Global warming discussion IV

[lomiller]

I mean an actual theory that passes scientific scrutiny meaning something that can be tested.

That’s downright silly. It’s comparable to a creationist arguing that the only way to confirm evolution is to predict how a species will evolve over the next ten million years. How that species evolves is dependent on the evolutionary pressures it faces and the mutations that occur along the way. Even if you waited the 10 million years it’s not reasonable to predict these things. Explanatory power, lines of evidence are what it’s about not necessarily prediction. Of course what the creationist (or climate denier) is really saying is that “not in 10 million years will they accept what the science says”.

There are many testable predications arising from radiative emission theory and these can be and have been tested and confirmed. If you had bothered to read the thread or the scientific literature you would know this.

BTW global warming technically isn’t a theory at all, it’s a prediction arising from a number of well established theories (conservation of energy, blackbody radiation, quantum absorption and emission of photons, etc) and the observed absorption /emission properties of CO2.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Eschenbach argues from ignorance, incredibility and zero expertise

That's not true Belz

Repeating Heartland Institute lies is certainly not truth, Haig.
The first 12 ignorant and/or lying citations by Haig.
2 September 2015 Haig: Abdussamatov lied bout the Sun causing global warming in his 2009 paper.

At last, Haig, a WUWT blog entry that is not obviously lying - just abysmally ignorant about planetary and climate science!.Traveling Through Other Dimensions.
His objection to the Global Mean Annual near-surface Temperature (GMAT) of a planetary body being modeled by a function of 6 variables is "I find the idea that the climate is that simple to be laughable." because he ignorantly thinks this is a changing temperature about climate! He makes up a "counter" example of a measure of a meandering river that changes.
There is "When I see a model parameter like 0.000183, as occurs in Equation 10a, it rings alarm bells".
Eschenbach cannot tell the difference between constants and variables ! He quotes equation 4a that has 3 planetary constants (albedo, the ground heat storage coefficient, the longwave emissivity) and claims they are variables. He even quotes the caption stating that these constants were estimated from NASA measurements.
That is enough to establish that this is just a climate change denier going on about things he does not understand.

3 September 2015 Haig: Eschenbach argues from ignorance, incredibility and zero expertise.
Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach

Credentials
• California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974).
• B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. (1975).

Source: [1]

Background
Willis Eschenbach has worked as a Construction Manager at Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji Sport Fishing guide in Alaska and more recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil.

So what we have is a massaging, psychologist who recently worked for an oil company.


Then there is the politics of politicians, Haig, meeting in political meetings!

While you are persisting in not understand how repeatedly posting irrelevant images makes you look in denial of climate science.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm not going to bother reading all the posts in this thread but I just want one question answered.

If we value science, why can't the posters communicate a valid theory with respect to global warming.

Oh, please... You're not even trying anymore.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

There are trillions to be made moving to carbon free energy?

Really well this sounds really interesting!

Can I ask you something, they why did google abandon their group focusing on alternative energy sources?
http://nlpc.org/stories/2014/11/26/...ude-renewables-cant-save-world-global-warming

Why have they said that going to carbon free world is not possible at the present time?

Why aren't companies lining up to provide this carbon free world? Probably because you are lying and going to carbon free energy will cost us trillions!

 

[Reality Check]

There are trillions to be made moving to carbon free energy?

No, Elf Grinder 3000 - there are trillions be saved by moving to a low-carbon energy mix: Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars - 2 trillion just by the transition, trillions more to be saved by the reduction of global warming that a low-carbon energy mix would cause.

Let us ignore the ranting from a political web site and look at the real world, Elf Grinder 3000.
In 2007: Google’s Goal: Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal. This was with the speculation that renewable energy alone would prevent disastrous global warming.
In 2014: Google Engineers Explain Why They Stopped R&D in Renewable Energy

Then, in 2011, Google stopped its R&D efforts prematurely. It appeared the company was more bullish on the deployment of renewables, not on spending lots of money on R&D. In the years since, Google has invested more than $1 billion directly in solar and wind projects.

"You’d think the thrill might wear off this whole renewable energy investing thing after a while. Nope -- we’re still as into it as ever," rejoiced the company in a blog post last fall.

The R&D in making renewable energy cheaper than coal stopped in 2011 because they realized that this alone would not stop global warming to a dangerous level.

So as the Citi bank analysis shows, Elf Grinder 3000: It is a lie to state without evidence that switching to a low carbon energy economy will not save trillions of dollars!

