be correct on "heading there".

Emissions are dropping in some regions and overall last year finally flat lined instead of the rate of emissions increasing.

I'd need to see the breakdown of numbers, because I would expect that given the huge drop in growth in China. You can see how much less coal they've imported by looking at the Aussie economy right now.

China is on a crash course to get dirty coal out of play with peak coal for them as soon as 2016.

US emissions are way down. Euro of course continues to progress as do many states and provinces in North America.
Too little too late ?? maybe.

Almost certainly off-set by growth in developing economies.

I could be wrong, but the positive signs at the moment are merely a glitch caused by economic reasons. While China is moving away from coal, that drop gets replaced by the burgeoning middle class taking air trips and buying cars.

 

[Trakar]

I actually came in to post that, so you beat me to it. I thought it was a very good precis of where we stand.

The way I see it, there is an inevitable tipping point - a place in the future at where the damage to the climate is irreversible and catastrophic.

Given that we have made less than no progress by now, I believe we are inexorably headed to that point.

Right or wrong, many who understand what is happening, are making selfish decisions, losing faith in the public good will and "common sense."

 

[Trakar]

I think you are incorrect on "no progress".
You may be correct on "heading there".

Emissions are dropping in some regions and overall last year finally flat lined instead of the rate of emissions increasing.

China is on a crash course to get dirty coal out of play with peak coal for them as soon as 2016.

US emissions are way down. Euro of course continues to progress as do many states and provinces in North America.
Too little too late ?? maybe.

"The World Could Get Rid of Fossil Fuel Electricity in Just 25 Years with Nuclear Power" - I'm not saying that solar wind, geo, hydro, etc., aren't needed or worth investing in. I am saying that clean, modern, well regulated, advanced design, nuclear power can help us achieve carbon neutrality much more quickly than non-nuclear only policies.

Anyone watched this TED talk?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrYNGs9oRM

Addendum: "From the experts: Psychology of denial"

 

[bit_pattern]

I'd need to see the breakdown of numbers, because I would expect that given the huge drop in growth in China.

Not what you asked for but worth sharing nonetheless

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-by-the-uk-over-the-same-period-10255957.html

China has dramatically cut its carbon dioxide emissions since the beginning of the year, with its reduction equalling the UK’s total emissions for the same period.

The huge decline in China’s emissions can be attributed to the country’s falling coal consumption, which decreased last year for the first time this century.

Greenpeace/Energydesk China analysis found China’s coal use dropped by 8 per cent and its CO2 emissions dipped by 5 per cent in the first four months of the year, compared to the same period in 2014, and the decline is accelerating.

As part of a reform of the sector, China has ordered more than 1,000 coal mines to close and coal output is down 7.4 per cent year on year.

I would say that while the slowdown in growth probably is a factor, it doesn't detract form the fact that China is launching a large scale and purposeful strategy to dramatically reduce emissions.

The plan to peak coal consumption was in place well before the current slowdown began. And since then they have also announced 1000 GW of new renewable capacity and another 250 GW of nuclear over the next 15 years as part of their bilateral agreement with the US.

 

[macdoc]

I am saying that clean, modern, well regulated, advanced design, nuclear power can help us achieve carbon neutrality much more quickly than non-nuclear only policies.

100% BUT - the economics and time lags remain problematic ...China has some 26 reactors in various stages but it's a decade to build each.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't have an idea what your point is ?

I was referring to this point




These points are interesting ...

In the climate debate, hear both sides

Conclusion

The Met Office makes very large sums every year out of climate change.

What profit did the Met Office make last year? What dividend did it pay? What bonuses did it pay? Where is the profit and loss statement? What taxes did it pay on profits?

 

[Trakar]

100% BUT - the economics and time lags remain problematic ...China has some 26 reactors in various stages but it's a decade to build each.

Unfortunately, the issues go much further than this. Many of the issues with nuclear power stem from trying to run such systems as private commercial businesses, instead off running them as a public utility.