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

No, Elf Grinder 3000 - there are trillions be saved by moving to a low-carbon energy mix: Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars - 2 trillion just by the transition, trillions more to be saved by the reduction of global warming that a low-carbon energy mix would cause.

Let us ignore the ranting from a political web site and look at the real world, Elf Grinder 3000.
In 2007: Google’s Goal: Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal. This was with the speculation that renewable energy alone would prevent disastrous global warming.
In 2014: Google Engineers Explain Why They Stopped R&D in Renewable Energy

The R&D in making renewable energy cheaper than coal stopped in 2011 because they realized that this alone would not stop global warming to a dangerous level.

So as the Citi bank analysis shows, Elf Grinder 3000: It is a lie to state without evidence that switching to a low carbon energy economy will not save trillions of dollars!

Um lets have a reality check here. If you "save" a trillion and spend 20 trillion you haven't saved any money basic math fail.

Again I feel like what we have here is quakery masked in psuedoscience masking politics.

You don't have an economically viable plan Google doesn't think its economically viable

The fact that you won't admit this tells me you are nothing more than a charlatan. But thanks for the graph on CO2 concentration vs. temperature!

 

[uke2se]

Um lets have a reality check here. If you "save" a trillion and spend 20 trillion you haven't saved any money basic math fail.

Again I feel like what we have here is quakery masked in psuedoscience masking politics.

You don't have an economically viable plan Google doesn't think its economically viable

The fact that you won't admit this tells me you are nothing more than a charlatan. But thanks for the graph on CO2 concentration vs. temperature!

Could we all please just ignore this one and focus on the science?

 

[Reality Check]

Um lets have a reality check here.

The reality check, Elf Grinder 3000, is you have made up a fairy story of spending 20 trillion and ignored the Citi report.
Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
The investment cost of business as usual is $192 trillion
The investment cost of transitioning to a low-carbon energy mix is $190.2 trillion. That is a saving of almost 2 trillion dollars !
The climate costs are 30 to 50 trillion dollars for moderate to high temperature increases:

What about those avoided climate costs? As shown in the bottom left corner of the above figure, the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion. Even moderate (2.5°C) warming could cost $30 trillion less than a business-as-usual high global warming scenario.

Your insults are wrong, Elf Grinder 3000:
I am not a liar - the report exists and says we can save 2 trillion dollars !
I am not a charlatan - Google still invest in renewable energy - they just do not do R&D in renewable energy anymore: Google Engineers Explain Why They Stopped R&D in Renewable Energy.

Nothing that you have cited is Google stating that "it" (transitioning to a low-carbon energy mix) is not economically viable, Elf Grinder 3000, so that sounds like another fairy story.

I did not give you a graph on CO2 concentration vs. temperature.

 

[CapelDodger]

Dramatic increase in concurrent droughts, heat waves
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150901100551.htm

Droughts and heat waves are happening simultaneously with much greater frequency than in the past, according to research by climate experts at the University of California, Irvine. Their findings appear today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A team from UCI's Center for Hydrometeorology & Remote Sensing examined data gathered from ground sensors and gauges during a 50-year period beginning in 1960. Applying a statistical analysis to the half-century data set, the researchers observed a significant increase in concurrent droughts and heat waves.

However,

UCI graduate student and lead author Omid Mazdiyasni and AghaKouchak explain in the paper that while commonly used analysis methods do not show any trend in concurrent droughts and heat waves, a unique statistical approach called the Cramer-von Mises test reveals a statistically significant change in the simultaneous occurrence of these climate extremes.

so it's far from convincing (and practically writes its own headline for WUWT). Can anyone enlighten me on the Cramer von Mises test and whether it's appropriate in this case?

 

[Trakar]

Isn't the warming concentrated at the poles? So that a one degree warming, while applying to the Earth on average, might actually be four degrees of warming in the N. And S. poles?

Actually the poles have risen ~4^oC in the last two decades, they are on pace to rise ~15^oC by 2100 and that is just the beginning.

averages at the equator will be around 2-4^oC, throughout most of the US we're looking at an average of around 6-8^oC, with a global average of between 4-6^oC (under the current trends). It is important to remember that there is no magic brake which stops things at 2100, these temps will continue to rise until equilibrium is reached and that isn't anywhere in sight at the current time.

 

[Haig]

Repeating Heartland Institute lies is certainly not truth, Haig.

..... snip RC rant ....

While you are persisting in not understand how repeatedly posting irrelevant images makes you look in denial of climate science.

RC while you are persisting in not understand how repeatedly posting irrelevant rants makes you look in denial of climate science !



The Pause lengthens yet again

The Pause – politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the “official” scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism – is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.

The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. If the Pause lengthens just a little more, the rate of warming in the quarter-century since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 will fall below 1 C°/century equivalent.

Climate change is nothing new, deal with it!

 

[Haig]

And that's not all ...

The Pause is driving down the long-term warming trend

A point worth making to those who continue to deny that there has been a Pause or that the discrepancy between prediction and reality continues to widen with each passing year is that all of the graphs in this posting, except the first, are IPCC graphs. If even the IPCC is now admitting that the models had exaggerated, it is time for the climate Communists to adjust the Party Line to bring it closer to the real world.

 

[Belz...]

Wait a second. Is it cooling, or warming but not because of us? Not not changing at all? You guys should get your story straight.

 

[Haig]

Wait a second. Is it cooling, or warming but not because of us? Not not changing at all? You guys should get your story straight.

Nooooo Belz, it's YOU guys that need to get your story straight ...

If the climate system warms, it’s climate change! If the climate system cools, it’s climate change! Win win scenario!

New studies promote Arctic cooling fears


Hilarious

 

[Belz...]

Nooooo Belz, it's YOU guys that need to get your story straight ...

If the climate system warms, it’s climate change! If the climate system cools, it’s climate change! Win win scenario!

It only seems that way because you have not the slightest idea of what climate change is, how it works, or what it entails. You have this comical fantasy of the world spontaneously igniting all at once, like some silly 50s sci-fi flick. You refuse to understand, even after many people have tried to educate you on this topic, that the effects are measurable but complex, and that the effects will be different depending on where you are, in addition to a host of other important points. It's just like anti-science folk to think that something they know nothing about is really so simple that they can feel their way through it.

Hilarious

Once more you need to stop flaunting your ignorance as some sort of honour badge.

 

[Haig]

It only seems that way because you have not the slightest idea of what climate change is, how it works, or what it entails. You have this comical fantasy of the world spontaneously igniting all at once, like some silly 50s sci-fi flick. You refuse to understand, even after many people have tried to educate you on this topic, that the effects are measurable but complex, and that the effects will be different depending on where you are, in addition to a host of other important points. It's just like anti-science folk to think that something they know nothing about is really so simple that they can feel their way through it.

Quite a rant Belz and total rubbish !

I've been looking, for a number of years now, at the science of Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory and it seems he is the one being proved right.

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE pdf

Climate change is a natural cycle and it's becoming obvious with each passing year.

Once more you need to stop flaunting your ignorance as some sort of honour badge.

You need to open your eyes to the science of others and stop spouting ad homs ...

Studies Show Weakening Sun, Possible New Ice Age pdf

 

[Belz...]

Quite a rant Belz and total rubbish !

Deny it all you want. Everybody can see that it's true.

Climate change is a natural cycle and it's becoming obvious with each passing year.

Obvious to people who are ignorant of the data, yes.

You need to open your eyes to the science of others and stop spouting ad homs ...

That's rich. You ignore 97% and choose to believe the 3, and you think I'm ignoring the science?

 

[Haig]

Deny it all you want. Everybody can see that it's true.

Really? You said of me "You have this comical fantasy of the world spontaneously igniting all at once, like some silly 50s sci-fi flick."

I've just shown that point, you tried to make, was rubbish, same with the rest

Obvious to people who are ignorant of the data, yes.

You think Habibullo Abdussamatov is ignorant of the data ?

That's rich. You ignore 97% and choose to believe the 3, and you think I'm ignoring the science?

Science isn't about consensus and of course you know the 97% was a lie

 

[Belz...]

Really? You said of me "You have this comical fantasy of the world spontaneously igniting all at once, like some silly 50s sci-fi flick."

It's hyperbole. Look it up. The point is that you think that any amount of cooling, anywhere, for any reason, means that global warming isn't happening. That betrays such a fundamental ignorance of the science involved that one can only conclude that it's deliberate.

You think Habibullo Abdussamatov is ignorant of the data ?

No. You. Please do keep up.

Science isn't about consensus and of course you know the 97% was a lie

Why don't you cite the onion while you're at it?

 

[Haig]

It's hyperbole. Look it up. The point is that you think that any amount of cooling, anywhere, for any reason, means that global warming isn't happening. That betrays such a fundamental ignorance of the science involved that one can only conclude that it's deliberate.

No. You. Please do keep up.

Why don't you cite the onion while you're at it?

You're dithering Belz

Give a considered view on this Studies Show Weakening Sun, Possible New Ice Age pdf

If you can